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 - non parata est

Pages: 1 ... 96 97 98 99 100 [101] 102 103
1001
Choosing the Right Law School / Re: Chances and LSAT question
« on: September 14, 2007, 08:55:47 AM »
If you're aiming as high as you can possibly go, I'd take a couple years off.  Keep a steady job for two years, and not only will that greatly improve your odds of getting in to those elusive Top 3, but Northwestern (I know it's not on your list, but I'd toss one their way) will go moist for you.

Good luck with whatever you decide to do.

1002
Choosing the Right Law School / Re: 3.75, 165
« on: September 14, 2007, 08:25:30 AM »
URM?

1003
Law School Admissions / Re: GPA Addendum?
« on: September 14, 2007, 08:23:30 AM »
Definitely.  Point out the circumstances that led to the drops, and point out that you retook those classes and did very well.  Good luck!

Oh, and I think UGs should notify a student about LSAC's policy when they're considering dropping a course.  I know countless students who've been screwed by this.

1004
Studying for the LSAT / Re: flaw question
« on: September 13, 2007, 11:35:08 AM »
Actually, yeah, I think Lindbergh's right.  Is there a typo in the answer choice?  I think that may have thrown me off.

1005
Studying for the LSAT / Re: How Did You Sleep the Night Before?
« on: September 13, 2007, 11:24:20 AM »
DEFINITELY no LSD (in forum or pill form).  I'd say no computer stuff at all; staring at a computer screen tires out your eyes more dramatically than watching a movie.

1006
Studying for the LSAT / Re: flaw question
« on: September 13, 2007, 11:18:53 AM »
The foundation has a purely humanitarian mission.  The foundation threatened to cancel its grant because of weapons research.  Therefore, the foundation must view weapons research as contrary to a humanitarian mission.  But what if the weapons could be used in a humanitarian manner?  This is the question the foundation failed to consider, as discussed in A.

1007
Studying for the LSAT / Re: "Some"
« on: September 13, 2007, 11:06:18 AM »
I think the key here is that "does not exclude" =! "means"

"Some" does not exclude "all". However, it does not necessarily mean all.

True: All -> some

Not necessarily true: Some -> all.  (though could be true)


And now I think my brain has imploded.

Yup.

I still like the other definition given.  (at least one.)

Yeah, I think that's the easiest way to define it.
That's how we learned it in Formal Logic (which I recommend taking if you get a chance; it's a huge help on LR and LG, and just getting your mind in that mode of thought for the whole test).

1008
If you can get a good LOR out of it, then it helps.  If not, then it won't do much more for you than non-legal work experience would.

1009
Studying for the LSAT / Re: "Some"
« on: September 12, 2007, 11:07:39 PM »
This'll sound n00bish, but what do all of these acronyms mean?  My lurking has endowed me with the knowledge of TTT, but what about TC, HTH, and TTCR?

1010
Studying for the LSAT / Re: "Some"
« on: September 12, 2007, 08:57:13 PM »
Just think of "some" as meaning "at least one," and you should be fine.

Pages: 1 ... 96 97 98 99 100 [101] 102 103