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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.


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).

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.

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?

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.

Studying for the LSAT / Re: Here is another reasoning question- thanks!
« on: September 12, 2007, 02:03:08 PM »
A) The study doesn't say that 1 out of 5 people has back pain, it says that 1 out of 5 people OVER 30 HAVE A SPECIFIC CONDITION THAT SHOWS NO CHRONIC SYMPTOMS.  Way off.

B) The pain stems from lack of exercise in general, but that doesn't mean that lack of exercise is the only source of back pain.

C) This makes a claim about acute pain, but the reading only mentions chronic pain.

D) This one seems close, but there are plenty of things doctors don't know about your future  that could lead to back pain, and even if they did (e.g., if they knew you weren't going to exercise), the reading states that the correlation between back pain and exercise is only a general correlation, not a strict one.

E) Note that this doesn't say the strategy WILL 100% OF THE TIME be effective; it says that it can be effective.  Keeping in mind the general correlation mentioned above, we can see that this strategy would be to exercise.

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