Law School Discussion

Show Posts

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 - Noooo

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 20
Studying for the LSAT / Re: PT 40- Section 3- LR 14
« on: November 27, 2007, 01:38:19 AM »

Had the argument not been presented as coming from a particular person phrased in the first person, and instead been the voice of someone else telling us about Franklins situation, things would have been different.

Like, if it would have said, "The only clue Franklin has has to the identtity of the practical joker", in this case (A) would not be the CR (or an offered response at all)?

Studying for the LSAT / Re: Parallel Flaw Question
« on: November 27, 2007, 12:49:53 AM »
Taking advanced mathematics courses should increase a student's grade point average, for, as numerous studies have shown, students who have taken one or more advanced mathematics courses are far more likely to have high grade point averages than students who have not taken such courses.

What is the flaw in this stimulus?

It's an incorrect correlation - think what comes first, chicken or the egg:  in this case, does taking the advanced math course raise GPA, or do people with high GPAs tend to take advanced math courses?  

It makes sense too.  If you're a bad student with a low GPA, you're probably not going to rock an advanced math course.

Studying for the LSAT / Re: silly question...
« on: November 26, 2007, 06:44:59 PM »
you should post all the answers...just sayin...

This is also a LSD pet peeve of mine. 

Studying for the LSAT / Re: silly question...
« on: November 26, 2007, 06:44:16 PM »
Your "Action Show --> Not in public interest" seems offtrack.

Remember, "the public interest comprises many interests".  Action shows are in the public interest, just not the exclusive public interest. 

Public Interest --> Many Interests
Broadcast Media --> Must Serve Public Interest


Broadcast Media --> Must Serve Public Interest --> Must Serve Many Interests

(A) - looks like a correct answer, because if the broadcasters only look at the popularity of a program, they may not be serving "many interests"

Studying for the LSAT / Re: What Did You Score on the LSAT?
« on: November 25, 2007, 10:16:23 PM »
Two people scored lower than 163?  Really?   :-\  I don't mean to belittle, but that's shocking news by LSD standards.  That's like saying that two members of P. Diddy's entourage are below poverty level.

Great job on the belittling front, anyway. 

Studying for the LSAT / Re: PT 45 (dec. 04)
« on: November 25, 2007, 09:21:13 PM »
Is it just me or is the Dec. 04 PT more difficult than the previous test? My score dropped 10 points!Should i begin to panic?

Do you want to panic? 

My guess is that a 10 point drop on any tests reveals that you are not as prepared as you think.  Sorry I don't know about Dec 04 offhand, but it's a standardized test, so, you know.

Studying for the LSAT / Re: Genius misleading online help
« on: November 23, 2007, 09:33:50 PM »
At this web page

I found this

Symbolize 'Unless's. Dylan is not at school, unless Eva is at school.

~E --> D

Now, correct me if I'm wrong. If the sentence is,

Dylan is not at school, unless Eva is at school.

then the proper translation is either:

D → E


~E → ~D

I wonder how many people out there are going to rely on advice like this next week when they take the LSAT. Part of me is kinda happy that some of my competitors will handily be misled ...

are you human?

Yes, your diagram is how I see it.

Do you think anyone "relying on advice" like that to go into the LSAT are really prepared for the exam anyway?  I mean, unless you're competing with the 140ish scoring set, people memorizing a few (incorrect) tricks from some web site a few days before the exam probably aren't your "competitors", if you choose to look at it like that.

Studying for the LSAT / Re: Flawed method of reasoning
« on: November 23, 2007, 09:21:29 PM »
Consumer advocate: There is ample evidence that the model of car one drives greatly affects the chances that one's car will be stolen. The model of car stolen most often in our country last year, for example, was also the model stolen most often in the preceding year.

The consumer advocate's reasoning is most vulnerable to the criticism on the grounds that it:

(A) Fails to address adequately the possibility that the model of car that was stolen most often last year was teh most common model of car in the consumer advocate's country
(C) fails to address adequately the possibility that the car model that was stolen most often last years was stolen as often as it was because it has a very high resale value
(D) presumes, without providing justification, that someone considering whether or not to steal a particular car considers only what model the car is

I got this one right (A) but was rather puzzled by C and D (moreso D).  C I guess, is wrong mainly because the "high resale value" could still allow the conclusion to be properly drawn, since the resale price might be determined by the model, correct?  However, D seems to point out the assumption that the "model" of the car necessarily has a greater influence on it being stolen than other factors. Could someone explain why C and D are exactly wrong, and the AC is right? Thanks.

A - CR, if the most common car is also the one most commonly stolen, then the advocate's argument that theives are going after certain brands is weakened (though, not disproven).

C - it's wrong, but I don't follow your reasoning.  The talk about high resale value does not weaken the advocate's argument.  It's just a piece of information.

D - I agree this may have been attractive initially, but the advocate never says a thief considers "only" the model when deciding to steal, so this answer incorrectly attributes more to the advocate's statement than is actually there.  Your reasoning is on track but not decisive enough - again D says it's the only factor, not the strongest among several factors as you suggest.  That's what may have confused you a bit.

Studying for the LSAT / Re: method of reasoning
« on: November 22, 2007, 01:41:43 AM »
Well, I was thinking of two reasons why B is wrong.
When, I get into a situation where I have two remaining choices- I get very picky and literally analyze every word in these answer choices.
B- "earlier instance" - there was no indication that there was an "earlier" instance in the stiumlus- it could for all we know be a present instance. After all the instance that they give is in the present-"diverge" is in the present tense.
    - second B mentions that the predicted consequence did not occur- well what
"consequence" are they refering to?? In the stimulus, the only thing we see is a sufficient/necessary relationship. You can treat such a relaionship- EVER- as one being a consequence of another.

Fully agree with your approach.  But, with respect to your second reason for discounting "B", is it not reasonable to assume those "consequences" are economic chaos that the politician mentioned.  The author said those countries have "stable economies", which I think is a suitable (refuting) reference to the "consequences" of "economic chaos", right?

Studying for the LSAT / Re: I blew it
« on: October 19, 2007, 10:57:09 PM »
Eh, don't worry about it. I'm in the same boat as you, only having scored one point higher on this one than I did on the June (163-164). The way I'm looking at it: now at least I know my target/reach/safety schools, and I can concentrate on where I have a realistic shot at getting in, and where I should end my pipe dreams.

How is scoring one point higher to reach 158 in the same boat as one point higher to rach 164-165 (which, should either be one of the other, not a range, but OK)?  Truth wanted to go to Columbia, so why say "eh don't worry about it"?  Not trying to be harsh but to me this read like half hearted consolation to Truth quickly morphed into pumping your fists for yourself.  But, congratulations to you.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 20