### 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 - mentor

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7
51
##### Studying for the LSAT / Re: Question about Main Point questions
« on: August 03, 2007, 12:07:11 PM »
note that TCR MBT with regards to the stimulus material as it's the main conclusion, but they aren't the same question type as MP Q's eliminate premises or subsidiary conclusions as the answer.

52
##### Studying for the LSAT / Re: Mistaken Negations and Mistaken Reversals
« on: July 25, 2007, 09:48:41 AM »
No, they are not always invalid. You just can't assume that they're always true. Think of this example: If you are happy, then you must be smart.
H->S

If you are smart, you could also be happy (MR). If you are not happy, you could be not-smart (MN). The whole point behind MR, MN and contrapostitives is that contrapositives MUST ALWAYS be true, but the others could be, but are not necessarily true.

Yes, the inverse and converse (Mistaken Negation and Mistaken Reversal in the Powerscore lexicon) are always invalid.  Validity and truth are two different things.  Validity occurs when your conclusion must be true based on the truth of its supporting premises.  So here we have the affirmation that functions as our premise:

H-->S

And we can validly conclude two things:

1.) The affirmation itself H-->S, which is circular and essentially useless as a separate conclusion, but by definition valid;
2.) The contrapositive !S-->!H, as the truth of this statement is inferred from the truth of the premise.

The other two conclusions we can reach are invalid:

1.) The converse S-->H.
2.) The inverse !H-->!S.

The fact that our original affirmation H-->S is true but these latter two statements based on it could possibly be false is what makes them invalid.  We don't need to prove a conclusion false to invalidate the argument, just that the possibility is there.

Either way, the inverse and converse may be true - we certainly cannot prove them false - but are invalid.

53
##### Law School Admissions / Splitter Strategy
« on: July 22, 2007, 03:01:08 PM »
I remember reading at some point the theory that there was a happy medium for splitters' application dates - that, obviously, early is good but that it wasn't optimal for splitters to have the first applications in.  Are there any thoughts on this, or when splitters should submit?

54
##### Visits, Admit Days, and Open Houses / Re: What really is the difference between Cooley and U of Denver?
« on: July 22, 2007, 02:50:49 PM »
I think this factor may sum up the whole of Cooley's self-rank:

Program Achievement Rating Rank - The only figure reported in this system that is not evident from the Official Guide is a school's PAR rank. However, the figures used for this rank are found in the Guide. In essence, each school's reported bar passage rate is divided by a quality index computed through a combination of LSAT and UGPA scores reported for that school [the formula used is Bar passage rate/(GPA x 15 + LSAT) x .5]. This rating measures the effectiveness of a school's academic program, since it considers each school's bar results in the context of the quality of the school's incoming classes. See the Cooley Web page at www.cooley.edu for details.

In essence, it claims that they are among the best schools in the nation because they can elevate the legal abilities of their students beyond their initial state better than, say, Stanford.  Note that, perversely, were Cooley to admit better students, it would drop in its own ranking - low LSAT and low GPA = higher rank.

55
##### Studying for the LSAT / Re: Gotta release the anger somewhere
« on: July 16, 2007, 10:52:05 AM »
I think he was using the class purely as a pick-up place.

I don't understand what the problem is?

From what I understand, the instructor technically has jus primae noctis with any and all attractive members of the class; this guy was trying to muscle in.  HTH.

56
##### Law School Admissions / Re: 2007-2008 Fee Waiver Roll Call
« on: July 12, 2007, 01:22:34 AM »
Anyone leave the class rank part of CRS blank and get these waivers?

57
##### Studying for the LSAT / Re: Plateau
« on: July 09, 2007, 11:30:52 PM »
Go back to basics - spend a couple hours reviewing the fundamentals of logic.  Review conditional logic and argument validity, do it slowly, and then go back to looking specifically at the question types you're missing.

58
##### Studying for the LSAT / June LSAT takers - your thoughts on comparative RC
« on: July 01, 2007, 04:17:35 PM »
For those of you that just got your scores (congratulations and/or condolences), what did you think of the comparative RC section?  How did you do compared to the other 3 traditional passages?  Harder?  Easier?  Were you adequately prepared?

59
##### Studying for the LSAT / Re: PSA: LSAT SCORES
« on: June 29, 2007, 11:59:12 AM »
Speak for yourself.  I think the LSAT is the most accurate and important factor any admissions officer should ever look for.  GPA, meanwhile, should be banished from the process.

And your rationale is...

Starts with an 'S' and rhymes with 'elf incest.'

60
##### Studying for the LSAT / Re: PSA: LSAT SCORES
« on: June 29, 2007, 11:42:33 AM »
Speak for yourself.  I think the LSAT is the most accurate and important factor any admissions officer should ever look for.  GPA, meanwhile, should be banished from the process.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7