« on: November 26, 2007, 01:12:41 PM »
What's wrong with Wallace? Wallace rules! Congrats on Boalt by the way!
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 - RiddledBasins
« on: November 26, 2007, 12:41:08 PM »
Without actually looking back at the passage, my score sheet tells me I bombed that section too.
On a side note, why does it seem like every 2nd legal passage in the RC section is about Aboriginal rights?
« on: November 26, 2007, 12:36:49 PM »
I think there's a fine line between being careful and being paranoid. Do what you've normally been doing the weeks before. If you always eat fried eggs in the morning, eat friend eggs. If you ate a granola bar after the 3rd section in practice tests, eat a granola bar on the real day. Treat the real day as any other day. That's hard to do as you'll have enough to worry about, the last thing you want to worry about is whether you ate right the morning of.
The key parts of the stimulis, given the question, are that forest fires help forests and that our attempts to stop them are short sighted and ill advised. This only follows if people are trying to stop them to help the forest. There are other reasons one might try to stop a forest fire, such as lives or property. The passage doesn't demonstrate that stopping forest fires for this reason is ill advised, only that it will hurt the forest. Therefore, it will follow if the nly reason we do it is for the sake of the fire.
Because the stimulus says "in view of this...", which refers to the benefits of forest fires on the health of the forest. This is the only thing the person making the argument takes into consideration. There is no mention nor assumption of damage to property, etc.
wow... there's nearly no one online right now. I need some distracting! It's going to be a long day up here in the great white north.
Yeah and not only do we get no turkey today, but it's snowing too! (in southern Ontario, at least) In the words of Russell Peters, what the hell kinda trade-off is that??!
Wallace, if I had a 169 like you, the thought of re-taking would make me nauseous as well!
Same here. I told everyone including myself that I would retake if I scored a 162 or lower. It seems so arbitrary, but like you, 163 was the lowest I could personally accept. Of course, actually scoring a 163 put me in a catch-22. If I scored lower, I would force myself to re-take and would probably score higher the next time. On the other hand, scoring a 163 means I am accepting the lowest I was willing to go, but at least I can enjoy my life.
What is it about the 163? I cannot explain why I chose that as a threshold, and it seems I'm not the only one.
I'm retaking if not for any other reason than I know I can do better than a 163. Regardless of what people say about the test being equated etc..., The -8 = 170 scale of the June test was ridiculous; and it got me.
Agree with your take on the scale. That was another one of my considerations this past week. I fear the possibility that a -8 scale may become the norm in the future. I had to take the Sept LSAT regardless, but I also in the back of my mind hoped that the LSAT would continue its past history of not having 2 consecutive tough scales (unless, of course, it becomes permanent).
« on: November 20, 2007, 06:51:00 PM »
Same here. I always get the first 10-12 right, and then trail off from there. I don't believe it's fatigue, because even when I go back and do corrections, they stand out and require my special attention.
« on: November 20, 2007, 06:44:56 PM »
The GMAT reasoning section is wayyyy easier than the LSAT reasoning, the math is elementary, and the essay is as straightforward as can get. I looked at a GMAT study guide a couple of weeks ago for this very purpose, as I was contemplating writing the test. Any 160+ LSAT scorer could destroy the GMAT, provided they read carefully.