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: Can somebody explain "complete" for me?
« on: November 07, 2007, 02:35:39 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, 07:51:04 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: October 31, 2007, 11:56:52 PM »

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, 08:59:12 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, 08:44:01 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!).

Law School Admissions / Re: Florida (Levin) Application Fee?
« on: October 31, 2007, 06:39:20 PM »
You don't need to send it to them. If you wait, you'll get an email from them, telling you that they received your application. And then they'll direct you to another website, that asks you to fill out some supplementary information. After you fill this out, you will have the option of paying online via credit card. Much easier than mailing it.

Yup, yup.  I wouldn't mail it until you get the email with the directions.  There are also some additional required documents so you might as well either mail them all together or do everything online.   

Out of curiosity, what additional documents did you have to send? Was it stuff to indicate you were a resident of FL? I don't think I have to send anything but then again, I'm not from Florida.

Studying for the LSAT / Re: supermarkets
« on: October 31, 2007, 06:34:20 PM »
I think this question works on a number of levels.

I would focus on the word "fail." There is nothing in the stimulus that really indicates the layout of the supermarket has failed in reaching its desired end. The layout is just to force people to walk all the way to the back (and in turn, they see things they may not actually need). All we know is that people just don't like it. But they might still all go to the back to pick up the loaf of bread and walk back to the front.

TCR just says "unwelcome consequences." The unwelcome consequences in this case would be the fact that shoppers dislike the supermarket.

Hope I did much better in explaining this question..

Studying for the LSAT / Re: resolve the discrepancy
« on: October 31, 2007, 04:59:16 PM »
This might actually come down to the choice of words in the answer choices.

TCR says that all those (and only those) who ate a dish contracted that illness.

The other answer choice says that all those (and only those) who ate a dish were allergic to something. With this answer choice, you make the assumption that if someone is allergic to something then they will have come down with the illness in the question stem.

TCR response does not require any assumption since it says they contracted that illness.

Hope that's right and that it actually helps you.

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