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.

Topics - Visual Dictionary

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 ... 28
General Off-Topic Board / Dolphins over Pats
« on: December 23, 2007, 10:03:43 AM »
I'm going to call it one of the biggest upsets in football history, but it will happen.


Studying for the LSAT / Trickiest LR Question I've Ever Seen
« on: December 22, 2007, 07:14:48 AM »
I've seen some tough parallel reasoning questions, but this one beats all of them and then some.

26.  All known deposits of the mineral tanzanite are in Tanzania.  Therefore, because Ashley collects only tanzanite stones, she is unlikely ever to collect a stone not originally from Tanzania.

Parallel the reasoning . . .

A)  The lagoon on Scrag Island is home to many frogs.  Since the owls on Scrag Island eat nothing but frogs from the island, the owls will probably never eat many frogs that live outside the lagoon.
B)  Every frog ever seen on Scrag Island lives in the lagoon.  The frogs on the island are eaten only by the owls on the island, and hence the owls may never eat an animal that lives outside the lagoon.
C)  Frogs are the only animals known to live in the lagoon on Scrag Island.  The diet of the owls on Scrag Island consists of nothing but frogs from the island.  Therefore, the owls are unlikely ever to eat an animal that lives outside the lagoon.
D)  The only frogs yet discovered on Scrag Island live in the lagoon.  The diet of all the owls on Scrag Island consists entirely of frogs on the island, so the owls will probably never eat an animal at lives outside the lagoon.
E)  Each frog on Scrag Island lives in the lagoon.  No owl on Scrag Island is known to eat anything but frogs on the island.  It follows that no owl on Scrag Island will eat anything that lives outside the lagoon.

Studying for the LSAT / How Would You Simplify This LR?
« on: December 21, 2007, 07:25:02 PM »
I got it right, but my brain stings a little, and I doubt that I would have nailed it under timed pressure.  What are some simplification strategies?

22.  Some types of organisms originated through endosymbiosis, the engulfing of one organism by another so that a part of the former becomes a functioning part of the latter.  An unusual nucleomorph, a structure that contains DNA and resembles a cell nucleus, has been discovered within a plant known as a chlorarachniophyte.  Two versions of a particular gene have been found in the DNA of this nucleomorph, and one would expect to find only a single version of this gene if the nucleomorph were not the remains of an englufed organism's nucleus.


A)  Only organisms of types that originated through endosymbiosis contains nucleomorphs.
B)  A nucleomorph within the chlorarachniophyte holds all of the genetic material of some other organism.
C)  Nucleomorphs orginated when an organism endosymbiotically engulfed a chlorarachniophyte.
D)  Two organisms will not undergo endosymbiosis unless at least one of them contains a nucleomorph.
E)  Chrlorarachniophytes emerged as the result of two organisms having undergone endosymbiosis.

I was just working through PrepTest 36 and I came across a relatively simple sufficient problem with a henious answer choice:

"People who are not dissatisfied with themselves are less likely than others to pursue personal excellence."

Do you just turn it into satisfied?  That seems to be justified, since it's TCR.  Should you always turn - - into a +?  Any exceptions?

General Off-Topic Board / Anyone Excited for the NFL Playoffs?
« on: December 21, 2007, 02:24:45 PM »
I am.

Studying for the LSAT / ITT We Discuss Our Feb. Re-Take Plans
« on: December 21, 2007, 06:58:11 AM »
I received a PM about the subject, and I sent out a PM to someone else, so let's just mull over our plans in a thread.

I plan to work on three sections a day for the next month, with two full-length PrepTests at the end.  Moreover, I plan to indulge in a very long and obnoxious post-mortem of the Sept. exam, so let me know when you want to do so, because I would like to discuss the exam with a few LSDers.

My weakness is LR.  I missed only three problems total on both RC and LG.

I bought some Bob Marley a week ago.  I've always avoided his work because of the stigma, but I figured, "What the hell?  I might as well."  That's the attitude!

Studying for the LSAT / Last LR For the Day
« on: December 20, 2007, 12:57:44 PM »
From what I recall in Sept., a flawed parallel reasoning question just has to duplicate the flaw.  I'll post the stimulus and show why I think it's tough to distinguish between two close answers, and maybe you'll show me a way to more easily do so:

23.  Candidate:  The government spends $500 million more each year promoting highway safety than it spends combating cigarette smoking.  But each year many more people die from smoking-related diseases than die in highway accidents.  So the government would save lives by shifting funds from highway safety programs to antismoking programs.

Flawed reasoning most parallel . . .

B)  A certain professional musician spends several times as many hours practicing guitar as she spends practicing sax.  But she is hired much more often to play sax than to play guitar, so she would increase her number of playing engagements by spending less time practicing guitar and more time practicing sax.

D)  The local swim team spends many more hours practicing the backstroke than it spends practicing the breaststroke.  But the team's lap times for the breaststroke are much better than its times for the backstroke, so the team would win more swim meets if it spent less time practicing the backstroke and more time practicing the breaststroke.

Law School Admissions / Successful Number Twins
« on: December 20, 2007, 11:41:25 AM »

Yes, it's a debated issue, but I really feel as if ballpark numbers are just the starting point for an acceptance, no matter what people say.  Adcomms are probably right, despite much skepticism to the contrary, that they're admitting people, not numbers.  You need to be in the ballpark, yes, but that's nowhere near sufficient.

. . . And, so, I repeat what everyone else has said, but I really do mean it.

Studying for the LSAT / -
« on: December 20, 2007, 11:07:50 AM »

Studying for the LSAT / Tough LR Question from Way Back
« on: December 20, 2007, 07:11:17 AM »
Wait, there are people studying for the LSAT?  Yes.  I just solved an old LR section from an undated test and only missed one problem, which seemed a little tricky:

Audiences find a speaker more convincing if the speaker begins a speech by arguing briefly against his or her position before providing reasons for accepting it.  The reason this technique is so effective is that it makes the speaker appear fair-minded and trustworthy.  Therefore, candidates for national political office who wish to be successful in winning votes should use this argumentative technique in their speeches.

I was torn between two answer choices on this weaken (which of the following limits, most seriously, the effectiveness of the recommendation?):

A)  Political candidates typically have no control over which excerpts from their speeches will be reported by news media.

C)  People decide which political candidate to vote for more on the basis of their opinions of character than positions.

In the post-mortem, I can see why the answer I picked is an "opposite answer," since it may actually strengthen, but I don't understand what's so correct about TCR.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 ... 28