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 - PNym
Pages: 1  3 4 5 6 7 ... 73
« on: April 23, 2008, 12:11:01 AM »
If I want to go intro IP litigation, how much do major firms' (such as MoFo, OMM, Sidley Austin, Paul Weiss, etc. - not Wachtell or Cravath, but still pretty prestigious) GPA cutoffs differ between UT and Georgetown?
If you throw out the year that UT fell out of the top 25, since 1990 UT's averaged 15.77th place, while Georgetown's averaged a shade under 14th, so Georgetown is probably considered a tad more prestigious. However, I'm not sure how that translates to firm hiring criteria.
An acquaintance of mine working at MoFo says their general UT GPA cutoff is 3.1, but she doesn't know what it is for Georgetown, or IP in particular.
« on: November 30, 2007, 11:01:40 PM »
« on: November 30, 2007, 02:42:27 AM »
Hospital Executive: At a recent conference on nonprofit management, several computer experts maintained that the most significant threat faceed by large institutions such as universities and hospitals is unauthorized access to confidential data. In light of this testimon, we should make the protection of our clients' confidentiality our highest priority.
The hospital executive's argument is most vulnerable to which one of the following criticisms?
TCR: The argument relies on the testimony of experts whose expertise is not shown to be sufficiently broad to support their general claim.
How is this even a flaw? It's not as if the executive were relying on the advice given by culinary experts...
Editorialist: In all cultures, it is almost universally accepted that one has a moral duty to prevent members of one's family from being harmed. Thus, few would deny that if a person is known by the person's parents to be falsely accused of a crime, it would be morally right for the parents to hide the accused from the police. Hence, it is also likely to be widely accepted that it is sometimes morally right to obstruct police in their work.
The reasoning in the editorialist's argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that this argument
fails to consider the possibility that other moral principles would be widely recognized as overriding any obligation to protect a family member from harm
How is this a flaw? Doesn't the editorialist establish that "few would deny that if a person is known by the person's parents to be falsely accused of a crime, it would be morally right for the parents to hide the accused from the police?"
Granted, other moral principles could override this obligation in the majority of cases, but by establishing that this principle is applicable to the cited case for all cultures, doesn't the editorialist conclusively establish that all cultures will condone obstruction of the police in this one cited case?
« on: November 29, 2007, 05:48:59 PM »
My last 6 diagnostic scores have all been between 174-179, and so I think I'll score somewhere in that range this Saturday. I understand that schools typically send fee waivers to applicants that score that high, and I'd like to take advantage of such waivers, but at the same time, I don't know when and how I'd receive them, and I don't want to wait too long to send in my apps, since I'm already applying mid-cycle as it is.
Can someone provide information on how and when schools send out fee waivers for high scoring applicants, and advise how to utilize those waivers?
« on: November 27, 2007, 02:56:30 AM »
Things are looking good
Finishing each section 3-5 minutes early gave me enough time to go back and re-evaluate problems that were giving me trouble the first time thru. Doing this must have saved me from making an additional 5 mistakes or so. Gotta keep that in mind for this Saturday.
« on: November 26, 2007, 12:12:38 PM »
The key parts of the stimulis, given the question, are that forest fires help forests and that our attempts to stop them are short sighted and ill advised. This only follows if people are trying to stop them to help the forest. There are other reasons one might try to stop a forest fire, such as lives or property. The passage doesn't demonstrate that stopping forest fires for this reason is ill advised, only that it will hurt the forest. Therefore, it will follow if the nly reason we do it is for the sake of the fire.
Does this make sense?
I don't quite understand how you inferred from the stimulus that people are trying to stop the fires in order to help the forest. Couldn't attempting to stop the fire be due to other shortsighted reasons as well?
What do you mean by "it will follow if the nly reason we do it is for the sake of the fire"?
« on: November 26, 2007, 12:01:09 PM »
For break, Good energy bars (not protein bars). Also a piece of fruit. An apple, an orange, a peach, or a banana and a small amount of water.
For breakfast, oatmeal is filled with good carbs that are easily and quickly converted to ATP (Adenosine triphosphate) in the Krebs cycle.
ATP = instantly available energy that is close to the end of the biochemical cycle.
ATP transports chemical energy within cells for metabolism.
Why no protein bars during break? Wouldn't the protein help maintain your mental edge?
Also, what do you think of the idea of having a whey shake for breakfast the morning of the test? Some people on a bodybuilding forum recommended drinking one before the LSAT, preferably with a breakfast of oatmeal and eggs.
« on: November 26, 2007, 02:40:47 AM »
Thanks for all this great advice, Jeffort! You ought to publish this in a book; pragmatic non-skill-based strategies for approaching the exam were not addressed in any of the publications I've read.
« on: November 26, 2007, 02:35:33 AM »
Ecologist: Forest fires, the vast majority of which are started by lightning, are not only a natural phenomenon to which all forest ecosystems are well adapted, but are required for many forests to flourish. Forest fires facilitate the opening and spreading of seed pods, prevent an overabundance of insects, and promote the diversity of forests by preventing certain varieties of aggressive weeds from dominating other species. In view of this, systematic attempts by human beings to prevent or control forest fires are ill-advised and shortsighted; forest fires should be left alone and allowed to burn themselves out naturally.
The conclusion drawn above follows logically if which one of the following is assumed?
Protection of forest and their ecosystems is the only legitimate reason for attempting to prevent or control forest fires.
Where in the stimulus does it establish that human's reason for attempting to prevent or control forest fires is not to protect the forest and its ecosystems?
I thought a person could intend to protect the forest and its ecosystems while performing actions that act against that goal, which is why I shied away from this answer choice.
None of the other answer choices come close, but I don't quite understand how this answer choice establishes the sufficient connection.
« on: November 25, 2007, 09:46:20 PM »
thanks for your response. but doesnt it only say it REQUIRES it, rather than its the ONLY?
"Only" and "Requires" both refer to necessary conditions.
Only with a magical pencil will I score a 180 = If I score a 180, I require a magical pencil
(I got this one wrong, too.)
Pages: 1  3 4 5 6 7 ... 73