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.

Topics - toocoolforschool

Pages: [1] 2 3
Studying for the LSAT / Question about taking the LSAT 3x in 2 years
« on: October 19, 2007, 10:02:08 PM »
If you have two cancellations and one physical score....within the span of two years...does that mean you cannot take the LSAT until one of those falls off the 2 year mark....


does this rule ONLY apply to LSATs with scores (and not cancellations)...?

anyone who knows please tell me so I can decided whether a retake a possible....

Studying for the LSAT / Kaplan Explanations 43-46?
« on: June 02, 2007, 11:04:34 PM »
Does anybody have these? If you do could you send them my way....

I'll name my first born after you.  :) either that or trade you something else for them.

Studying for the LSAT / study group in la area?
« on: December 17, 2006, 05:51:17 PM »
if you're in the area and need a buddy to review confusing questions with lemme know.

Studying for the LSAT / 6/06 LR Questions- First Section
« on: December 17, 2006, 12:04:57 PM »
I've had a tough time diagramming these 2 lr problems for reasons I'll discuss below. If the you guys could help me with this i would really appreciate it.

7. Any fruit that is infected is also rotten. No fruit that was inspected is infected. Therefore, any fruit that was inspected is safe to eat.

The conclusion of the argument follows logically if which one of the following is assumed?

A)   It is not safe to eat any fruit that is rotten.
B)   It is safe to eat any fruit that is not rotten.
C)   It would have been safe to eat infected fruit if it had been inspected.
D)   It is not safe to eat any fruit that is infected.
E)   It is safe to eat any fruit that is uninfected.

Ok...for this problem...I didn't have a problem diagramming the stimulus or the answer choices....but what I don't get is this: technically B and E are "right" in formal logical how do you eliminate the "wrong" answer out of these two....

my diagram of stim:

INF---> RT (CP: RT---> INF)
INS---> INF (CP: INF---> INS)
Premise: INF----> STE (CP: STE---> INF)

Conc: INS---> STE

okay so e is technically the missing premise provided above....but there is also answer choice b which uses the first logic statement i diagrammed above which could technically be correct in the sense that RT---> INF---> STE.... (so to me putting in the missing premise of RT--> STE....would yield a valid enough statement to let the conclusion follow) my question is why is b wrong?

17. Human beings can exhibit complex, goal-oriented behavior without conscious awareness of what they are doing. Thus, merely establishing that non-human animals are intelligent will not establish that they have consciousness.

Which one of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

A)   Complex, goal-oriented behavior requires intelligence.
B)   The possession of consciousness does not imply the possession of intelligence.
C)   All forms of conscious behavior involve the exercise of intelligence.
D)   The possession of intelligence entails the possession of consciousness.
E)   Some intelligent human behavior is neither complex nor goal-oriented.

Ok...for this soon as I looked at it...and I saw the "without" in the first sentence...I thought I could diagram the stim...but I have no clue as to how to diagram the conclusion because of its wording....and after an hour of looking at this question....literally...the only thing I could gather was that a is the only answer choice that still holds after applying powerscore's "solving justify questions mechanistically"....but that technique is supposed to be applied to justify questions (not assumption quesions, right?) how did you guys figure out this question...and did you diagram?

Studying for the LSAT / preptest explanations
« on: December 14, 2006, 12:51:21 AM »
i have had THE hardest time with preptests 41-49 and I know kaplan came out with explanations for tests 1-40. I have all the tests, explanations for 1-40, and a wealth of other info but desperately need explanations for the later tests...especially test 49 which basically crushed my spirit....

please PM me if you have those explanations or know where I can get them.

I'm desperate at this point because I've already put in too much effort now to go down like this  :'( :'(

Studying for the LSAT / test #49 6/06 2nd game
« on: December 12, 2006, 12:12:21 AM »
does anybody know how to do the setup for this game....i can't figure it out...

Studying for the LSAT / dec 05 LR Question #23- Second LR Section
« on: November 29, 2006, 04:04:58 PM »
i hate these weaken except and resolve the discrepancy except questions....and i had trouble narrowing it down to the right answer choice for this and advice with dealing with this question and others like it would be GREATLY appreciated....

23. Company president: Our consultants report that, general, the most efficient managers have
excellent time management skills. Thus, to improve productivity I recommend that we make
available to our middle-level managers a seminar to train them in techniques of time management.

Each of the following, if true, would weaken the EXCEPT:

(A) The consultants use the same criteria to evaluate managers’ efficiency as they do to evaluate their time management skills.
(B) Successful time management is more dependent on motivation than on good technique.
(C) Most managers at other companies who have attended time management seminars are still
(D) Most managers who are already efficient do not need to improve their productivity.
(E) Most managers who are efficient have never attended a time management seminar.

(answer is d)

Studying for the LSAT / oct 05 #47 LR Question...#22....First LR Section
« on: November 28, 2006, 09:22:49 PM »
for this weaken q....

is the answer d because of the fact another country behaves in the same manner with pesticides as the U.S. does....which therefore weakens the argument that these pesticides greatly increase health risks posed to people in the U.S.?

or is there another reason?

Studying for the LSAT / Dec 05 LR Question #14 First LR Section
« on: November 28, 2006, 11:34:29 AM »
does anyone know how to diagram this properly....i tried for a really long time to figure it out cause it seemed like an easy question....seemed being the operative word....

14. Among a sample of diverse coins from an unfamiliar
country, each face of any coin portrays one of four
things: a judge’s head, an explorer’s head, a building,
or a tree. By examining the coins, a collector
determines that none of them have heads on both sides
and that all coins in the sample with a judge’s head on
one side have a tree on the other.
If the statements above are true, which one of the
following must be true of the coins in the sample?
(A) All those with an explorer’s head on one side
have a building on the other.
(B) All those with a tree on one side have a judge’s
head on the other.
(C) None of those with a tree on one side have an
explorer’s head on the other.
(D) None of those with a building on one side have
a judge’s head on the other.
(E) None of those with an explorer’s head on one
side have a building on the other.

p.s. the answer is d....

Studying for the LSAT / oct 05 #47 answer key
« on: November 25, 2006, 07:18:55 PM »
does anybody have it?

i would be eternally grateful so i could grade my test...

Pages: [1] 2 3