Compiled Hardest LR Questions Forum

[kilgoretrout103]

Taxes? I don't remember that.

[DearCan]

Taxes? I don't remember that.

Me neither.

[jfb]

I would love it if someone could explain the car theft question. As Attorney said, the fact that it was presented as if we were supposed to resolve a paradox, when there was none, was insanely frustrating. I remember 4 of the five choices and have been running them through my head - still don't know.

[kkklick]

I would love it if someone could explain the car theft question. As Attorney said, the fact that it was presented as if we were supposed to resolve a paradox, when there was none, was insanely frustrating. I remember 4 of the five choices and have been running them through my head - still don't know.

...There was a paradox

[alphagamma]

I would love it if someone could explain the car theft question. As Attorney said, the fact that it was presented as if we were supposed to resolve a paradox, when there was none, was insanely frustrating. I remember 4 of the five choices and have been running them through my head - still don't know.

...There was a paradox

+1

It was just a stupid one. And the answer was stupid, too. (Unless I got it wrong--then I don't know.)

[DearCan]

I would love it if someone could explain the car theft question. As Attorney said, the fact that it was presented as if we were supposed to resolve a paradox, when there was none, was insanely frustrating. I remember 4 of the five choices and have been running them through my head - still don't know.

...There was a paradox

+1

It was just a stupid one. And the answer was stupid, too. (Unless I got it wrong--then I don't know.)

I thought the answer made perfect sense. It seems people were misreading the correct AC.

[kkklick]

I would love it if someone could explain the car theft question. As Attorney said, the fact that it was presented as if we were supposed to resolve a paradox, when there was none, was insanely frustrating. I remember 4 of the five choices and have been running them through my head - still don't know.

...There was a paradox

+1

It was just a stupid one. And the answer was stupid, too. (Unless I got it wrong--then I don't know.)

yea, like you wouldn't expect that paradox the way the 2 things were connected

[jr1886]

What was the taxes question about? was it a flaw question?

[cowgirl_bebop]

What was the taxes question about? was it a flaw question?

About lowering corporate taxes

[kilgoretrout103]

Oh yeah. It had to do with a claim a politician made about people supporting his bill. Now I remember.

[DearCan]

What was the taxes question about? was it a flaw question?

About lowering corporate taxes

Oh, that one wasn't bad.

[Attorney]

...There was a paradox

There was absolutely no paradox to explain in the first place, but I believe there was a correct answer that helped explain the totally logical without further explanation and non-paradoxical facts better than the others after discussing this question at length following the test in an effort to deliberately violate the rules I previously agreed to.


But only because rules like that are banal and impossible to adhere to. I feel like LSAC makes them to encourage future lawyers to bend or ignore rules.

[J. Galt]

What was the taxes question about? was it a flaw question?

About lowering corporate taxes

Oh, that one wasn't bad.

I remember that it existed, but I couldn't tell you anything else about it. I had a practice question on the same topic that I remember...

[DearCan]

...There was a paradox

There was absolutely no paradox to explain in the first place, but I believe there was a correct answer that helped explain the totally logical without further explanation and non-paradoxical facts better than the others after discussing this question at length following the test in an effort to deliberately violate the rules I previously agreed to.


But only because rules like that are banal and impossible to adhere to. I feel like LSAC makes them to encourage future lawyers to bend or ignore rules.

Are we talking about car thieves? If so, there was definitely a paradox in the stimulus.

[kkklick]

...There was a paradox

There was absolutely no paradox to explain in the first place, but I believe there was a correct answer that helped explain the totally logical without further explanation and non-paradoxical facts better than the others after discussing this question at length following the test in an effort to deliberately violate the rules I previously agreed to.


But only because rules like that are banal and impossible to adhere to. I feel like LSAC makes them to encourage future lawyers to bend or ignore rules.

'You may be right, but I remember missing the paradox twice, before reading it the 3rd time and seeing it. Even so there wasnt an answer choice that was a perfect fit by any means. I think when we see the disclosure all these questions will be answered.

[Attorney]

Are we talking about car thieves? If so, there was definitely a paradox in the stimulus.

That's the one. One fact followed the other as perfectly as any logical person would expect... [edited to stay on safe side].

[DearCan]

...There was a paradox

There was absolutely no paradox to explain in the first place, but I believe there was a correct answer that helped explain the totally logical without further explanation and non-paradoxical facts better than the others after discussing this question at length following the test in an effort to deliberately violate the rules I previously agreed to.


But only because rules like that are banal and impossible to adhere to. I feel like LSAC makes them to encourage future lawyers to bend or ignore rules.

'You may be right, but I remember missing the paradox twice, before reading it the 3rd time and seeing it. Even so there wasnt an answer choice that was a perfect fit by any means. I think when we see the disclosure all these questions will be answered.

I don't understand what you guys are saying. I thought the paradox in the question was very straightforward, and while the AC was tricky, it definitely explained the paradox.

[DearCan]

Are we talking about car thieves? If so, there was definitely a paradox in the stimulus.

That's the one. One fact followed the other as perfectly as any logical person would expect... [edited to stay on safe side].

No, there was a very obvious paradox.

[Attorney]

No, there was a very obvious paradox.

Nope. In as general terms as possible, the question asked to explain the paradox between experiencing fewer bee stings while observing fewer bees flying around.

[jr1886]

What was the taxes question about? was it a flaw question?

About lowering corporate taxes

While reading the stimulus, I realize that was John Boehner(R-Ohio) speaking so I immediately know the argument was flawed. Then, I reasoned that Mr. Boehner would think that most Americans want corporate taxes lowered because they say the want lower taxes. Thus, i was able to see the flaw and pick the correct answer lol

[lucaspenick.com]

I didn't take this exam, so I suppose I couldn't be banned for discussing it.

There's never a paradox in the stimulus for this kind of question, only an apparent paradox. This has always bothered me: "Apparent paradox" means someone might see it as a paradox, but that it isn't actually a paradox. If it were in fact a paradox, no other fact could help explain why it in fact isn't a paradox.

This is why some people see a paradox and some do not. Those who don't are correct, but might have a more difficult time finding the right answer.

Amusing the little explanatory dances LSAC choreographs.

[Rudy]

Anyone else have trouble with networks vs. Broadcast? I think I got it but it was pretty weak.

[b4uu4b]

No, there was a very obvious paradox.

Nope. In as general terms as possible, the question asked to explain the paradox between experiencing fewer bee stings while observing fewer bees flying around.

fewer bee stings? you mean more bee stings

[DearCan]

No, there was a very obvious paradox.

Nope. In as general terms as possible, the question asked to explain the paradox between experiencing fewer bee stings while observing fewer bees flying around.

You misread the stimulus. Fewer bees around, but MORE bee stings.

[Rudy]

No, there was a very obvious paradox.

Nope. In as general terms as possible, the question asked to explain the paradox between experiencing fewer bee stings while observing fewer bees flying around.

No- it was experiencing MORE bee stings while seeing more bees around. I'm betting you meant the analogy to go the other way, but that's where the "apparent paradox" came from. The question was very obvious, especially if done via POE.