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.

Messages - silverapplejam

Pages: [1]
2
for the game section, I have to write down some quick notes on the blank place of the text book, is it allowed? 

3
Studying for the LSAT / Re: PT35-S3-Game4 (Oct, 2001)
« on: August 26, 2010, 05:30:33 AM »
well, i think the "common sense" eventually convinces me, unflawed, it is uncommon for a professor to be hired twice or so in the same univer..  I just never thought common sense can be tested in the game section as well.  maybe such kind tough question only appears in the last of the four games. 

i also googled brain fart.  hope my brain won't have a major brain f..t  when i take the test! 

4
Studying for the LSAT / Re: PT35-S3-Game4 (Oct, 2001)
« on: August 22, 2010, 01:27:03 AM »
Jeff something you need a break.  maybe you are so overwhelmed by LSAT and your life, but it's not necessary to be so personal in this forum, right? don't try to lose your control.

-------------------------------------
anyway, i still don't get why each professor can be hired once.  because R can be hired in 93, 94, and 95 without violating the rules.  if it is given in the game something like "each professor can only be hired in one year", then i could understand. but it doesn't?




5
Studying for the LSAT / PT35-S3-Game4 (Oct, 2001)
« on: August 18, 2010, 11:06:31 AM »
In Game 4, why R can only be placed in 1991?  I think R can still be in 93, 94, or 95 since it does not violate the rules. Or maybe I just interpret it wrong about Rule #1, which states "Robinson in 1991", which means R can only be in 1991 but other years?  Appreciate your help!

6
Studying for the LSAT / Re: PT34 - June 2001 section IV #23 logic games
« on: August 10, 2010, 10:24:24 AM »
it is funny when i realize that i've been set by the question maker at the beginning, now i see the true color of them.  i admit i fell in, thanks for the tip otherwise i will never get it how i fell.  it is logically impeccable but i just dont' like the way they make this game.  i hope they won't do it again, or they just do it on all games so i just grab the rule and don't have to pay attention to all the premises.  i guess being a lawyer you have to be this alert. 

7
Studying for the LSAT / PT34 - June 2001 section IV #23 logic games
« on: August 08, 2010, 05:11:05 AM »
I am so confused about #23. In the condition part, it already tells us "if L is at Souderton, then both N and P are at Randsborough", then why in #23, the right answer (E) indicates that both N and P CANNOT be a pair at Rands? are they contradictive? appreciate your help! 

Pages: [1]