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 - MHLM

Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 ... 75
Law School Admissions / Re: Accepted TODAY !!
« on: February 05, 2008, 10:13:27 AM »
Congrats tkm!!! I know you really wanted Penn.  ;D

Studying for the LSAT / Re: 2 more LR questions from PT29
« on: February 05, 2008, 05:47:15 AM »
Thanks, Jeffort, for the clarification. Definitely helpful. By the you ever sleep?!? I saw some of your posts from like 3AM and now you're back at it.

Studying for the LSAT / 2 more LR questions from PT29
« on: February 05, 2008, 04:48:10 AM »
Section 1: #22
Editorial: The government claims that the country's nuclear
power plants are entirely safe and hence that the public's
fear of nuclear accidents at these plants is groundless.
The government also contends that its recent action to
limit the nuclear industry's financial liability in the case
of nuclear accidents at power plants is justified by the
need to protect the nuclear industry from the threat of
bankruptcy. But even the government says that unlimited
liability poses such a threat only if injury claims can be
sustained against the industry; and the government
admits that for such claims to be sustained, injury must
result from a nuclear accident. The public's fear,
therefore, is well founded.

Which one of the following principles, if valid, most
helps to justify the editorial's argumentation?

(A) If the government claims that something is unsafe
then, in the absence of overwhelming evidence
to the contrary, that thing should be assumed to
be unsafe.

(B) Fear that a certain kind of event will occur is well
founded if those who have control over the
occurrence of events of that kind stand to benefit
financially from such an occurrence.

(C) If a potentially dangerous thing is safe only
because the financial security of those
responsible for its operation depends on its being
safe, then eliminating that dependence is not in
the best interests of the public.

(D) The government sometimes makes unsupported
claims about what situations will arise, but it
does not act to prevent a certain kind of situation
from arising unless there is a real danger that
such a situation will arise.

(E) If a real financial threat to a major injury exists,
then government action to limit that threat is

I got really hung up on wording with this one and stupidly chose (B) because it addressed the specific wording of the conclusion: " well founded..." Can someone try and explain the reasoning here and how to arrive at the CR?

Section 4: #13
Plant manager: We could greatly reduce the amount of
sulfur dioxide our copper-smelting plant releases into the
atmosphere by using a new process. This new process
requires replacing our open furnaces with closed ones
and moving the copper from one furnace to the next in
solid, not molten, form. However, not only is the new
equipment expensive to buy and install, but the new
process also costs more to run than the current process,
because the copper must be reheated after it has cooled.
So overall, adopting the new process will cost much but
bring the company no profit.

Supervisor: I agree with your overall conclusion, but
I disagree about one point you make, since the latest
closed furnaces are extremely fuel-efficient.

The point about which the supervisor expresses
disagreement with the plant manager is

(B) whether the new copper-smelting process is more
expensive to run than the current process

(E) whether cooling and reheating the copper will
cost more than moving it in molten form

It came down to (B) and (E) for me. I selected (E) thinking that both speakers would probably have agreed with statement (B). I guess I don't really understand how the supervisor could believe that the new process is NOT more expensive than the old process, yet also admit that "adopting the new process will cost much but bring the company no profit."

Thanks for your help!

Law School Admissions / Re: Michigan decision.... come ON
« on: February 05, 2008, 04:11:22 AM »
Congrats dude! You're in!

General Off-Topic Board / Re: MAS: Don't Disturb the Sexy
« on: February 04, 2008, 08:08:58 PM »
21/22 (not sure how old you are) to 19 is perfectly reasonable.  Go for it dude...only 3ish months left.

I think "high cotton" is a midwestern thing, but it sounds positive.

Southern thing?

I've never heard it...

General Off-Topic Board / Re: MAS: Don't Disturb the Sexy
« on: February 04, 2008, 07:42:57 PM »
Yea, what happened to Walls? Did anyone else see that preview during the Super Bowl for the Pixar movie "Wall-E"? Just the voice saying "Waaaleeee" made me think of Stevens. Don't know why.

Very neat. Yea, I've been looking into it a bit and I'm somewhat disappointed at the apparent lack of options for law students interested in this field. As you suggested, it's surprising that the top schools haven't emerged with specialty programs in this area. I am interested in doing some graduate study--possibly getting a MPH, Masters in Labor Law, or something similar--but I haven't done too much research yet; I'm not really sure if some of these options (MPH) are even available to non-medical professionals...


What area of health law are you interested in?

For me, it's FDA law and health insurance/employee benefits law.

Law School Admissions / Re: Decision at Georgetown!
« on: February 04, 2008, 06:44:31 PM »
Hey guys, just received decision from GULC. I went complete only about 2 and a half weeks ago. What do you all think?? PM for my numbers

Accept, reject, or waitlist. That'd be my guess.

Law School Admissions / Re: USC starts handing out scholarships
« on: February 04, 2008, 06:31:15 PM »
Speaking of older stats, anyone know of a source that has data from previous cycles? Like the medians from 5-10 years ago..?

Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 ... 75