I was here all week reading the posts but never felt like posting any. Too much stress from studying.
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 - giveme170
It all depends on where you start. I think it's possible to improve as much as you are willing to work for. As for me, My original diagnostic was a 146. I screwed around with my prep and got a 152 on the Dec. 06 test. Big mistake. After that, I made the choice to buckle down and put in the work and it has paid great dividends. Before the Sept. test I was preping at 168-169 consistantly. I had a bad day (-8 on games, normally - 1) and got a 163 so I'm retaking. The great thing about it is that I have the chance to get even better before December. It's an opportunity.
Hey, how long did you prep? anything above 170 would make me so happy.
It is not correct that the people of the United States, relatively to comparable countries, are the most lightly taxed. True, the United States has the lowest tax, as percent of gross domestic product, of the Western industrialized countries, but tax rates alone do not tell the whole story. People in the United States pay out of pocket for many goods and services provided from tax revenues elsewhere. Consider universal health care, which is an entitlement supported by tax revenues in every other Western industrialized country. United States government health-care expenditures are equivalent to about 5 percent of the gross domestic product, but private health-care expenditures represent another 7 percent. This 7 percent, then, amounts to a tax.
The argument concerning whether the people of the US are most lightly taxed is most vulnerable to which one of the following criticisms?
A) It bases a comparison on percentages rather than on absolute numbers.
B) It unreasonably extends the application of a key term.
E) It sets up a dichotomy between alternatives that are not exclusive.
Could someone break down the argument and explain why each answer choice is right/wrong? I did understand the argument, but do not find a drastic flaw with it. Thanks in advance.
« on: November 02, 2007, 09:41:18 AM »
I studied for the MCAT before, I did not feel that MCAT was necessarily too difficult, it was just that there were so much to do. Studying for the LSAT is ok even though some stuff I learned were pretty complex, simply because therre really isn't that much to learn.
« on: November 02, 2007, 09:27:32 AM »
It seems like most people who scored over 170 have studied less than 3 months. Most of these people would get into pretty good law school unless they have a horrible GPA. Would you people say getting into law school is considerably easier than getting into med schools? It seems like many people who scored over 170 (including people I know) did not necessarily study hard to get their score, whereas most of my pre-med friends are spending endless hours in the library to get those A's on their organic chem classes. I myself studied for the LSAT for the past few months and made 15+ points increase on my score, but I am really starting to think all of this is happening way too fast and easy, at least compared to what my premed friends are going through. Is it like getting into law school is much easier than getting into med school? Are med students comparatively more diligent than law students? I am just curious about what you guys think.
Hana said she was not going to invite her brothers to her birthday party. However, among the gifts Hana received at her party was a recording in which she had expressed an interest. Since her brothers had planned to give her that recording, at least some of Hana's brothers must have been among the guests at Hana's Birthday party after all.
Reasoning error in the argument:
B) treats the fact that of someone's presence at a given event as a guarantee that that person had a legitimate reason to be at that event.
D) fails to establish that something true of some people is true of only those people
E) overlooks the possibility that a person's interest in one kind of thing is compatible with that person's interest in a different kind of thing.
Could someone break down the argument and explain what function each part of the argument plays? I think the CR would make much more sense to me if I understood the reasoning structure... Thanks for the help!