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 - Matthew_24_24
« on: January 20, 2005, 04:11:04 PM »
I was accepted to UBC and U of Alberta, so I'm happy. In the end, both schools used my higher score, which made my number seem a lot better:
UBC: 3.69 / 168 LSAT
UAlberta (based on last 60 credits) 3.78 / 168
I know this should go into the acceptances board but this (minus Canada) is the only board i ever actually talked on, just thought id give a shout out.
« on: December 23, 2004, 08:25:27 PM »
This sorta sucks heh
« on: December 08, 2004, 03:16:08 AM »
89 or 90
All this 91,92 stuff is stupid.
« on: December 07, 2004, 05:21:01 AM »
Research methods final to go! 5.5 hours and counting to study w00t!
« on: December 06, 2004, 05:09:50 PM »
ep yep, recollection works good now.
Farmers: your plant is causing our fish to suck, you shut down and look, hormone levels are better.
Plant: umm, sorry pal, we may have shut down but dioxin doesnt dissolve. dioxin is our only waste. So if hormone levels went back to normal, it wasnt due to a lack of dioxin. eat it.
Which argument weakens the plant's explanation? (omg, it wasnt even paradox!)
abnormalities? nope. This doesnt explain why hormone levels went back to normal with dioxin present. In fact, abnormalities staying constant would actually bolster the plant's claims!
river washing it down. Yes. Your dioxin polluting death is simply leaving the river.
Its a floodgate now. Casa is right, this was not a paradox question. There was no paradox here. It was asking to weaken the plant's explanation. I even remember it being weaken now...because i PREPHRASED EACH QUESTION WITH: HOWEVER:
I only do that with WEAKEN QUESTIONS. I even remember the question's location now, bottom left hand portion of the page.
Yes, bingo, down the river, final answer...as confident as i am about this one as the monks.
« on: December 05, 2004, 08:35:18 PM »
Matt (aka Loicenick)
level 13 high elf druid
« on: December 05, 2004, 06:45:44 PM »
Plz respond to your post thx hehehehe
« on: December 05, 2004, 06:34:54 PM »
The change from 24 to 22 games and a change in the general difficulty of the games has changed the guard of LSAT curves.
We live in a world now of 100 questions, not 101.
We live in a world of 22 questions per AR section.
The games now seem less mappable and more common-sense oriented. They also tend to be easier for your average test-taker.
The result? If you miss two games sections (10-11 questions) you are going to score the same as an average test taker (who lets say gets 5 wrong on games) because they get 2 questions per section lead on you for the rest of the test.
Meaning, chances are you are going to score below 165. Have any other mishaps on the exam and you will score 160 or less.
Personal Experience: Worst LSAT before i wrote the exam of my last 14 was 164. average closer to 167. Ignored comments about how easy october was...missed two games sections. Also had some trouble with LR. Result? 158, or 74 out of 100.
Up until yesterday, I had never scored 100% on a games section. I still might not have, i might have made an error somewhere, but never had I finished the section. Ever. I did yesterday. They were not very hard. People who i talked to after the exam (not LSAT experts like here) said "wow those games were easy (some said both of them if they had the experimental games).
It is just a forewarning...easy games directly translate to a nasty curve...because for your average LSAT writer, games are their worst section. This change in games impacts enough people to throw the curve for a loop.
« on: December 04, 2004, 09:46:58 PM »
I picked c)
« on: December 04, 2004, 09:42:48 PM »
a) Nam and Pedra
b) Nam and Osifra
Which one was it???