Law School Discussion

Nine Years of 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.

Messages - mentor

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9
51
Personal Statement / Re: Prose in line too oerwrought?
« on: October 25, 2007, 09:34:58 PM »
Considering manna was a food, it doesn't even make sense. 

52
Personal Statement / Re: Yale 250
« on: October 25, 2007, 09:30:26 PM »
send it over

53
Well, my SAT math score correlates perfectly using the method with my LSAT score, so everybody else's should too.

You're confused.  The word is actually 'reguiring' - no second 'e' - and doesn't exist as a noun.

54
Sure it could.  The ability to follow a mathematical process and the ability to follow a logical process, which is what LR boils down to, could be very related.  That doesn't mean that V doesn't correlate, just that M does.

55
Personal Statement / Y250 - who wants it?
« on: October 24, 2007, 04:37:10 AM »
First, very rough draft.  280 words.  Takers?

56
Studying for the LSAT / Re: Quick question about formal logic
« on: October 24, 2007, 04:17:10 AM »
It usually indicates 'some,' although I suppose it could, in a highly context-dependent proposition, be treated as a 'not all.'

57
Studying for the LSAT / Re: Can someone explain TCR for this problem?
« on: October 24, 2007, 04:12:54 AM »
The longer a pretzel stays in contact with teeth, the higher likelihood of cavity.

The longer a caramel stays in contact with teeth, the higher likelihood of cavity.

The correlation thus holds within each category (pretzels, caramels).

We have no evidence to compare whether any duration of caramel-teeth contact has a higher or lower likelihood of cavity than any duration of pretzel-teeth contact.

The correlation does not hold across the two categories. 

 

58
You're confused on the meaning/reguirements of general correlation.

As long as I'm busting your balls, 'reguirements' isn't a word.

59
Supposedly...

Take your SAT (say, 1200), divide it by 1/2 (600), drop the last zero (60), and add a one in front (160) to get your predicted LSAT score, plus or minus 5 points (155-165). 

It's a wide range, and you're not necessarily bound by it.  For example, you may have been very unprepped for your SAT, etc. 

1200 divided by 1/2 is 2400.  But we know what you meant.

I heard it was just the math section that correlated.

60
But it's not all HS students... SAT takers may be a larger subset, but they're also self-selecting.

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