Law School 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 - llsatt1

Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8
Studying for the LSAT / Re: Is it true Feb LSAT hardest?
« on: February 05, 2010, 08:57:23 AM »

Is this just a subjective review? Is the curve any better for the Feb LSAT if its the hardest? Is this a well-studied observation that the Feb LSAT is actually the hardest?

wondering if i should postpone?

No reason to believe it is.  Rumors that the February test is the hardest are just that...rumors.  One thing that you should be aware of is that the answers, test questions, and curve are not released.  All you get is a score.

Studying for the LSAT / Re: Can anyone explain this flaw question?
« on: February 03, 2010, 01:59:52 PM »
no insult to "changed name" but the discussion of probability in the way he described it is completely irrelevant.  Since about half are approved there is a dependency between the denied and approved sets.

You don't know this.  If the approval or denial was based on a coin flip (meaning about half get approved), there would be no dependency.

Earlcat's explanation is out of scope.  There is no reason to believe we need more information about the procedures of budget approval.  Either it is approved or it isn't.  Assuming there is more information to budget approval is the type of out of scope thinking LSAC does not want you to do.

Fail.  Try actually reading my post.  I never said we NEED more information.  I said we don't have enough information--that is, enough information to conclude the trivial nonsense you're rattling on about.  If you read further you'll find that, "the only important thing" is the assumption between the  premise and the conclusion.  Discussing the necessary assumption in a necessary assumption question is hardly outside the scope.  (But nice try on the Kaplan buzzword.)

You're getting into the weeds with your (completely inaccurate) analysis of the veracity of the argument.  If you're ever going to conquer this test, you need to realize that the subject matter is completely irrelevant to solving the problem.  The thinking has to take place at a more abstract level where you can apply similar reasoning to every problem.  Your treatise on the budget approval process, even if it was helpful for this problem (which it's not), is of absolutely no use on any other problem.  

If the question had read, "Our next budget proposal will probably be approved, because normally about half of all budget proposals that the vice president considers are approved, and last night was a full moon," the same type of assumption is present ("the stage of the moon affects the likelihood that the next budget proposal will be turned down"), but your analysis goes out the window.  Do you see how the number of budget proposals is now completely irrelevant?  Do you see how the fact that half of the proposals are approved is completely irrelevant?  Well, all of that was completely irrelevant in the first place.

Let's say there are 10 requests and the last 5 are denied then the next one will likely be approved.

Good grief, now you're making the same stupid assumption the author did!

lol at the Kaplan reference.  I was thinking the same thing and almost posted the question 'llsatt1, have you been drinking the Kaplan cool-aide?'

llsatt1, you are all over the place and have even contradicted yourself a few times with your analysis.  

Let's start from scratch and make sure you understand the question stem because I think that might be where your misunderstanding is partially coming from.  The reasoning is FLAWED because it 'presumes, without giving warrant, that'.  The presumes without warrant part is equivalent to saying assumes or assumption, meaning that you are supposed to be selecting the answer choice that states a faulty assumption the conclusion of the argument is relying on.  Since it tells you that the reasoning is flawed BECAUSE of the assumption, it is asking you to identify an assumption that is not reasonable or logical to make.  

It boils down in part to the difference between warranted and unwarranted assumptions.  

To illustrate this in general terms about warranted vs. unwarranted/flawed assumptions:

Is it safe to assume that when it rains that the streets get wet?  ABSOLUTELY!  That is a warranted assumption.  
Is it safe to assume that when somebody is talking about an alligator or a snake that they are talking about a reptile even if they don't specifically say they are reptiles?  Yes, that is common sense.  

As it applies to this LR question, is it safe to assume that past events and the statistics about them (remember, statistics are compilations of data about many past events over time calculated into averages and other statistical measures) will determine or likely determine what is going to happen with the next event regarding the subject matter in question?  NO!  That is a logically flawed unwarranted assumption.

I'd bet that if you went to Vegas or a casino somewhere and played roulette that your reasoning and betting strategy would be something like 'the last 5 spins came up black so red is due and going to hit next' and bet red.  

llsatt1, you need to learn the common flawed methods of reasoning much better as well as learn logically valid methods of reasoning and be able to tell the difference between the two sets.  If you're getting your LSAT prep from a Kaplan book or something related or like that, put it down and get some prep from a quality source with quality materials.  

Earlcat knows his $hit about all this and so do I.  

If you want to get good advice and improve your score, instead of being combative/argumentative/recalcitrant or whatever, I suggest you listen to advice from people that know this stuff by asking questions for clarification or whatever in a friendly way instead of vigorously trying to defend flawed and incorrect reasoning.  

One common type of counter productive attitude people prepping for the test get and let guide themselves (which leads them to not doing as well as possible) is trying to argue with the test and fighting and arguing that the credited answer choice is not or should not be correct.  

The test is very well constructed and put together with tons of extensive quality control and review procedures before a question appears on an administered exam in a scored question in order to make sure the logic and everything is sound.  There have been very few of the 5000+ administered questions that were later removed from scoring.  I can count them on two hands barely needing the fingers of my second hand.

You are preparing for the LSAT.  Earlcat, myself, and many other people on this and other related boards have achieved 99% scores (high 170 range) and have been teaching and tutoring people for the LSAT for many years.  Instead of fighting with us, just ask questions and we'll be glad to help.  

I know you guys like to challenge me, but get real.  Do you really think I need you to clarify "presumes, without warrant"?

Studying for the LSAT / Re: Questions on the Dec 2007 LSAT--help!
« on: February 02, 2010, 03:46:06 PM »
Sorry, I am not able to give an explanation to your inquiry...

But I do have a problem with answer choice D

Why D confused me is because of the wording.

D states = the 2 studies in which no correlation was found did not examine enough children to provide significant support for any conclusion regarding a causal relationship between night lights and nearsightedness

I think this would be correct if the answer choice was worded like this:

the 2 studies in which no correlation was found did not examine enough children to provide significant support for any conclusion regarding " the relationship between night lights and nearsightedness disappearing with age."

Please let me know your thoughts and an explanation for why D is correct worded the way it was - Thank you

Structure of the argument:

Test 1 ->  there might be a causal relationship
Test 2 and 3 -> did not find any evidence of a correlation or causal relationship so the problem may disappear with age

Based on test 2 and 3, test 1 could still be correct and the problem may disappear with age.

Answer choice:  however, if 2 and 3 are faulty experiments, the problem may not disappear with age.  This weakens the argument

Studying for the LSAT / Re: Can anyone explain this flaw question?
« on: January 30, 2010, 01:13:49 PM »
I think "changed name" and earlcat are on the money here. My first instinct was using changed name's reasoning, and it would lead you to the correct answer. Earlcat's explanation is even more precise though imo and the wording of what he said is very likely exactly what the lsat would use as the correct answer.

no insult to "changed name" but the discussion of probability in the way he described it is completely irrelevant.  Since about half are approved there is a dependency between the denied and approved sets.

Earlcat's explanation is out of scope.  There is no reason to believe we need more information about the procedures of budget approval.  Either it is approved or it isn't.  Assuming there is more information to budget approval is the type of out of scope thinking LSAC does not want you to do.

The reasoning is simple.  If you know the total number of budget requests and you know how many have been denied then you might be able to make a reasonable judgment as to whether the next one might be approved.  Let's say there are 100 requests and 5 have been denied, then there is no reason to believe the next one will be approved.  This weakens the argument.  Let's say there are 10 requests and the last 5 are denied then the next one will likely be approved.  The fact is we don't know the total number so we cannot just assume the next one will be approved on the basis of the last five being denied.

Law School Admissions / Re: Am I required to submit all transcripts?
« on: January 30, 2010, 01:00:00 PM »

seconded.  You must submit transcripts from all colleges and universities attended.

Personal Statement of XXXXX                  January 2010

“I believe in America because we have great dreams - and because we have the opportunity to make those dreams come true.” ~Wendell L. Wilkie

This quote encapsulates why I desire to study the law.  The essence of America is its great democratic institutions, and it is our great democracy that makes these dreams possible.  Now, more than any other time in our history, they are under attack from forces seen and unseen. And it is lawyers who are at the vanguard of the fight to preserve the democratic fundamentals and freedoms we take for granted.
Throughout my life, I have always wanted to give back to my family and my country.  One of the most effective ways to give back is by obtaining a law degree to promote and preserve the privileges we enjoy.  These privileges were not always available, especially for the six generations of XXXXX before me.  In July, 1776, my ancestor John XXXXX enlisted in the Continental Army soon after the heralding of the Declaration of Independence.  He fought the British at the Battle of Brooklyn and the Battle of Fort Washington.  Three generations later, Marshall XXXXX smelted iron in one of the oldest blast furnaces in New Jersey to make rails for our newly adopted railroads that would propel our economy into the next century.  My grandfather protected our shores in the U.S. Coast Guard during World War II, and currently my father has the same national pride working as a federal agent with the Environmental Protection Agency after serving 13 years in the Marine Corps.
   But it was while working as an intern with the U.S. Probation Office that I saw firsthand why there is such a great need for protecting the poor and downtrodden.  During my internship, I witnessed people of color receiving longer sentences than whites and those of affluence, even when, from a victim impact perspective, the sentences should have been reversed. This racial unfairness in the courtroom is most grievous, yet ever present, in our criminal justice system.  I have the passion to fight this injustice, and feel impelled to do so, as I fear that ideals like “justice for all” and “democracy” will mean nothing to the victims of these prejudices, and will inevitably undermine all confidence in our systems of government in general, and in our criminal “justice” system in particular.  To the victims of this injustice, their perception is that the system is broken, so why maintain it?  And just like the former Soviet Union eventually imploded because its systems were so fundamentally unfair, only a fool would believe that could not happen here.
   Democracy is America’s most prized possession. We must be vigilant to protect its fundamentals, and to advance its goals in our daily life, lest we lose it.  As a lawyer, I know I will be uniquely qualified and able to preserve it for future generations.  I humbly ask you for the opportunity to obtain the education I need to do my part.  Thank you for your consideration.

This essay needs major work.  The beginning sounds so cliche I cringed.  Using law as a way to give back to your country is a huge stretch.  Well maybe I should become an investment fund manager to give back to America because it preserves the financial security of everyone.  If you submit this essay as is you will not get in.  I guarantee it.

Law School Admissions / Re: Addendum Question
« on: January 28, 2010, 08:08:46 AM »
I just have a quick question about attaching an addendum to my apps.

I graduated in Dec. '08, and decided to take a year off to work and save money before law school. For the first few months out of college, I had great difficulty finding a job due to the economic climate, and was only able to find work as a receptionist 20 hrs/wk at a real estate office in Houston. In the process of the job search, I was invited by a friend of mine to move from Texas to California, where she said I could find a job as a personal assistant in Silicon Valley. I moved in May, and I found that she was right - I found a wonderful, well-paying job in July. So, there was a two month period, from May to July, where I was unemployed and job searching in California.

So, my question is: should I write an addendum about this gap in time after college graduation and between jobs? Other than this I have a very strong application with a good LSAT score, very high GPA, excellent personal statement (in my opinion), and recommendations from two very close professors.

Let me know! I do appreciate it!

Are you seriously asking this question?  goodness.

Will be in LA, CA on business on that day but registered in Cary, NC.  Has anyone had success as a walk in?  Or does anyone have advise on the best venue in LA that might have availability day for a walk in?

call LSAC

Choosing the Right Law School / Re: Where should I go!?!?!
« on: January 22, 2010, 03:08:33 PM »

a lot of people would even tell you that paying full at places like Penn or Northwestern is a bad investment these days.  .

Penn and Northwestern both have small classes. employment prospects are still good at both schools, even in these times.  the economy will get better.

Law School Admissions / Re: help..a typo in submitted PS
« on: January 22, 2010, 03:03:18 PM »
In a corner of my PS, I typed "career bath" for "career path"...

Looks hilarious, doesn't it? have rechecked for too many times and I have almost memorized it...yet still...

I am an international applicant, with an LSAT score right their median.

Is it advisable for me to write an e-mail to the admission office?

it is too late for you to do anything now.  these kinds of things happen all the time so don't worry too much.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8