### 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 - cs_rudy

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... 13
11
##### Personal Statements, Resumes, and Letters of Recommendation / Re: Pretty final draft of my PS. Any help would be appreicated.
« on: December 12, 2007, 01:37:55 AM »
PM it I'll take a look

12
##### Studying for the LSAT / Re: GMAT after LSAT, anyone here done that?
« on: December 07, 2007, 08:35:44 AM »
I wouldn't normally post this on LSD but due to the nature of this thread it seems fitting.

What are the powerscore bibles of the GMAT prep world? I need to take the GMAT and I want to buy the best prep materials possible. If anyone could provide a list of the best study books, I would appreciate it.

13
##### Studying for the LSAT / Re: GMAT after LSAT, anyone here done that?
« on: December 07, 2007, 12:04:31 AM »
I love the unsupported assertion in the last posters post that because the GMAT is graded on a curve there's no difference in "difficulty". What does the curve have to do with anything? Are the questions more difficult or are they not?

14
##### Personal Statements, Resumes, and Letters of Recommendation / Re: Anyone willing to read a FINAL PS draft?
« on: November 29, 2007, 09:34:13 PM »
I'll read it if you'd like.

15
##### Studying for the LSAT / Re: Assumption question
« on: November 29, 2007, 09:23:38 PM »
C---> not T

P---> T

Conclusion:

P---> not H

or

H---> not P

We need a premise that makes this conclusion follow. If we combine our other terms we get:

C--->not T--->not P

or

P--->T--->not C

Answer choice B says H--->C, which yields:

H--->C--->not T--->not P

simplified: H--->Not P

Thus B allows the argument to be properly drawn.

16
##### Studying for the LSAT / Re: Conditional Reasoning question
« on: November 29, 2007, 09:16:20 PM »
MB ---> D

D ---> I

Therefore, MB ---> I; S ---> Not MB

S--->not MB is unsupported, so we need a premise that supports it.

Answer choice D says "the spirit is perfect" which is the same as saying the spirit is not imperfect.

S--->not I

If we take the contrapositive of MB ---> I, we get not I---> not MB. If we combine this with D we get:

S--->not I--->not MB

Which yields S--->not MB, which is the unsupported part of the conclusion.

17
##### Studying for the LSAT / Re: How Many Hours Do I Need To Study?
« on: November 29, 2007, 06:42:55 PM »
If you're already reading prosser and keaton, you only need around 22.5 hours.

18
##### Studying for the LSAT / Re: my best LR score yet!!!!
« on: November 28, 2007, 05:40:48 PM »
I missed a record high 5 on the second section of September '07 and as I went over them, they were all really easy. Something about that last section is mind numbing.

19
##### Studying for the LSAT / Re: December 2003/Test 42: Game 4: Question 19
« on: November 27, 2007, 08:37:12 AM »
Ahhh...thanks. I took it to mean that two reviewers had to review more than one play together (which could only be M and O). So O would always be greater than K. Now I get it. Thanks Jeffort.

20
##### Studying for the LSAT / Re: Tough Point At Issue Question
« on: November 27, 2007, 08:35:00 AM »
Sorry for being a pest, but if the LSAT is all about precise wording, how can unforseen  technologies equate to expected technologies, as Luis says?

Is assuming that unforseen consequences does not equal expected consequences assuming too much? And if so, why?

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... 13