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 - big east boy

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6
Law School Admissions / early admission/ed vs. cancelling
« on: October 06, 2008, 10:53:13 AM »
So like many others I did not do well on Sat.  My original goal was to kill the test, and apply for early admission and maybe early decision to my dream school.  However, given my performance I don't think even early admission would help me.  I already signed up for December and was wondering how bad late application would hurt my chances, especially given my 3.2 gpa? Is the t14 dream dashed?

Studying for the LSAT / pt 53 sect 1 q19--parallel reasoning
« on: October 01, 2008, 03:16:08 PM »
The correct answer is A, but I put down B.  My reasoning was that since B stated that "Certain companies that had never.." I felt that 'never' was a parallel to the 'habitually' mentioned in the arg.  A, never comments on this and simply states "when a small company begins to advertise on the internet..".  After this both A and B seem to follow the same logic as the arg so I am confused as to what makes A superior.  Thanks in advance for any help.

Studying for the LSAT / Where's question 101?
« on: October 01, 2008, 02:19:09 PM »
I just finished pt 53 and there were only 100 questions as opposed to the 101 q's that I have been used to seeing.  Also, I believe it was the June test that also had only 100.  PT 53 did not make any note of a question being removed from scoring, so what's up? Should I expect 100 or 101 q'a on Sat, every opportunity for points counts.

Studying for the LSAT / highest score on test day
« on: September 23, 2008, 05:49:06 PM »
I am taking in October and am looking for optimism.  I was just wondering if anyone out there ever got their highest score or near their highest score on the real test (as compared to pt's)?  It seems that most people see a drop or hit their average, but have some of you out there just killed it on test day? 

Studying for the LSAT / pt 46 june 05, sect 3 lr q#22
« on: September 15, 2008, 10:57:23 AM »
The credited answer is A.  What I don't understand is how more people under 18 living in the region helps the argument that there is an increasing number of people over 65 living in the region.  I put D as my choice.  My reasoning for this is that since the arg states more people over 65, and gets this from percentage evidence (avg.age increased from 52-57), then for the conclusion to be valid than there would have to be more people.  Otherwise a case could arise where there was a higher percentage of over65 but a lower number.  Any help is appreciated.

of course I have to give some love to the big east.
top 100:
notre dame
bc (oops)
st johns
seton hall
12 out of 100 aint bad.

Studying for the LSAT / Re: pt 33 lr 1, #17 dec. 00
« on: August 15, 2008, 11:40:28 AM »
Thanks to all for the insight.  It seems that here choice C is right because none of the others are any good.  I still have a problem with the idea that something that is still less (like the 11th blood stain) is considered to weaken the arg.  I feel that in a test built around precise language, a better/less questionable answer choice should have been supplied.  Nothing I can do about it though; just venting.  Thanks again for the help.

Studying for the LSAT / pt 33 lr 1, #17 dec. 00
« on: August 14, 2008, 07:26:47 PM »
expert witness:
ten times, and in controlled circumstances, a single drop of the defendants blood was allowed to fall onto the fabric. And  in all ten cases the stained area was much less than the expected 9.5cm.  In fact the stained area was always between 4.5 adn 4.8 cm.  I conclude that a single drop of the defendants blood stains much less than 9.5cm of the fabric.

Which one of the following, if true, most undermines the value of the evidence for the expert witness's conclusion?

C: In an eleventh test drop of the defendants blood, the area stained was also less than 9.5cm-this time staining 9.3cm

B: Expert witnesses have sometimes been known to fudge their data to accord with the prosecution's case.

Since B is wrong I believe that it is do to its use of "sometimes", which would not necesarily indicate this witness.  However, C doesn't really appear to undermine the conclusion either.  All it states is that the blood stained more, which is great, but still doesn't change the fact that the conclusion is about staining much less than 9.5.  Although 9.3 is certianly more than 4.8cm it could still be considered "much less" with the definition of "much less" being undefined.

My apologies if my logic isn't clear, anyways, anyone got any ideas?

I took that PT this morning.  I got my highest score yet on a PT - a 173 (although, it was a pretty forgiving curve).

I'm interested in any responses to the snake/lizard set up.  I found I just had to apply the rules to each question and it was time consuming.  Maybe that's the deal with this game, but if anyone out there would have relied on inferences, I'd be happy to hear all about it...because I haven't certainly haven't cornered the market on Games...

173, nice score, was it timed? Also, how long did it take you to get through the snake game?

Studying for the LSAT / LG Dec 98 pt27, the one with the snakes/lizards
« on: August 09, 2008, 05:46:36 PM »
I have been flying through the games with relative ease until I recently went over the 20's preptests; with pt 27 I hit a wall.  I eventually got through the game untimed and did well but I was wondering if anyone out there pulled off a decent setup/score in a timed fashion and if so how??  I must say, this one was tough.  For a refresher its the one with the 7 houses for male/female snakes and lizards.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6