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 - BABALITY!

Pages: [1]
1
Studying for the LSAT / LG easier now...?
« on: May 20, 2008, 01:16:53 AM »
I've read numerous times that supposedly the new LG sections are easier than older ones. I've found this to be true in the limited practice tests I've taken... June 07 was much much easier than Feb 99, for me, as an example.

Just wondering if there was a definite 'turning point' one year in which the games became decidedly easier, and what year (or around what year) that took place? I'm curious because I'd like to gauge my abilities in LG on practice tests to something comparable to what I'll be facing on this upcoming June's test.

Bonus question: Consequently, RC has supposedly gotten tougher. Do you guys think so?

2
Studying for the LSAT / PT 39, Sec. 2 #8, Method of Reasoning Q
« on: May 09, 2008, 09:33:30 PM »
Can anyone explain to me how 'D' is correct? "Offering an analogy to counter an unstated assumption of Jorge's argument." Nothing in Jorge's argument goes assumed, or is unstated. The argument addressed in Jorge's comments are there in the text. "You won't be able to write well about rock music in the 1960's, since you were just an infant then." This is the blatant comment Ruth addresses in her response. The analogy part of answer D is correct however, but this I think is a half-right half-wrong incorrect answer type.

C, however, is not half-right half-wrong as described in the LGB (p.360). "Using an example of classic culture" -- she does. "To legitimize contemporary culture as an object worth of serious consideration." -- She does. This last part is what the LGB thinks is wrong about the answer. BUT she does use the analogy to legitimize writing about 1960's rock, and should be worthy of serious consideration to write about.

Agghhh!!!  :'(

3
Studying for the LSAT / Best book for reading comprehension?
« on: May 05, 2008, 12:24:32 AM »
It's becoming clearer to me now that my worst section is RC. I've already got the two bibles for LR and LG, and those have done a world of help for me. My Powerscore course is covering RC but not in super detail, so I'd love to get my hands on a book so I can apply some more strategies that might help me.

I've done some searching and supposedly Nova's Master the LSAT is the best book around for RC advice.

Should I go forward with this book, or are there any others you guys would recommend?

4
Studying for the LSAT / PT #39, L.R. Sec. 2 #6 ...aghhh
« on: April 30, 2008, 04:17:32 PM »
I did this question from the LR Bible and have a couple of questions. Here it is:

PT #39, Section 2, Question #6:

A politician can neither be reelected nor avoid censure by his or her colleagues if that politician is known to be involved in any serious scandals. Several prominent politicians have just now been shown to be involved in a conspiracy that turned into a serious scandal. These politicians will therefore not be reelected.

If the statements above are all true, which one of the following statements must also be true?

A. The prominent politicians cannot escape censure by their colleagues.

B. If there had been no scandal, the prominent politicians would be reelected.

C. No politician is censured unless he or she is involved in a serious scandal.

D. The prominent politicians initially benefited from the conspiracy that caused the scandal.

E. Some politicians who are involved in the scandalous conspiracies avoid detection and censure.

This is the diagram I got:

Scandals --> ~Reelected and ~Avoid Censure
CP: Reelected or Avoid Censure ---> ~Scandals
Conclusion: Scandals --> ~Reelected

The answer is A and I'm not sure if I understand the reasoning behind it completely. Is it because in order for SCANDALS  to happen as it did in the conclusion, it needs BOTH the necessary conditions of ~Reelected -AND- ~Avoid Censure? The conclusion gives us ~Reelected, so ~Avoid Censure also HAS to happen as well? Is this the proper reasoning behind the answer?

Pages: [1]