[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Date Index] [Thread Index] [Author Index]
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page

The LSAT & the CEDA-L

***WARNING*** Several pieces of profanity appear in this message.  Those of
you who are sensitive to profanity or can't identify humor without those
stupid fucking  smiling faces are advised to read no further.  :)

Directions:  Pick the best answer.  If all the answers suck, try to read our
minds and guess which one we thought was the best answer.  When you finish
this section, do NOT, by any means, move on to a different section.
Continue to kick this topic around like a dead horse for weeks on end.
Violators will be cross posted.  

Section 1:  Analytical Reasoning
--------------------------------

7 Judges, Lechtreck, Korcok, Bryant, Mahoney, West, Snider and Hoe are
scheduled to judge 2 elimination rounds, with 4 teams numbered 1-4
respectively.  The judging is assigned in a manner consistent with the
following conditions:

        If Korcok is assigned to a panel, then Bryant must be assigned to a
        different building lest they squabble so loudly that no one can hear 
        the debate.

        Hoe can not be assigned to a panel, because he is in the bar with the
        eliminated teams having a group hug and nuturing the marginalized 
        members of the community.

        All judging assignments are made according to vaguely defined rules of
        MPJ/ABCX/Pick-at-least-500.  Good luck diagraming this, chump.

Question 1:  Assume that all the teams at the tournament have unanimously
chosen (amazing what a little MPJ will do...) to marginalize Mahoney.  In
order to secure complete panels, the tab has pressed Lemoine into service.
Which of the following would be the best choice of panels:

A) Lechtreck, Korcok, West  -  Snider, Bryant, Lemoine
B) Lechtreck, Korcok, West  -  Snider, Bryant, a random-number generator
C) Lechtreck, Korcok, West  -  Snider, Bryant, the magic Eight-Ball
D) Lechtreck, Korcok, West  -  Snider, Bryant, the banjo guy from Deliverance
E) Lechtreck, Korcok, West  -  Snider, Bryant, a janitor with a coin

Question 2:  Assume that Lechtreck and West cannot be put on the same panel
as Mahoney, because of his tendency to use copies of the coaches poll to
tell them how to vote.  An acceptable panel would be:

A) Lechtreck, Korcok, West
B) Bryant, Korcok, Jimmy Carter
C) Snider, West, Hoe (He agreed to do it if it was held in the bar.)
D) Mahoney, Mahoney, Mahoney
E) Klemz, Rogers, Anonymous Backchanneler (Let the small schools do some
   marginalizing for a change.)    

Question 3:  The evil tab room has decided to screw everyone.  Which panel
is the most schitzophrenic, and hence impossible to debate for.

A)  Korcok, Byrant, Don King
B)  Hoe, Leo Busgalia, Rodney King
C)  Lemoine, Lemoine, Lemoine (He's so random, you're sure to get a 2-1.)
D)  West, Snider, Biza (Knocked out in double octs by UMKC's freshpeople)
E)  Krug, Mahoney, Our Cat Ted

Note:  We tried to give Tuna as many rounds off as possible, as we recall,
he likes that.

Section 2:  Logical Reasoning
-----------------------------

Question 1:

All fish live in water. 
All mackrel are fish.
Therefore, if I buy kippers on Tuesday, it will not rain.

Which of the following, if true, would most seriously undermine this conclusion?

A)  Kippers are on discount at Alfonzo's deli down the street.
B)  All participants MUST complete a writing sample even if they've previously 
    taken the LSAT.
C)  If she weighs the same as a duck, she's made of wood, and therefore is a
    witch.
D)  Mackrels are packaged with 55% less salt than 10 years ago.
E)  The water here is heavily polluted.

Question 2:  The sketchy-at-best reasoning in the above passage, most
closely resembles which of the following:

A) "It might also depend (depending on the arguments) on whether the two
   conditional CPs compete with each other."

B) "DC is being reorganized into a more logical and eventually virtual 
   space -- a complex of buildings and rooms in cyberspace which you 
   can wander through."

C)  "Bongo.  Only those teams "important" enough to have their considerations
    met are benefited by MPJ.  The other "unimportant" teams get "hosed," as
    always."

D)  "Read everything ever written by or about Michel Foucault.  Then 
    do the same for Jacques Derrida."

E)  "First, when you beat a team as a competitor and as a coach refuse to
    discard discourse with or about them except as the punchline to a who did
    you crush this round discussion."


Section 3:  Reading Comprehension

Passage #1, from author Miroslav  


        don't blame the East for the "slowing down of my mental pathways"...  

        i will dispose of your stunningly lucid observations in order.
        1) what happens when a permutation comes into play?:  
(5)     congratulations, you're the 4th person to ask. learn to read...

        4) "All you have to do is find internals to a meatball (hi to my 
        friends in Louisianna) and then you are done researching for the 
        semester."
(10)    only 1 n in Louisiana. learn to spell.  unh, well, you go ahead 
        and do that, Greg.  most folks would look to research the links 
        and impacts and disads to the potential plans (aff AND neg) they
        have to debate against...

(15)    5) "Its like LD."
        leave LD alone.  go hear some GOOD LD rounds.  you were SOOOO good 
        as a freshman:  i was stunned by your brilliance even then...

        10) "The reason that we have forced choice is that we model 
(20)    ourselves losely after real world policy making."
        yep, VERY loosely.  Bob Dole would probably be VERY surprised to 
        learn that he has to respect a "plan focus" for legislation,  
        that his 1ar can't have any new answers, that a senator has 
        "advocacy burdens", and on and on...
(25)
        13) "It seems to me that Mike's theory is interesting as a thought 
        producing idea but I think that the potential for abuse and simply 
        inane debate is high."
        now, there's something that Greg DOES know about...

Question 1:  The author would most likely agree with which of the following?

A) FUCK YOU BRYANT!!  FUCK YOU!!!!!
B) We should love one another and come together as a community. 
C) Greg Hopper for All American Scholastic Debater of the Year.
D) Postulating an antecedent of "grue" and a consequent "bleen", and also
   assuming the set of all possible worlds in which grue=>bleen but bleen
   not => grue, and also assuming nobody understands my blocks anyway...
E) Fool.  Can't you see Miroslav isn't feeling very agreeable right now?

Question 2:  The reference to Bob Dole in line 20 is used:

A)  To reveal that Korcok is a closet republican.
B)  To avoid having to spell Rostenkowski.
C)  To make Cary Voss and TDBARNES feel at home.
D)  To demonstrate that Korcok really does have a shift key on his keyboard.
E)  Because his 1AR's are easily as slow as Hoppers


Passage #2, from author Gehrke
   
        The resolution also assumes that earth is a planet, that nuclear 
        weapons (or effects or waste or whatever) can "buildup". If these 
        assumptions are logically untenable, then isn't the resolution 
        likewise?...
(5)
        A brief digression: Why are we so obsessed with the "truth" or 
        "falsity" of resolutions? It smacks a bit of Comte and age-old 
        possitivism to me. If the resolution and the case and their 
        assumptions are shown to be consistent on a wholistic or synergistic
(10)    level, and the negative served as a critique of that consistency 
        (like an editorial board evaluating an article on a given topic) 
        couldn't we produce more open, mind expanding, and clash-oreinted 
        debate? Establish a dominant (but not grand) narrative in the round 
        that is most consistent and condusive to the assumptions and ideas 
(15)    that are agreed upon. Impact debates are consistent with this 
        philosophy and so are philosophical critiques and value debates.  
   
        Just a thought.  
   
Question 3: The author would most likely agree with which of the following
statements:

A) Don't reify the post-structuralist dominant hierarchy entrenched by your 
   logcentric focus on archaic notions of "making sense."
B) Which pomo?  Foucaultian post-Sartian pomo?   Left, offset flang pomo?  
   Post-Derridaian pomo?  Post-Druid pomo?  Completely f**king random pomo?  
C) Critiques suck.
D) Your statement is informed, or should I say misinformed, by archaic 
   notions of the modern problematic.  You need to break out of your 
   logocentric structuralist paradigm and embrace a deconstructionist
   perspective on slaying the belly of the beast of modernity.
E) You can't fool me.  This is completely incomprehensible.  Pat wrote this.  
   What's it doing in Reading _Comprehension_?


-------------------STOP-----------------------------------------------------
End of Practice Test.


Randi Vickers & Matt Roskoski

If you found this practice test useful, please send us a very large amount
of money and we will include you in our prep class.  We guarantee that you
will receive a score on the LSAT.
Follow-Ups:
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page