# 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 - cbm_flyer

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10
31
##### Studying for the LSAT / Re: Question about LSAT Logic
« on: November 03, 2006, 12:03:09 PM »
I don't know about wanting to take it, but I do understand about flaking on a games section!!!    I was all excited I got a 172 on a PT, then immediately followed it up with a 162 'cause I couldn't pull my head out of my rear (PMHOMR) on the Games for some reason!

Could also apply that acronym to others, as in PYHOYR.

Sub A for R as one sees fit!

CW

32
##### Studying for the LSAT / Re: The Ultimate LSAT Games Advice Thread
« on: November 03, 2006, 11:35:19 AM »
from another thread, where X --> Y

...the LGs are cut and dry (if x, then y never implies x or y).

They do always seem to test that you know that just because Y is there, doesn't mean X has to be there.  Yay conditional reasoning!

33
##### Studying for the LSAT / Re: Games Question
« on: November 03, 2006, 11:30:34 AM »
You can't have more than three words in a row that start with the same letter, and all the words must be in alphabetical order.

So, at Z: Z Z Z, then you run out of the ability to be in alphabetical order.

If you start with X: then you haven't gone far enough.  X X X Y Y  (still could've used Z).

Therefore, the only solution is to start with Y: Y Y Y Z Z, or even Y Y Z Z Z

Hope this helps!
~CW

34
##### Studying for the LSAT / Re: The Ultimate LSAT Games Advice Thread
« on: November 03, 2006, 11:22:48 AM »
Another excellent post.  OK, with the GAK out of the way...no seriously:

Some initial thoughts...

- IMHO it's all in the set-ups.  It's worth the effort to learn a good set-up strategy, and stick with it.  I personally think PowerScore (or TestMasters) has that market cornered; but if something else works for you, sweet!

-- Of course, the ability to do a good set-up doesn't just depend upon good diagramming, but it also starts with being able to interpret and link conditional and other rules.  [And not missing or forgetting rules, as some of us, *ahem, me*, sometimes do].

- Watch out for the Either/Or.  Unless they say "but not both," then it could be both.

More to follow!

35
##### Non-Traditional Students / Re: Married and... moving away from your spouse for LS?
« on: November 03, 2006, 11:11:30 AM »
Yup, just giving my prof another week to get my LoR in. I think it would be best to have a complete app sent together, but I won't hold out forever waiting.

Cool.  Best of Luck!

36
##### Non-Traditional Students / Re: Married and... moving away from your spouse for LS?
« on: November 03, 2006, 10:54:35 AM »
Not really directed at you. No matter how much I may disagree with the wisdom of the OP, I think it is a bit harsh to use her personal story as a bully pulpit.

Gotcha!  Still think it's kind of strange.

BTW...you still applying to those NY schools?

~CW

37
##### Studying for the LSAT / Re: Liz's Guide to All Some Most None
« on: November 03, 2006, 10:52:04 AM »

knock yourself out, baby.

OK, OK, I know!!!  I've posted more today than in the previous four months combined!  (Boss Out of Office)

But reading all these links makes me want to contribute...I can't help it...it's a compulsion.  Help!

38
##### Studying for the LSAT / Re: Question about LSAT Logic
« on: November 03, 2006, 10:30:39 AM »
Sounds good to me!

39
##### Studying for the LSAT / Re: Liz's Guide to All Some Most None
« on: November 03, 2006, 10:29:36 AM »
Would it be helpful if I added the SOME ARE NOT / NOT ALL category?  Rare, but cogent.

SOME ARE NOT / NOT ALL
0-99

~CW

40
##### Non-Traditional Students / Re: Married and... moving away from your spouse for LS?
« on: November 03, 2006, 10:18:43 AM »