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.

Topics - sg7007

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10
Studying for the LSAT / PT #14 Sec.3(RC) Q.23
« on: June 06, 2008, 04:33:44 AM »
This is the historians/Russian serfdom/US slavery passage.

For Q.23, I put (B) because I thought, if it's true that the resistance of US slaves was not often recorded as historical facts, then it would help strengthen the conclusion of the passage, which is US slaves were smaller in size and resistance of them was less common than that in Russia. My assumption here was that if resistance is less common, then it's more likely to escape the historial record. Is it an unwarranted assumption?

The correct answer is (C). I didn't put it because it doesn't specifically deal with the US slavery or Russian serfdom, thus it is not really relevant to the topic of the passage. Can you see some mistakes in my reasoning?

Studying for the LSAT / PT #14 Sec.3(RC) Q.2
« on: June 06, 2008, 04:27:16 AM »
This is the geophysics/earth polarity question.

I have a trouble getting the answer for Q.2. First of all, I don't quite understand what exactly the question stem is asking about. Is it asking what would've been likely to happen when the opposite of the second hypothesis happened? The second hypothesis is about extraterrestrial object hitting the surface of earth, thereby causing a climatic change, so it's gotta be somehow related to the extinction of dinosaurs. But I don't think I'm correctly understanding what this question is actually asking. Please give me some help.

Studying for the LSAT / PT #16 Sec.4(RC) Q.23
« on: June 02, 2008, 03:40:05 AM »
The correct answer is (D).

The passage says "golden age" theory later becomes a part of the theory of a decline in women's status, and Hoff-Wilson rejected the idea of "golden age," though he agreeed with the theory of a decline in women's status. Can we still say the author mentioned Hoff-Wilson to demonstrate the persistent influence of "golden age" theory? Hope somebody would explain about this.

Thank you.

Studying for the LSAT / PT #16 Sec.4(RC) Q.11
« on: June 02, 2008, 03:33:00 AM »
The passage is about US Supreme Court/Native Indians/Judicial system.

For this question, I can't see why (C) is correct. I read the passage a few times, but I'm still mostly clueless on this question. Could somebody explain this?


Okay. Here's my situation.

I already took the LSAT last September, scoring a 164. (LR:-6, -6, RC: -3, LG: -1) After all, I put down a deposit at W&M, so I can just go to W&M this fall only if I want to. But, for some reason, I see this whole law school thing as a sort of an opportunity to redeem everything that I should've deserved in the past - I went to a T2 college abroad, dropped out of it, went to a shi t-hole state college in the states. Now, I badly, badly wanna get into a T14 which I think is well within my reach.

So, recently I've been scoring around -2 on a LR section timed. I haven't focused on RC, but will do as much as I can for RC for the next two weeks - I'm hoping to get less than -3 on RC on the real thing. LG has been my strongest part. Last year, I missed 1 question on LG, but I still haven't done any LG section recently, and occasionally when my brain goes nuts, I could possibly miss something like 4 or 5 questions. In an ideal scenario, I will get -4 on two LRs, -2 to -3 on RC, -1 on LG, so it's gonna be a 170+. But, my thinking is I could be in a much better shape if I put it off till October. But, the costs of doing so would be huge - foregoing W&M forever. And on top of that, I'm exhausting most of prep materials - I've done like 45 PTs out of 50.

The problem is, if I push it back to October, then I should give up W&M forever. I know I should be able to get into it again next cycle unless I totally ruin the Oct test to get something like a 155, which is very unlikely, but you know, disaster could always happen.

So.. I'm debating if I should just take the June test or push it back to October. What do you guys think?

Studying for the LSAT / PT #15 Sec.2(LR) Q.19
« on: May 26, 2008, 11:38:33 PM »
This is the financial minister/newspaper story problem.

The correct answer is (A) which was not even my contender. So, what is the competing conclusion? My guess was it's that the financial minister was brought down by his political enemies, but I'm not sure about it. If this is the competing conclusion, how does it become so?

Studying for the LSAT / PT #15 Sec.2(LR) Q.16
« on: May 26, 2008, 11:07:43 PM »
This is the amaryllis plants going dormant problem.

The correct answer is (E). I didn't put (E) because assuming going dormant doesn't benefit the plants in any way other than preventing death, I thought the conclusion doesn't fail. How do we know, from the passage, that amaryllis plants need going dormant for some other benefit than for its survival? I think the passage doesn't say anything about it except that plants need going dormant for survival in their native habitat. Is there anything wrong in my thinking?

Studying for the LSAT / PT #18 Sec.2(LR) Q.21
« on: May 21, 2008, 06:41:41 AM »
This is the painting/attribution/art historians question.

So.. (A) is the correct answer. I thought (A) was a pretty attractive answer, but didn't put it because I thought art dealers' tendency for attribution is not really relevant cause the passage mainly deals with art historians. Instead, I put (D). If attribution can shape perception on an art work, then they should be more careful about attribution, and the traditional auto-attribution is problematic. This is what I thought.

Anything wrong?

Studying for the LSAT / PT #18 Sec.2(LR) Q.20
« on: May 21, 2008, 06:37:14 AM »
This is the oxygen-18/cloud/rainfall problem.

(A) and (C) were my contenders. I looked at this question like for 20 minutes. I can never see why (A) can't be true while (C) is supported by the passage. Please help me with this a-hole question.

Studying for the LSAT / PT#18 Sec.2(LR) Q.8
« on: May 21, 2008, 06:35:04 AM »
Please help me with this.
This is the knives/homicide/lethal weapon problem.

I put (A) after debating b/w (A) and (E). I guess (A) weakens the conclusion, but LSAC says not. why doesn't it do anything on the conclusion? And, for (E), I thought it was kinda close to the answer, but it's got such a weird form, a hypothetical.. like "if blah blah then it's blah blah" I can't see LSAC's intention behind this question and the correct answer. Can somebody explain how I could've apporoached this question more effectively?


Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10