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 - Changed Name

Pages: 1 ... 68 69 70 71 72 [73] 74 75 76
721
Studying for the LSAT / Re: stuck between two choices...
« on: November 01, 2007, 02:56:52 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...

722
Studying for the LSAT / Re: ahhh can someone help with diagramming
« on: October 31, 2007, 11:59:12 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?

Thanks,

723
Studying for the LSAT / Re: fossil fuels
« on: October 31, 2007, 11:44:01 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!).

724
Law School Applications / Re: Florida (Levin) Application Fee?
« on: October 31, 2007, 09:39:20 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.

725
Studying for the LSAT / Re: supermarkets
« on: October 31, 2007, 09:34:20 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..

726
Studying for the LSAT / Re: resolve the discrepancy
« on: October 31, 2007, 07:59:16 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.

727
Studying for the LSAT / Re: confused, help anyone?
« on: October 31, 2007, 07:37:05 PM »
So the argument is that TSX-400 was banned but E and Z were not. However, E and Z are worse than TSX-400, therefore, either they should be banned or TSX-400 should not be banned.

We need to justify this reasoning. What is he really trying to say? Intuitively, he's arguing that if one type of pesticide is worse than another, then it makes no sense to make the less harmful one illegal and have the harmful one be legal.

TCR response basically states this intuitive reasoning but in a more convoluted way. It says that a pesticide should be legal and another illegal if the first one is less harmful.

The answer you chose is incorrect because it is essentially outside the scope of the argument. We don't know anything about what should be legal compared to another type of pesticide and level of harm. The only relationships we have to work with are basing legality off of knowing if one is already illegal.

I'm sorry if my explanation isn't very clear. If you have any more questions, just ask. (I'm practicing explaining answers, I'm prepping to become an LSAT teacher)

728
Law School Applications / Re: Florida (Levin) Application Fee?
« on: October 31, 2007, 07:15:58 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.

729
Studying for the LSAT / Re: walk me through this?
« on: October 29, 2007, 02:15:50 PM »
Can you double check to see that everything was typed up correctly and can you provide the other answer choices?

For some questions, it's better to go by process of elim. (to save time)... reading the question stem the first time, i noticed that there had to be a connection between general education and reform; i just want to see if there are any other choices that bridge that gap.

Thanks.

730
Where should I go next fall? / Re: Santa Clara Law
« on: October 24, 2007, 09:38:32 PM »
The reason IP firms look for someone with a technical background is so that those guys can sit for a separate patent bar, if i'm not mistaken. It's not totally impossible to get into intellectual property without a technical background but it is certainly tough from what I've read (there's actually an article on the internet by an IP lawyer who explains why they choose someone with a technical background).

That being said, Santa Clara is not the best law school in the Bay but I don't think it's an absolutely horrible choice. They seem to have a fairly decent reputation. You would probably have a tough time getting a job in a big law firm but should be able to get a job at a mid to small firm.

Good luck with Hastings and the other schools you're applying to.

Pages: 1 ... 68 69 70 71 72 [73] 74 75 76