« on: June 11, 2009, 11:52:40 PM »
I'd settle for coherency myself.
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.
I love my netbook (a dell mini 9) and I hate heavy computers, even 4lbs is heavy to me, but I can handle it for short trips (like exams). I'm also cheap, so option 1 really appeals to me. But I'm concerned about whether my netbook is enough computer for exams.
Forgive my ignorance, and I say this with absolutely no intentions of being a flame, but what advantage would something like Westlaw have over Wikipedia? I am not familiar at all with Westlaw, but I know that you can read pretty much everything about every major case on Wikipedia. Granted, I realize there is a large caveat (that being that information can be modified by users and is subject to errors), but still... it seems pretty reliable.
I just finished my first year of law school and I have some advice that I wish someone would have shared with me before I started.
Law school is about hard work. It really doesn't matter how high you scored on the LSAT. Be prepared to bust your ass. Most of you probably already knew this but I think it needs to be said because a lot of people are used to getting by on intelligence alone and that really doesn't happen in law school.
However, there are a lot of short cuts that you can take advantage of if you still want to have a life outside of school. In most of your classes, if you study the way the profs tell you to study, you'll be stuck reading all day long.
You should probably read all of your assigned cases in the first couple of weeks just to see if you like studying that way. If you find that you are pressed for time and you just want to concentrate on what you have to learn for the test, then buy the case briefs. They will save you hours of time every day. In addition, you'll be concentrating on the material that you have to know for the exam. So you basically study more efficiently. In addition to the case briefs, you should get yourself a good comercial outline that will use simple language to explain the concepts that you need to know for the exam. I use crunchtime but most of the others are also pretty good.
If you do follow my advice, you can do great in law school and still have a life outside of it.
It's hard to communicate accurately over the web, and I apologize for dragging you along with me in my imperfect quest. But it seems like I've finally demonstrated what I have been trying to say all along.
The disturbing thing about this is this isn't the only question of this type in which the above error is committed. There are literally examples strewn front to back that seem to fall trap to this error. I spent the afternoon today just trying to figure out why such errors keep recurring in their book. If you have the newer edition (I have the webcom edition, as I stated), do you recall encountering such problems?
Thanks much (again),
6 Slots. Y before X and Z. (More than one element possible per slot.)
We can deduce that neither X nor Z can go into slot 1, as above.
We still don't know anything about slot 2. No matter how many elements can go there, Y or X or Z or (X and Z) could go there.
We can deduce that Y can not go into slot 6. Here, we don't know about slot 5 though. Y could go there, with X and Z in slot 6.
I am not having trouble recognizing the logic behind slots 1 and 2. I know why X and Z are eliminated from slot 1, but not 2. What I am having trouble understanding is why one should put ~Y underneath slot 5. As you yourself said int he quote above, Y COULD go into slot 5, provided X and Z both go into 6 together.
Putting a ~Y that early just right off the bat removes it from consideration, when maybe if more clues later were given, Y was in fact in slot 5.
Thanks again, but my last post was on a different example. There are NO conditions or instructions other than to diagram the fact that Y is examined before X and Z are examined. It tells us only that there are 6 total examinations, and, like you said, no information as to whether perhaps 1 might occur on separate occasions.
I'm not sure whether those 4 scenarios that you typed up pertain to my last post, or my original post. The variables you chose and language are mixed up.
At any rate, I'm about to send you the pages that I'm talking about. You'll see what I mean then.
IMAGES HERE: http://picasaweb.google.com/changesmyweltanschauung/Powerscore#5344435170144698690
I did poorly during my first semester of law school and the second semster ended similarly. I'm currently enrolled in summer school and am doing two judicial internships. I go to a T2 school w/ a B curve. Is it worthwhile to continue (i.e. will I have any job prospects)?
Not to belabor this...but here's a paraphrase of one of their drill questions:
Diagram the following statement: Y is examined before X and Z are examined. There are 6 examinations:
What the hell?! Now they've flipped. They DO recognize that X and Z could occur together in the second slot, and so just eliminate the possibility of them occurring first, but now Y for some reason cannot occur 2nd last. But that presumes X and Z cannot occur simultaneously in the last slot!
That's it...I'm throwing away this book.
There is a "strategy" in Powerscore's Logic games bible that I'm not sure is really sound; it concerns the diagramming of uncertain relationships.
For instance, it says that if you are told only that 2 items, say P and Q, must occur before another, let's say R, in a 6 day week, then you would diagram something like the following:
....-.........- - - - -
~R ~R (~P,~Q)
(periods inserted to simulate the diagram as it would appear in your own notes...just imagine they aren't there)
I have doubts as to whether it is wise to so quickly eliminate R from possibly occurring second in the sequence. First of all, the Logic games Bible states that since we are not told what the relationship between P and Q are, we only know that it may be that P occurs before Q, Q occurs before P, or they occur concurrently. But if we can't rule out that last possibility of P and Q occurring at the same time, then how can we presumptively cross out R underneath the second slot? That presumes that P and Q cannot occur at the same time, and so that R cannot occur second in the sequence.
Furthermore, the logic in their notation for these first two slots and the last slot seems inconsistent. In the last slot, the possibility of P and Q's occurring simultaneously is taken account of--the 5th slot doesn't eliminate P and Q from possibly happening together, and so notes correctly that R might occur last. Otherwise the author would have indicated that because P and Q might occur separately, if R occurs right after either P or Q, then there is a chance that because one of the disjuncts (i.e., P, Q) might "bump" R out of the last slot, then ~P and ~Q should likewise be indicated below the 5th slot.
If anyone can shed some light on this, I'd be really grateful.
p.s. following the tradition of philosophical logic, I have represented all 'nots' in my "diagram" with the tilde (~) symbol.
p.p.s. if you want to follow along in your copy of the Bible, I have the Webcom edition, and it's on pgs 17-18.