Law School Discussion

Hmm....you could've sold your book.

UPDATE - Sale is over.

Price is back up to $64.99.

Hope some of you took advantage!

I'm really sorry if this has already been discussed in length. If so, please direct me to the links.

I don't really know anything about fee waivers but I was told by friends I should definitely get some.

1) Can anyone request one from the school?
2) Is it based on anything? e.g., your financial status?
3) Is there a limit on how many you can request?
4) How do I go about getting them?

Thanks

Some things have been changed for copyrighted purposes.

1)  It's apparent that 1 ought to have a will stating how 1 wishes 1's estate to be distributed. This can easily be seen from the fact that, according to current laws, in the absence of a legal will distant realtives whom 1 has never even met have a greater legal right to 1's estate than 1's beloved friends do.

Which 1 of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

(D) People are generally not indifferent about how their estates are distributed.
(This is the correct answer & I do understand it!)

(E) One's beloved friends have a greater legal right to one's estate than one's distant relative's do.
(I chose this & it's also the most tempting answer according to 2 test prep co. Kaplan's explanation of this totally sucked!)

Why isn't (E) right? Maybe I didn't properly negate it. I really like (E)!

I really struggled w/the following one...

2)  R: To become an attorney, a person should be required to have a diversity of experience. The more diverse one's experience, the more one will understand the need for compromise.

S: To be worthy of public trust, it's not enough, as you recommend, that one simply have varied experience. Such a person would not necessarily be worthy of public trust.

Which one of the following most accurately describes a flaw in the reasoning in S's response to R's statements?

(C) The response attributes to Ruth a view that's more vulnerable to criticism (btw, vulnerable to criticism means weaken, right?) than any she actually expresses.

(D) The response fails to make a needed distinction between personal experience & relevant professional experience.

The correct answer is (C) and I chose (D).

First of all, I'm not even sure I understand what S is saying. Maybe that's why I got this wrong.  Public trust so the people will compromise w/him??

Thank you!

Thanks Zem. I just have 1 more I was wondering if you could take a look at.

Psychologist: The majority of skilled artists are very creative people, and all people who are very creative are also good at abstract reasoning. However, not all skilled artists are famous. It follows that some people who are good at abstract reasoning are famous.

The psych's conclusion follows logically if which one of the following is assumed?

(A) Most skilled artists are good at abstract reasoning.
(I chose this!)

(B) Most people who are very creative are skilled artists.

(C) Some skilled artists are not famous.

(D) All people who are good at abstract reasoning are very creative.

(E)  Most skilled artists are famous.
(This is the correct answer. But it says in the stimulus not all skilled are famous.)

This is a Sufficent/Justify Assumption question? I'm wondering if I should even waste time w/formal logic questions since they're time consuming for me.

Quote from: ChiGirl on October 07, 2008, 12:09:57 PM

Words have been changed for copyrighted issues.

Any course that teaches students how to write is one that will serve them well in later life. Therefore, since some English courses teach students how to write, any student, whatever their major, will be served well in later life by taking any English course.

A flaw in the reasoning of the argument is that the argument

(A) fails to specify adequately exactly how a course can teach students how to write
(I crossed this off!)

(B)  draws a weaker conclusion than is warranted by the strength of its premises.
(I chose this because all they're doing in the conclusion is repeating a premise and I thought their conclusion was weak- restating themselves.)

(C) presumes, w/out providing justification, that what is true of whole must also be true of each of its constituent parts.
(Huh? What does this mean?)

(D)  fails to consider the possibility that some student in certain majors may be required to take a english course.
(I crossed this off!)

(E)  draws a conclusion about all cases of a certain kind on the basis of evidence that justifies such a conclusion only about some cases of that kind.

(WHAT?)
This is the correct answer.

Your answer choice suggests that a weaker conclusion is drawn, in fact, a stronger conclusion is actually drawn than is merited by the stimulus. The stimulus is saying that any course that teaches students to write well will serve them later in life. It then states that some english courses teach students to write well. Some can be replaced with "at least one course" teaches students to write well. Then it concludes that if you take ANY english course, you will be served later in life.

Answer choice E states that the argument draws a conclusion about all cases on the basis of evidence that only some cases are sufficient to merit such a conclusion. In other words, lets say we have 5 english courses to choose from and only one of these courses teaches students to write well. This satisfies the requirement that some courses teach students to write well (thus serving them later in life) but it does not follow that taking the other 4 courses necessarily serves students well later in life. You can't conclude thus that taking ANY english course serves students later in life.

(C) presumes, w/out providing justification, that what is true of whole must also be true of each of its constituent parts.
(Huh? What does this mean?)

Answer choice C is essentially saying we have an expensive car, say a porsche, therefore each part of the porsche MUST be expensive. While this is a flaw in that you cannot necessarily conclude that just because the car itself is expensive, the tires are also expensive, it is not the flaw of this argument.

LR was a 4.5 on the exam? Not bad. There's hope! I'm assuming w/your scale, 10 is being the most difficult?

So impressions from different threads seems to say that on a scale of 1-10 difficulty was a pretty average. 

Games 6.5
LR 4.5
RC 5

I for one expect (/hope) a 170 = -11.  But one wildcard is really throwing me; the huge surge of testers that seems nearly inevitable.  I for one am expecting at least a 20% increase in takers for the oct test from people trying to camp out the recession in grad school.  What does this mean though? 

I have 3 friends that were going into business and now cant get the kindof jobs they had expected and so are taking the lsat, hardly think Im unique in this experience.  However I think a disproportional amount of this group will test in the 150's. 1) less preparation, "just give it a shot" mentality and 2) the fact that its more likely these testers who couldnt get jobs are those that are , relatively speaking, a less able group than those who did get decent jobs already.

How all this will REALLY affect the curve I dont know  and I think could be speculated in different ways.

thoughts??