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.

Messages - Changed Name

Pages: 1 ... 66 67 68 69 70 [71] 72 73 74
Law School Admissions / Re: How do you know you've gone complete?
« on: November 07, 2007, 10:11:00 PM »
Any number of methods: some schools send you something in the mail, some schools email you, and some have a status check thing where it will tell you when you're complete.

For me, I think the majority of my complete notices have come by email. Second would be by mail.

Law School Admissions / Re: Can somebody explain "complete" for me?
« on: November 07, 2007, 08:39:40 PM »

couple questions:
1. If I submit the app now without the letters of that okay if they are on their way? Is that better worse or doesn't mater? If I get one letter in by the deadline and the other will come within a few days after that is that okay also?

You can submit your apps without the letters but you won't go complete at a school that requires them until they are in. LSDAS will send an updated copy of your file once your letters do come in.

As for whether it'll prevent you from getting in time for the ED deadline, like Eveman said, it really depends on the school. Call the school and tell them your situation and maybe they'll make some sort of allowance for you. If your letters aren't close to being in (as in, not sent yet) then it might take you awhile because it takes up to two weeks to process after they receive them. I don't know if there's any way to hasten the process for LORs.

And remember, not going through ED isn't the end of the world. Some people have said that they've heard a lot of schools don't really give that much of a boost to candidates who apply ED. But I'm not sure, take it for what it is.

Either way, I wish you the best of luck this cycle. By the way, where were you thinking of applying ED?

Law School Admissions / Re: Can somebody explain "complete" for me?
« on: November 07, 2007, 04:32:45 PM »
If you want to do ED, I'd submit that app. right now. It's still possible and likely that the school, itself, will attempt to hasten its process in light of the fact that you are doing ED. At worse, if you don't meet the deadline, they'll throw in the RD pile (which is what you would probably do anyway, right?)

Law School Admissions / Re: Can somebody explain "complete" for me?
« on: November 07, 2007, 03:35:39 PM »
Even if you have all the required materials in at LSDAS, after you send in your application (by pressing "send"), you are not automatically "complete."

The length of time to go complete at a school varies from school to school. Some schools want a paper copy of all your documents sent in. Some schools take a long time to even request your report. I've had my reports requested and sent in at many schools, and I still haven't heard anything from a lot of them.

With some schools, you go complete really soon after you submit. But, don't count on being complete at all your schools really soon just because you have all your materials sent in.

The guy is arguing that harvesting trees from old-growth forests can reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere because if they die in the forest they release their stored CO2.

In a weakening question we want to show that "it is not the case" that the conclusion follows from the premise(s).

In this argument, we would want to show that "It is not the case that harvesting trees from old-growth forests can reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere."

So the "hole" in the argument here would be that it assumes that harvesting trees will not release CO2. TCR basically tells us that the harvesting from old-growth will decompose anyway (and thereby releases CO2). Thus, it is not the case that harvesting these trees will lead to a lessening of CO2.

Hope that helps..

I just got my acceptance letter in the mail also! First one..woo-hoo!! haha.. good luck to everyone else..

Studying for the LSAT / Re: flaw question
« on: November 05, 2007, 08:51:04 PM »
I'll give it a shot..

The guy is basically arguing that people's intentions, on the whole, can't be more bad than good. This is because if people did BELIEVE that other people's intentions were more bad than good, then society could not survive.

The flaw here is that he's assuming that just because someone believes that something can lead to the end of society that it cannot be true.

I need to get better at explaining..

Studying for the LSAT / Re: stuck between two choices...
« on: November 01, 2007, 12:56:52 AM »

The Economist is arguing that it is unlikely that real wages will increase significantly in the near future because the country's businesses are currently investing very little in new technology.

What do we know? We know that if real wages increase then there has been an increase in productivity.

The economists says that this isn't going to happen because there isn't investment in technology.

What does he assume? He's assuming that the only way to increase productivity is to invest in technology. (If we wanted to weaken his argument, we could just say that there are other ways of increasing productivity that do not require investing in technology).

The answer you chose would seem to make sense within the context of the argument, but it would not be the assumption that his argument rides upon.

Hope that helps...

Studying for the LSAT / Re: ahhh can someone help with diagramming
« on: October 31, 2007, 09:59:12 PM »
I also have trouble with the word "only."

For some reason, I think you have the conclusion reversed. I think it should be

Appreciate advances --> Computer Scientists

It would help if i knew the question stem. If it is supposed to be a flaw question, then I'm probably wrong since it looks like that would make a valid argument.

I'm curious as to what it should be. Can someone who knows please chime in?


Studying for the LSAT / Re: fossil fuels
« on: October 31, 2007, 09:44:01 PM »
Hello, again..

The argument is basically that the guy believes that it is possible for fossil-fuel producers to reduce their levels of carbon dioxide despite the fact they don't think so. Why does he believe this? Because the chemical industry used to say they couldn't do it, but they managed to figure it out.

What are his assumptions? He's assuming that the chemical companies' situation is similar to this situation. He is also assuming that it is indeed possible for the fossil-fuel companies to actually do this.

Answer D gives us the best option, basically telling us that it is actually probable.

E doesn't really strengthen his argument because it kind of just summarizes his argument. Another problem with E is that it seems too strong, because if you look at his argument, he claims that it's "probably" false. E is a very strong answer.

Again, I'm new at explaining, and I don't think that was very good. The Freak seems to be pretty good at this (I'm learning from you Freak!).

Pages: 1 ... 66 67 68 69 70 [71] 72 73 74