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 - Bella

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 8
1
Studying for the LSAT / Re: Answers for June 2005
« on: June 04, 2007, 12:48:18 PM »
I guess, nobody has it either...
I'm still hoping.  Thank you (I guess personal messaging isn't the same as posting on the forum?)

2
Studying for the LSAT / Answers for June 2005
« on: June 04, 2007, 12:14:11 PM »
This is the most inconsistent thing to do: to finish the test and then find out that I don't have the answers for it :'(.  If somebody can help me with it, I'll really appreciate it.  Thank you in advance!

3
Studying for the LSAT / Re: Feb. 1995 LR 2, Q. 13
« on: May 20, 2007, 08:34:49 PM »
Thank you so much! Starting to make sense.

Thanks again :)


Addiction <---> dependence + abuse

~dependence OR ~abuse <-----> ~addiction

BUT, dependence and abuse do not always go together.

Example: CP are dependent on drugs for pain relief, but they are not abusing the drugs.

ALSO: A person can abuse drugs without being dependent.

Therefore, the definition is wrong.


Cancer patient example is only relevant if we assume that the cancer patient is addicted.



Take notice of the conditional nature of the definition and the contrapositive. What the stimulus author is trying to do is undermine the definition and say that it doesn't apply to certain situations and is therefore wrong. So he employs certain examples to prove his conclusion. But what if the cancer patient ISN'T addicted...which would make perfect sense if he wasn't abusing the drug. His example serves to weaken the definition only if it runs contrary to our conditional statement. If we don't assume that the cancer patient is addicted, then we have not violated the statement either way.
Addiction <---> dependence + abuse

~dependence OR ~abuse <-----> ~addiction

BUT, dependence and abuse do not always go together.

Example: CP are dependent on drugs for pain relief, but they are not abusing the drugs.

ALSO: A person can abuse drugs without being dependent.

Therefore, the definition is wrong.


Cancer patient example is only relevant if we assume that the cancer patient is addicted.



Take notice of the conditional nature of the definition and the contrapositive. What the stimulus author is trying to do is undermine the definition and say that it doesn't apply to certain situations and is therefore wrong. So he employs certain examples to prove his conclusion. But what if the cancer patient ISN'T addicted...which would make perfect sense if he wasn't abusing the drug. His example serves to weaken the definition only if it runs contrary to our conditional statement. If we don't assume that the cancer patient is addicted, then we have not violated the statement either way.

4
Studying for the LSAT / Feb. 1995 LR 2, Q. 13
« on: May 20, 2007, 03:07:53 PM »
Hi guys,

If somebody can help me with the explanation of this answer choice (it's from the supplemental materials Power Score) I'll really appreciate it as always...  The correct answer is C, but I don't understand why. Maybe I didn't fully understand the question stem in a normal language?  I realize that it's an assumption Q.

Thank you in advance.

5
I apologize in case if somebody already asked about it. But if somebody has a minute to help - thank you in advance.

6
But it's not for commercial purposes and people always give the sourse - aren't those two main reqirements for using copyrights?

7
All these plans are doomed to failure... not everyone who takes the LSAT at the same time takes the same test. They have different tests with different sections in different orders...

How is it possible if when released, we have a particular test, which is an official test with certian sections. For example, those, who took the test already and then looked at the released test (the same one) - this person will recognize for sure: if the order is the same, the test is the same, etc. Plus, on PowerScore they post next day after test - which section is an experimental - it's also the same for everyone.
So, I guess, the test is the same and the exp.section is the same and the order is the same. Otherwise it will be extremely hard to make any predictions regarding "what's the percentage of test takers, who answered questions correctly" - in other words it will be hard to make any predictions and generalizations. My opinion

8
Visits, Admit Days, and Open Houses / Re: Northeastern: how to visit wisely?
« on: September 27, 2005, 07:51:25 AM »
Hi,
Yes, there are dead-lines for all kinds of scholarships, so look on their website to make shure (the last I remember is Jan.1); early application is untill Nov.15;

It's important to reflect what you're doing now (if your LOR is old, it becomes not very powerful); they respect working experience; what can you bring on the table;
Why do you want to be a lawer - it's not like extremely important, but a subject to explain as well.

Boston area is nice, depending where you from (since it can be cold here in winter); it's a historical city; suburbs can dissapoint with houses's architecture (just vynil siding, square shape) unlike californian or floridian style. But Boston is also an "educational capital". You can go to: boston.citisearch.com to familiarize yourself a little. And tonight we're having Paul McCartey's concert here  ;)
Hope it helps

9
Visits, Admit Days, and Open Houses / Re: Northeastern: how to visit wisely?
« on: September 26, 2005, 07:42:18 AM »
Hi, everybody again. Here's my report:
-The overall atmosphere was pretty friendly, food was provided.
-Regarding admissions - they announced some dead-lines (merit scholarships, scholarships, applications, etc.).
- Rolling basis (the sooner - the better);
- If you're in their LSAT/GPA range - you're safe, unless you've done something "outstandint" (in bad meaning);
- Personal statement counts (you actually need to explain wha do you want to be a laywer - I thought these topics are over used, but seems like schools still want to listen about it);
- Explain everything - don't leave "blank spaces", don't make more work for them;
-Every application will be read about 5 times by different people;
- They avarage the LSAT (but look at significant improvement);
- Women are more than 50%;
- Active student societies;
- Diverse minority representation;
- Co-op program (work-study-work-study, ets.) - could be a plus, since gives you an opportunity to build connections while in law schools (around the whole country);
- My own impression: the school itself - not bad - the rooms are pretty comfortable (although - no windows in big lecture's rooms - but, I guess, it's something normal); seats were equiped with outlet plugs;
even in small classes for seminars - normal tables and chairs (not those "transformers"); I didn't have an opportunity to look around much, since I misses the tour around the campus.
So, normal school - nothing too exciting or too negative - school like school. I'd say - Suffolk in this regard is very impressive - very modern and comfortable (but I guess lower in rating, than NorthEastern).

So, hope it helps to have an idea.

10
Visits, Admit Days, and Open Houses / Re: BU Visit
« on: September 20, 2005, 09:39:26 AM »
Thank you very much for sharing your experience. I'll share mine, when time comes. I'll postpone my LSAT to Dec. and probably in BU.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 8