|
|
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 - nooyyllib
31
« on: May 26, 2009, 06:57:46 PM »
Would a recommendation from a family member help at all? I know this may sound like a stupid question.....but my uncle is the minister of finance for a country..probably third in line for the presidency (I'm really sorry I'm not trying to brag at all).
Would getting a recommendation from him help me at all with my chances in admissions?
32
« on: May 19, 2009, 12:42:16 AM »
Ok,
There's 3 weeks left till the june 8th exam and i am signed up for it. so far my PTs have been around 163ish (5/6 wrong on LRs; 0/3 wrong on LGs; and 4/6 wrong on RCs).
Is it possible to raise it about 10-15 points in three weeks? has anyone done it?!? any advice?!? Thanks!
33
« on: May 17, 2009, 07:07:40 PM »
Hey all,
I am going to be in the cycle this fall 09 and had a question about LoRs.
I have two professors in mind. 1 from my business law class, and another from my theoretical sociology/sociology of law professor. The question that's been bothering me is my soc of law professor is quite well-known in the area of sociology and law schools for his value-free perspective on law. According to him and few sources, a lot of law professors don't find him and his perspective on law favorable. Would getting a recommendation from him (because of this present bias) hurt my chances at all?
Thanks.
34
« on: May 15, 2009, 11:03:45 PM »
Hey guys,
My issue with LR has been dying down. And with LG its been good. But for some reason I can't seem to escape from getting 8-9 wrong on the RC. Is there anyway to improve? People just keep telling me practice practice practice but I've done quite a few of the passages and keep getting wrecked by it.
Please help.
35
« on: March 22, 2009, 05:11:19 PM »
PT 42 is the last one I took before the testmasters course this april. I didnt do the RC yet but I'll soon do it.
I guess after studying for one of my midterms and trying to get back to lsats again messed me up a little bit and the first section which are games (which im usualy decent at) i got 12 wrong timed. eh. i guess this was an outlier. I looked over it and understood all the games except the last, fourth game. How do you set this game up? In my perspective there is no set up? how do you approach this game? (the game i'm talking about is the one about school paper and play reviews.
In addition, section 4, i came across three questions (LR) i got slightly confused on. I'd appreciate it once more if you guys can help me out.
Section 4: # 19, 22, 26.
Kind of a good news though, I actually enjoy solving LR a little bit. just a teeny bit...
36
« on: March 14, 2009, 05:39:05 PM »
Hey guys,
I've been studying for the LSATs for about roughly 7 months now. Diagnostic was 152. PT 40 was the first full timed one sitting timed exam I took and the score terrified me - 157. I reviewed the incorrect questions and it angered me because 70% of them I could have gotten right. So today, I took another one to see if I can break the 160 mark. 159 was PT 41. Once AGAIN, for logical reasoning (which was 16 incorrect total), 8 of them were either 50/50 or my carelessness. I am trying to see if I can break the 165 mark before I sign up for the April class for testmasters. But then again, I dont know if that will help me at all. I've definitely gotten rid of my hate for LR, but my only hate is now from the fact that I make dumb mistakes majority of the time. I have a feeling this is because of the time constraint.
Did/Do any of you experience this problem before? I can literally SMELL the score 165. But then again, if I were to insert the experimental section....this might change..
I plan on taking another one next friday.
Any advices are welcome.
37
« on: March 13, 2009, 08:28:57 PM »
PT 40 Section 3 #17:
whats the flawed reasoning in the stimulus?
38
« on: March 10, 2009, 12:58:28 AM »
Just like my other post, I've went through this book (just the LR). Found these questions to be still confusing. Please help me. Again, I greatly GREATLY appreciate the assistance.
PT 29: sec 4:
#2 – Is the answer (A) because of the statement “To the extent that homelessness…”? Although this question was #2 it is slightly confusing…. Maybe I didn’t understand the stimulus?
#19 – For this, the answer is (B) because while the stimulus is talking about the perception of the “own” employees but (B) talks about those employees’ feelings toward jobs of “others”?
#23 – The answer is (E) because of the statement “But nothing that burns…COULD EXIST for more than about 100 million years”. The COULD EXIST implies that a quasar cannot exist any longer than that?
PT 30: sec 2:
#20 – I know I have already posted this question before and had a few responses. But I am still confused about this stimulus and the answer choice (E). Please help me.
#26 – I’m not understanding how (B) can be the answer is this case. Is (B) the answer because by failing to consider how chemistry differs from alchemists’ shows that the author did not show the “blemish” mentioned in the stimulus?
PT 30: sec 4
#9 – I chose (A) and the correct answer was (B). Is (B) correct and (A) not because of the phrase “unlikely to be taken” (stimulus) and “it will probably be” (B) are similar? And choice (A) not because “challenger may win” (A) is different from the phrase from the conclusion of the stimulus?
PT32: sec 1:
#11 – I just wanted to make sure if I was in the right direction. The choice (D) is wrong because the stimulus states “…CAN quickly learn…” making the three factors not necessary conditions. And (B) is the correct answer because the stimulus states that “prior experience along will be of little value…” So this isn’t sufficient or necessary. Am I right?
PT33: sec 1:
#22 – I’m not sure how (B) is the answer. Is this because that is already mentioned in the stimulus?
39
« on: March 02, 2009, 11:16:11 PM »
Hey all,
Because of my paranoia of running out of PTs after saving about 8 for the final push I went over all my incorrect questions from 10 more actual book (PT19-28) - looking at why the correct answer is correct and why the wrong was wrong. From this I have 12 questions I'm stuck on and would greatly appreciate it (once again) if you guys can help me better understand them. All of them are logical reasoning.
PT 21: section 2
#19: The components listed in the stimulus says "in order of decreasing abundance" in the atmosphere. I am confused about this because initially, I thought the stimulus was saying there was least methane in the atmosphere and the most nitrogen in the atmosphere. But looking at the answer choice (C) I can tell that it was saying there was least nitrogen in the atmosphere and the most methane in the atmosphere - thus the assumption of methane vaporizing the easiest and carbon monoxide hardest. But in this case, how can I surely figure out which order the stimulus is saying?
PT 22: section 2
#18: I understand why (B) is the answer because it only meets the originality while the influence is only minor therefore cannot be considered truly great. However, I am not quite understanding why (C) is incorrect. It says like the drumming practiced in Africa has tremendous originality and also profound impact on musicians everywhere, therefore it is great. Please show me why (C) is incorrect.
#25: Is the sufficient condition being "indicted" and required condition "only if they are convicted"? I'm slightly confused.
PT 23: section 2
#25: I think the reasoning pattern is basically "this will only produce this result" - centrally planned allocation will result in at least 5% debt - (B) - pollution occurs only where there is a lot of cars. I chose (D) originally. But (D) is incorrect because of mistaken reversal? - being a famous rock star is a necessary condition to receive large regular loyalties - and owning their recording companies is just a side fact?
section 3
#25: Can anyone put the stimulus in clear terms? Slightly confused.
PT 28: section 1
#19: I understand why the answer can be (A) but can an argument based on "belief" be considered a flaw?
#20: Is the answer (A) because investment decreasing is a completely different aspect from the causal condition given at the beginning of the stimulus? Because the stimulus clearly says "investment is not decreasing"? So, (A) which says "...investment is decreasing" is the answer? If this method is wrong please show me the right logic.
section 3
#16: So, people think venereal disease caused Beethoven's deafness. People during his time used mercury to treat VD so if they find mercury in his hair, the hypothesis is correct. So, how does assuming (B) is correct?
Thanks a lot guys!
40
« on: February 20, 2009, 02:23:13 PM »
I am leaning toward taking the testmasters course this april. But one questions looms over my head. I've been doing some prep by myself and solved actual LSAT questions. My question is because I prepped by myself before, would taking the Testmasters course hurt me? Would me encountering questions I've solved before influenced me in a negative way?
|
Discussion
Resources