This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - cafe au lait
« on: February 17, 2011, 03:11:08 PM »
I was thinking of going to one of these 3 schools. Any perspective on which school would offer better job prospects?
Thank you for any input guys!
« on: February 16, 2011, 07:40:53 PM »
Thank you. To be quite honest, I really dont know how I did. I could have scored way below my usual 153 or scored right around that range. I really feel like I did bad. I felt unsure about each logic game and about 2 passages on the reading. I only got up to 3 passages. But, as my friend says, you never know?
« on: February 16, 2011, 02:36:47 PM »
I am not sure what to do. I scored a 153 on the Oct 2010 prep test and was hoping to score higher (155) for this past Feb test, but I dont think I did well personally.
I thought each section was hard. I only got up to 20 questions per section and felt like I was using the process of elimination method for each question. I felt like I only got half of each game, reading passage and half the LR questions correct. I never felt like this taking any other prep test. I thought this last one was especially hard.
Should I cancel my score? Any thoughts on how hard the LR and games were? I cant remember the 2nd game for the life of me--was it a grouping game?
Thank you for reading and if you reply back I will definitely appreciate any and all feedback!
« on: January 25, 2011, 10:22:52 PM »
These problems have really stumped me. Both are alike in that the 2 answer choices I was down to looked correct to me, it was a total 50/50 situation. Any help I get for these whatsoever I would definitely appreciate. Thanks
Section 2 #11
Parking space problem
A and C look equally good. I am guessing C is incorrect because we dont know how long considerably long is?
Section 4 #20
Medicine and the rainforest
I chose D, but I see how A looks good as well. I think D is dead on right though....even though it is the wrong answer
« on: December 09, 2010, 08:12:39 PM »
I am down between A and D and am having a hard time with connecting the variables when I diagram this problem.
June 2001, Section 1, #10
The conclusion follows logically if which of the following is assumed--question type.
This is how I diagrammed it.
SB--->SEN (contrapositive: no SEN-->no SB)
Student body must include some students with special educ. needs.
LD---> no SB (contrapositive: SB-->no LD)
No students with learning disabilities have enrolled in the school
Therefore the school is violating its charter.
I cannot make any diagramming connections and am stumped on this one. Can anyone please advise me on this? Thanks in advance....
My 2 choices
« on: December 09, 2010, 04:28:52 PM »
If anyone can help me figure this out I would really appreciate it. Thanks alot...
Oct 1996, #9 on section 1
I was down between C and D. Personally I think if you recover more slowly when you get sick from food you would more likely be affected by the bad food you've eaten. I think C and D are equally good however, can anyone tell me why C is the right answer and why D isnt? Is it because with C you get sick more frequently?
« on: December 02, 2010, 04:48:02 PM »
I was hoping for some help with these questions. Usually the correct answers pop up to me in these question types but for some reason not in the following cases. I dont have the section and problem #, but I have the dates of the lsats these problems were in
1) Financial success doesnt guarantee happiness question - Dec 1994 lsat
They say that the conclusion that FS(financial success) ---> not GH (guarantee happiness) is verified by the claim that 1/3 of those studied who were financially successful claimed they were happy.
I was down between A and B. Why isnt B correct? Wouldnt B be correct because it states that FS is no longer necessary to be happy - which is the contraposition of FS-->not GH ; GH ---> not FS?
I see why A looks good also, but what threw me off was when they say "for the most part" - had they have said those who reported success were successful it wouldve been 100% solid for me.
2) Practice test 15, section 3, #11
Toy labeling law question - June 1995
This one had answers that all looked appealing to me. They state that toy labeling laws should require detailed info on toys that state the dangers the toys can pose. There are labels that indicate what age the toy is for currently, which helps parents in some cases decrease the risk of injury, but they say that injuries could be prevented almost completely if they had more detailed safety instructions on the toys
- Why isnt it A? I think A and B sound equally good.......
Thanks in advance!
« on: October 28, 2010, 06:56:09 PM »
Thank you for your response...actually for the first problem (scientists vs environmentalists) I was attracted to C because I thought the environmentalists flaw was that they failed to see the purpose of why they wanted to launch a space craft, that it was launched in order to gain the info to reverse the damage.
C says - fails to distinguish the goal of reversing harmful effects from the goal of preventing harmful effects...so I translated this as the env's not being able to see the difference between the scientists goals and their goal of not wanting excess pollution to begin with.
« on: October 20, 2010, 04:00:46 PM »
Hi All--can some one help me with these 2 problems?
Dec 00 LSAT Section 2 #15
#15 The ozone/ pollution problem where scientists want to reverse the effects by sending a space craft to observe and environmentalists contest to this because of the pollution the craft will emit.
I was down between A and C. But why is C incorrect?
Oct 01 LSAT, Section 2, #24
I was down to B and D. Why isnt D correct?
« on: October 12, 2010, 08:12:08 PM »
I was wondering what makes B correct over D.
D states that Maria demonstrates, which is why I picked D. In Maria's argument she states the 3 reasons why cloth diapers are no bueno. So isnt this in effect demonstrating? I would think that these 3 reasons are cumulatively more serious than filling up landfills.