Law School Discussion

Nine Years of 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.

Topics - ChiGirl

Pages: [1] 2 3
Law School Applications / Question about Fee Waivers..
« on: October 17, 2008, 12:39:39 PM »
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?


Studying for the LSAT / A couple Logical Reasoning questions.....
« on: October 09, 2008, 09:02:04 PM »
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!

Studying for the LSAT / A Flaw Question...
« 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.

This is the correct answer.

Ok, I'm annoyed here. (A) is the correct answer but I chose (E).

The reforms to improve the quality of public education that have been initiated on the part of suppliers of public education have been insufficient. Therefore, reforms must be demanded by consumers. Parents should be given government vouchers with which to pay for their children's education and should be allowed to choose the schools at which the vouchers will be spent. To attract students, academically underachieving schools will be forced to improve their academic offerings.

The argument assumes that

(A) in selecting schools parents would tend to prefer a reasonable level of academic quality to greater sports opportunities or more convenient location.
(B) improvement in the academic offerings of schools will be enforced by the discipline of the job market in which graduating students compete
(C) there is a single best way to educate students
(D) children are able to recognize which schools are better & would influence their parents' decisions
(E) schools would each improve all of their acacdemic offerings & would not tend to specialize in 1 particular field to the exclusion of others.

I was able to easily cross off B, C & D.

But when I found out (A) was the right answer, I was like what?? :-\  Where did sports opportunities & a more convenient location even come from??! There's no hint of that in the stimulus! How do we even know what the parents of these kids want. We just know that they can choose their kids school w/these gov't vouchers!

I realized I struggled w/this when I corrected my answers & I was writing reasons for the correct & incorrect answers. When I came to this one, I was blank on reasons.

Help please! :-[

Studying for the LSAT / Decipher these 2 rules from June 1996 Logic Games..
« on: September 25, 2008, 03:50:29 PM »
*Game 2:

"The workshops on Production and Rehearsals begin no earlier than the day immediately following the second day of the workshop on Lighting."

This is an advanced linear game which I usually get right but I had a lot of trouble with this rule which in turn screwed up my setup. :-[

*Game 4:

Rule 6: "Harlan is not assigned to the Oceans Panel if Paul is not assigned to the Oceans Panel."

The way I interpreted this was that 1 of them (but not both) have to be assigned to the Oceans Panel.

Studying for the LSAT / Did I dissect this LR question correctly?
« on: September 20, 2008, 08:55:33 PM »
So I took everyone's advice and right after I do an LR section, I correct it & then I write my own explanations as to why the 1 is right and the 4 others are wrong before reading Kaplan's explanations. It's so time consuming! :-\ 

Can someone look at this & tell me if I did this 1 right? (again, some things have been changed for copyrighted purposes!)

Finnish author Swadi was accused by Norwegian author Halden of plagarizing a book that she had written & that had been published 20 years before Swadi.  The 2 books, although set in different periods & regions, contain enough plot similarities to make coincidental resemblance unlikely. Swadi's defense rests on his argument that plagarism was impossible in this cause because Halden's book has been published only in Norwegian, a language Swadi does not understand, & because no reviews of Halden's book have ever been published.

The argument in Swadi's defense depends on the assumption that

(A)  Swadi has never met Halden
(B)  Halden's book did not become popular in norway
(C)  Nobody related the plot of Halden's book in detail to Swadi before Swadi wrote his book
(D)  There is common European myth to which both authors referred subconsciously in the books in question
(E)  Swadi is not familiar w/Marshing Landic, an extinct language related to an earlier form of Norwegian.

Ok, the answer is C. But I chose E.  Supposedly (kaplan told me) that D is the most tempting answer which i think is odd.

My explanations (w/out reading kaplan's yet) are as follow:

(C) is right because because no one told swadi about the details of halden's book before Swadi wrote it. How could he plagarize it if he knew nothing about it? Also, if you negate it "Everybody related the plot of Halden's book in detail to Swadi before Swadi wrote the book" makes it fall apart.

(A) is wrong because this is irrelevant/outside the scope. Swadi doesn't have to meet halden to plagarize any of her work.

(B) is wrong because it doesn't make any sense. What does that have to do with Swadi plagarizing Halden's book? As is popularity is suppose to deter Swadi from plagarizing halden's book!!

(D) is wrong because it doesn't make sense. Actually, I really don't even understand it. Sounds way too philosophical! Lol. (Sorry, I know this explanation sucks!)

(E) is wrong because it brings in another language that's not even mentioned. The stimulus explicitly stated the book was written in Norwegian.

Gawd, what a great way to spend a nice saturday night!    Anyway, am I on the right track? I remember someone here saying that my explanations should be a paragraph long for now & not 1 sentence since I get so many wrong on LR but I could not write a whole paragraph for each of these. I just didn't know what else to write.

Studying for the LSAT / Please help me set up this fake game....
« on: September 17, 2008, 09:42:41 PM »
I know how people feel about fake LSAT questions but if you could just look at this short one.

A charity is writing 7 letters of solicitation- L, M,N,O,P,Q, and R- one after the other according to the following guidelines:

She writes letter R immediately after letter N.
She writes M either first or last.
She writes letter N before letter L.
She writes letter 0 fourth.

If the charity worker writes letter N & letter 0 consecutively, which of the following CANNOT be true?
(A) She writes letter 7 seventh.
(B) She writes letter N fifth.
(C) She writes letter P third.
(D) She writes letter Q first.
(E) She writes letter R sixth.

The answer is (D). What happened to rule 1?

Okay, this is the faux game I needed setup help.

6 large cities in a state- Arch, Bard, Clark, Doran, Eaton, and Fairfax- are connected by public bus & train services. The services run both ways between the cities they connect as follows:

Bus service connects Eaton to each of the following cities: Clark, Doran, & Fairfax.
Bus service connects Clark & Doran.
Train service connects Bard to each of the following cities: Arch, Clark, & East.
Train service connects Arch to Clark.
A passenger may transfer at any stop to any bus or train connections provided at that stop.
The above are the only forms of public transportation connecting the cities, & each different connection between cities is provided by a different bus or train.

Last week, I did a section on flaw questions and got 15/25.  :-[

So I spent this entire week just going over flaws. I probably shouldn't say I spent the entire week but at least a couple days.

Well I re-did the same section today and scored a 12/25.  I could NOT believe it. I literally was in utter shock because I was so sure & confident when I chose my answers.  This scares me- being so sure about your answers & then getting them wrong.

This has consistently been my problem with LR- no improvement, sometimes getting MORE wrong when I re-do the same section, picking the same (wrong) answers for some of the questions, etc.

After I do a section, I review it as we all should.  The weird thing about this? About 98%, I actually understand why the right answer is right and why the wrong answers are wrong.

This is what I don't get. Yet, I'm making the same mistakes repeatedly.  What gives?!! :'(

Studying for the LSAT / Possibly 1 of the worst games ever?
« on: September 12, 2008, 09:07:52 PM »
I've been working on games all day today & I guess you say I'm gamed out so when I came to this one, I went blank. :-[

I changed some words around since we aren't allowed to post LSAT questions. :-\

Each of 7 judges voted for or else against granting Warner Corporation's petition.  Each judge is categorized as republican, moderate, or democrat, and no judge is assigned more than 1 of those labels. 2 judges are republicans, 2 are moderates, and 3 are democrats.  The following is known about how the judges voted:

If the 2 republicans & at least 1 democrat voted the same way as each other, then both moderates voted that way.
If the 3 democrats voted the same way as each other, then no republican voted that way.
At least 2 of the judges voted for warner corp, & at least 2 voted against warner corp.
At least 1 republican voted against warner corp.

I think the main trouble I had was w/the contrapositives & such.

Studying for the LSAT / Question about Flaw Q's............
« on: September 11, 2008, 10:05:14 AM »
Can someone please translate what these mean?

1)  "Assumes what it is trying to prove"

2)  "Equivocates with respect to a central concept"

3)  "The commissioner's argument is LEAST vulnerable to which one of the following criticisms?"

Pages: [1] 2 3