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 - sg7007
Pages: 1 2  4 5 6 7 8 ... 28
« on: November 24, 2008, 09:11:45 PM »
I enjoyed your essay a lot. First of all, I felt jealous "to death" about your opportunities to travel around the world cause I've always wanted to, but couldn't really afford time. Here in Korea, I've seen and talked to so many aussies like you traveling - and they're very cool and open-minded.
Regarding your PS, I thought the part that you mentioned about your discussion with an American friend on the gov't sponsored universal health care, was pretty effective. I got an impression that you're a type of a person who's capable of turning things on head and seeing things in a different angle. But, I thought the first part where you described the funny situation in the Japanese hotel was a bit lengthy and relatively less dramatic, though it was still funny. I think it would be good if you went further on why you chose law and how you arrived on that decision.
« on: November 19, 2008, 05:24:33 AM »
Please help me with this weirdo.
- Many believe that the punishment of criminals should be mitigated to some extent if the crime was motivated by a good, sincere desire.
- Nevertheless, judges should never mitigate punishment on the basis of motives, since motives are essentially a matter of conjecture and even the worst motives can easily presented as good.
Q. Which one of the following principles, if valid, most helps to justify the political theorist's reasoning?
(A) Laws that prohibit or permit actions solely on the basis of psychological states should not be part of a legal system.
(B) It is better to err on the side of overly severe punishment than to err on the side of overly lenient punishment.
(C) The legal permissibility of actions should depend on the perceivable consequences of those actions.
I put (C). The correct answer's (B). All of these, (A), (B), (C) were my contenders and I still have less than clear clue on why (B) is the answer. I guess (C) is not the answer because the legal permissibility of actions may depend on the motives of the actions as well as on the perceivable consequences of them. I thought (B) was kind of too simplistic of an answer to be the correct choice. (A) also sounds pretty plausible.
Could someone explain with clarity why (B) has to be the answer and not (A) and (C)?
« on: November 19, 2008, 04:54:31 AM »
It's always embarrasing to miss a question within Q1-10. cause I just assume I get them right.
Anyways, here's a paraphrase.
- Prior to 1700, pilings for bridge piers were driven to "refusal," that is, to the point at which they refuse to go any deeper.
- In 1588, a folk named Da Ponte had met the contemporary standard for refusal, that is, to have the pilings to be driven until additional penetration into the ground is no greater than two inches after 24 hammer blows.
Q. Which one of the following can properly be inferred from the passage?
(C) Da Ponte's standard of refusal was less strict than that of other bridge builders of his day.
(E) It is possible that the pilings of Da Ponte's bridge could have been driven deeper even after the standard of refusal had been met.
I put (C). (E) is the correct answer.
Here's how I understood it:
1. the contemporary standard for refusal is less strict than "refusal."
2. In around 1588, many builders other than Da Ponte met the standard of "refusal," not the contemporary standard for refusal.
3. Therefore, Da Ponte's standard of refusal was less strict than other builders' of his day. ->(C)
(E) was also my contender, but didn't pick it because I thought first, Da Ponte didn't have the pilings to be driven to the point of "refusal," and second, you never know for sure if there would've been a room for pilings to go even deeper after meeting "refusal."
Can anybody tell me what is wrong with my reasoning?
Thanks in advance.
« on: November 19, 2008, 02:46:18 AM »
My condolences. The LSAT was rough enough for me and I'm a native speaker and voracious reader.
People disparage URM's (and even non-URM's) who get into top schools with lower numbers, but LSN obviously doesn't tell the story behind the numbers. Not trying to sound like a cliche Dean of Admissions in an interview .
IMO, if an ESL student, who started speaking English under 10 years ago, is able to score, say, a 164 on the LSAT, an argument can be made that they're intellectually on the same level, or even higher, than a 99 percentile native language test takers. I mean, that's domination in a language that's not even your first.
If it helps ease your pain at all, Ivey gives two reasons for writing good low LSAT addenda. One of them is being an ESL student. Get your score into the 160's and you'll have options. Trust me.
I've got a 164 from last year, and I've gone through a full app cycle back then. I was accepted into 5 schools with my 164/3.80, but those schools were just the ones that anyone could've got into with the same numbers. After all, I know I didn't really get a boost just because I'm a foreign minority student. Then, am I complaining about that here? No.
I can see you're an empathetic person, and I deeply agree with you on that ESL people with 160's LSAT score actually have a potential to get above 170s. But, I think, after all, this whole law school thing is about meritocracy. I mean, what matters is whether you can perform as good as they expect you to, as of the date you take the LSAT, in the "English" language. I don't mean to sound like a foreign exchange student's version of a right-wing conservative dickhead, but actually there are some ESL ppl who actually get 170s with the disadvantge of speaking a second language that has to be translated into their native tongue in their brain.
« on: November 17, 2008, 09:15:01 AM »
I'm also an ESL LSAT taker.. Yeah, it give you a tremendous challenge to take the LSAT as an ESL speaker. I also have a hard time finishing RCs in time. Somehow, now I managed to finish LRs in time with a pretty good accuracy (-1 to -3 wrong Qs.) LG has always been natural for me unless there's a monster game set included. So, the RC is the biggest huddle for me. What I do to get myself used to reading dense texts is to simply read as much as I can - NY Times, CNN, Time, Newsweek, Books, magazines etcetc. I still have some fear when I start reading the LSAT passages, especially those horrendous science-tech passages. I have less problem with history, law, or sociology topics, but have a hard time memorizing facts in those science passages with a lot of minor details. (Can someone give me an advice how to do this? Should I memorize the details at all?)
I guess there's just no easy way to tackle RC passages. I wish I had a year to improve on my basic reading ability, but time is always a scarce commodity.
« on: November 17, 2008, 09:05:01 AM »
It makes sense. Thanks billions.
« on: November 17, 2008, 09:00:12 AM »
You're absolutely right, Bernie. I never thought I came to a wrong conclusion. The whole time, I've been thinking it's the conclusion that TV shows should be restricted. With the correct conclusion, everything becomes easy and the world makes sense again.
« on: November 17, 2008, 08:28:05 AM »
I was trying to come up with the function of the lines within the whole passage, but it's good to know that the question's actually asking its function at that point.
Also, when they ask for the function of the example, the question is specifically "what role is it playing in that paragraph?" So although we might find out later in the passage that computers are incapable of handling those problems, at that point in the passage, the point is only to show examples of types of unanticipated problems.
I love these questions the most, because all you have to do is read back up one line to find out what the example is an example of:
"[Computer] systems underestimated the problems of interpretation that can arise at every stage of a legal argument."
"illustrate a vulnerability of rule systems in computerized legal reasoning"
The answer is always a clever rephrase of that sentence before.
« on: November 16, 2008, 08:10:13 AM »
I applied in the last cycle, so this is the second time around for me. I already have my old PS and DS ,and I think I'll apply to most of the schools that I applied last time. Do I need to write new essays? Or can I just send the same PS and DS to the schools that I've already applied?
« on: November 14, 2008, 07:47:37 AM »
Let me rephrase the question.
- Some people claim that it is inconsistent to support freedom of speech and also support limiting violence on TV. But, it is not.
- The damage done by violent TV shows is more harmful than the decrease in freedom of speech by limiting it. Therefore we can limit violent TV shows.
Question: Which one of the following principles, if valid, most helps to justify the critic's reasoning.
I put (D), which says "If the exercise of a basic freedom leads to some harm, then the exercise of that freedom should be restricted." I thought this principle was kind of an overkill, nevertheless it can do the most sweeping justification for the argument. In the passage, it's argued that TV shows can be limited because violent TV shows do more harm than the loss from limitation in freedom of speech. Then, the principle that says if there's any harm in some activity then it should be restricted, can correctly justify the argument, I thought. Is there anything wrong in my thinking?
The correct answer is (B), which says "One can support freedom of speech while at the same time recognizing that it can sometimes be overriden by other interests." This sounds pretty good, too. But, I thought "other interests" was too weak or too vague to strengthen the argument.
What do you think?
Pages: 1 2  4 5 6 7 8 ... 28