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 - robbief

Pages: 1 ... 11 12 13 14 15 [16] 17 18 19 20 21
151
Studying for the LSAT / Re: LR hot day.
« on: August 18, 2004, 10:53:18 AM »
I can't find the cholesterol one.  Same test?

152
Studying for the LSAT / Re: LR hot day.
« on: August 18, 2004, 10:44:05 AM »
Bummerz, are these all from the SAME test??? What test.  I was comforted by the fact that these all seemed more difficult than usual and therefore, even if I missed one, it would be OK.

153
Studying for the LSAT / Re: LR perception.
« on: August 18, 2004, 10:25:23 AM »
I guess in less fancy terminology, I was saying exactly what cas... said.  The stimulus messes up the suff/nec. clauses.  But, yes, my answer was confusing and I was surprised that jeit was able to understand what I said.  I wouldn't have understood what I said if I didn't write it.

154
Studying for the LSAT / Re: LR perception.
« on: August 18, 2004, 10:12:26 AM »
Thanks, I thought my efforts were going unnoticed.

155
Studying for the LSAT / Re: LR perception.
« on: August 18, 2004, 09:54:08 AM »
No, I'm ALMOST positive that in a p. reasoning, if they don't mention flaw, it's because it's not flawed.  If and only if they say "what flaw parellels" or whatever, are we to find a flaw.

156
Studying for the LSAT / Re: LR perception.
« on: August 18, 2004, 09:25:27 AM »
Well his reasoning about what perception isn't is wrong (I can't explain).  That "flaw" is a very big help.  Bc now you know, look at the answer choices and if any of them have correct logic, they're out.  This is the difference btw parallel reasoning and matching the flaw or whatever.  If it didn't write "flaw" than you would assume you are looking for an answer with correct logic.  I think you can usually rule two or three out just by knowing if it's flawed or not. 

157
Studying for the LSAT / Re: LR perception.
« on: August 18, 2004, 09:15:35 AM »
I think my answer was more intuitive than an act of figuring out the actual logic.

In the stimulus he explains what perception can't be, and his reasoing is that there imperceivable things that we have beliefs.

My logic was, that's great, just because we have beliefs about imperceptable things, that says nothing about things we DO perceive.

In other words, it tries to define something by what it's not.  "A" does the exact same thing.  "Art is not..., because we know such and such about what art isn't"

Right, so I know my explanation was worthless.  I guess, in truth, A just seemed to mimic the stimulus exactly.  Take it for what you will.

158
Studying for the LSAT / Re: LR perception.
« on: August 18, 2004, 08:08:49 AM »
A?

159
Politics and Law-Related News / Re: You Guess the Verdict - Melons...
« on: August 18, 2004, 08:05:38 AM »
But he explicitly says that theft wasn't the charge. right?

160
Politics and Law-Related News / Re: You Guess the Verdict - Melons...
« on: August 18, 2004, 07:53:49 AM »
Tresspassing

Pages: 1 ... 11 12 13 14 15 [16] 17 18 19 20 21