« on: August 10, 2009, 08:45:13 PM »
It's all just a question of mind over matter. If you ain't go no mind, then it don't matter.
I have extreme split grades from my UG and pretty good softs (Humane Society volunteer work); also, I have great letters of recommendations. I'm looking to get into the private schools in Minnesota (Hamline, William Mitchell, St. Thomas). What are my chances?
You're right I shouldn't have used those words but the longer you stay in school, the better. Having an education is important and there are people who go to law school who have no intentions of working in the legal field after they graduate and with the way the job market is heading many people will probably continue to attend higher education programs like law, pharmacy, etc. Having a law degree could is valuable to other types of employers too, not just legal fields.
I disagree with that and, in fact, having a law degree could discourage people in other fields from hiring you because they think that 1) you're uncommitted to their field, 2) there's something wrong with you since you couldn't hack it in the law, and 3) you'll jump ship if you find a more lucrative legal job.
Maybe. I know of some people with law degrees who went into business and have been successful. Business consultants, etc. I also know of journalists who hold law degrees. I guess it depends on what field, etc.
Am I wrong, or is this reasoning just a little bit circular? The answer must be correct because the LSAC says it's correct and the LSAC is always correct because they get all the answers right.
No. There are two different definitions for the word "correct." One is a logically accurate response. The other is the credited response. You are using them interchangeably.
I'm curious as to know how much schools weigh individual grades. My gpa is a 3.3/3.6 undergrad and masters. One the surface it's not too unbearably awful, but I have had two Ds in my undergrad and one in my master's program. Will they take letter grades into consideration??
Thank you for your help and input!!
What makes you think Powerscore is a definitive source? They are wrong a lot. In fact, they do not try to be 100% correct. That is not their goal. Their goal is to provide tricks and gimmicks (such as the ladder) to help most students most of the time. They know it is not 100% accurate. They do not care. They are trying to create something simple that will work most of the time. Their perspective is that their students are not smart enough to understand the actual logic behind the exam so they have to find a way for them to game their way through the exam.
Another good example is a fight we have on these boards all the time about "most strongly supported" questions. Powerscore puts them in the "must be true" category. Yet, the correct response (as credited by LSAC) is always a response option that does not have to be true. I remember a big fight with a poster about a year ago(?) in which she insisted LSAC got a question wrong because their credited response for a "strongly supported" question did not have to be true. She insisted the credited response must be wrong because Powerscore said that correct responses to these questions must be true.
In the end, if it comes down to a difference between what Powerscore says and what LSAC says, you are better off going with LSAC. Powerscore is not the definitive source and they do have many things in their books that are not completely true just because they are trying to simplify things for the dolts. LSAC is the only definitive source.
I would have agreed with you. However, the Powerscore Logical Reasoning Bible (one of the most definitive prep books out there) clearly disagrees. Page 315 breaks down what they call "The Logic Ladder." This is what they say:
"if a statement is made that 'all waiters like wine,' then you automatically know that 'most waiters like wine,' and 'some waiters like wine.' The same is true for most relationships, but to a more limited extent. If 'most waiters like wine,' then you automatically know that 'some waiters like wine.' But because most is below all on the Logic Ladder, you do not know with certainty that 'all waiters like wine' (it is possibly true, but not certain)"
All of that was a quote from powerscore. The very last part--"it is possibly true, but not certain--is what I'm talking about. If we say "Most artists know less about politics than not artists," according to Powerscore, it's still possible that "all artists know less about politics than non artists," and, if that's the case, we can't infer that some artists know as much as non artists about politics.
So, it seems to me that either Powerscore is wrong, or the test is wrong. Since this is from Preptest 2, I'm tempted to believe the latter is the case. Thoughts?
I could swear the credited response for the following question (from PrepTest 2) is wrong.
"There is little point in looking to artists for insights into political issues. Most of them hold political views that are less insightful than those of any reasonably well-educated person who is not an artist. Indeed, when taken as a whole, the statements made by artists, including those considered to be great, indicate that artistic talen and political insight are rarely found together."
Which of the following can be inferred from the passage?
I did not find any answer particularly appealing, but I do feel like the credited response was clearly wrong. The answer is
"Some artists are no less politically insightful than some reasonably well-educated persons who are not artists."
The stimulus says, essentially, that most artists have less insightful political views than well-educated non-artists. However, most does not preclude the possibility of all (since the concept of all contains the concept of most), and for this reason, I don't see how we can infer that some artists are no less politically insightful than non artists. This is possible, but not necessarily the case.
Does anyone have any input on this?