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 - Dionysus0
« on: September 04, 2008, 01:52:34 AM »
I took that test last Saturday and matched my previous high of 165 (raw 84). Scale was rougher than usual (-11 for a 170), but it was the first time I have finished the games section with time to spare. I definitely could see how there would be a drop with the scale, but I was studying the entire week before solely on games. Best of luck.
« on: August 14, 2008, 02:12:42 AM »
I have to decide by tomorrow morning whether I should take a class pass/fail. How much does it matter to law schools if I take a total of three classes with a "pass" grade. Thanks for your responses.
« on: July 26, 2008, 02:10:03 AM »
Where are you from DS?
If DS's avatar is anything to go by then she is from Wisconsin. Do you have any Ryan Braun paraphernalia then?
« on: July 26, 2008, 01:58:49 AM »
People may get mad at this thread because it should be in the Haterade/Off topic forums... But that is really that is a no brainer.
« on: July 26, 2008, 12:05:03 AM »
Thanks FatUncle, I am able to understand it now that you pointed out what I overlooked (the wording of the conclusion as increasing the sufficient condition in the first premise).
« on: July 24, 2008, 11:36:57 PM »
I tried to diagram this question, but I cannot get the credited answer to look similar enough to the stimulus, to where they both look the same. Any help on approaching this kind of convoluted question type is appreciated.
« on: July 23, 2008, 08:55:13 PM »
Hypo:University of Washington
« on: July 20, 2008, 07:15:32 PM »
sufficient directly relates to how much he/she believes the company should have it is neither more nor less (necessarily)than what david said, i agree though that what david said can be relating to the amount of leverage a company loses but lin doesn't necessarily dissagree he/she just counters that whatever it is it's sufficient because they can hire temporary which doesn't mean that that gives them more leverage than david is suggesting only that it is sufficient for the companys hence the correct answer should be (d)
David's conclusion is that forbidding this would be unfair. His reason is because the companies would lose most of their leverage.
From this, we can infer two things that David would agree with:
1. Companies should have leverage in negotiations with strikers (choice D)
2. The inability to hire permanent replacement workers would cause the companies to lose significant leverage (choice C)
Lin counters by pointing out that hiring temporary (not permanent) workers would still give them sufficient (enough) leverage.
From this, we can infer that Lin believes that the inability to hire permanent workers would NOT cause the companies to lose significant leverage. (They could hire temporary workers and keep their leverage.)
Lin directly counters point #2 above (Choice C)
She doesn't address whether or not she thinks the companies SHOULD have the leverage (choice D). She only mentions that they still can have the leverage even if they can't hire permanent replacements.
Finally, it's possible for both David and Lin to agree that companies should have a lot of power in these situations (choice D). They can both be complete, cold-hearted, non-union republicans David is really worried that the proposed law banning the hiring of permanent replacements will ruin everything (he's a neurotic republican, always worrying). Lin is reassuring him that their union-breaking practices will still be safe, since they can hire temporary replacements.
Described my thought process on this question exactly.
« on: July 12, 2008, 01:52:56 AM »
My current situation is as follows:
I took the June 2008 LSAT and received a 155. I immediately registered for the October LSAT after seeing my score. My most recent practice test scores before the June LSAT between 158-160 and still are there.
I have started to make significant gains in the Logic Games sections (4 or less wrong in each section), the more games I do the easier they get. Logical reasoning is about the same as what it was at the test about 5 wrong on each section, marginal improvement. I am getting hammered in the Reading Comp section, 13 wrong on the test and about 7 wrong average on the practice tests. I have went through both the Powerscore LR and Games books as well as the Superprep.
My goal is to get in the mid 160's or higher if possible. My current plan of action is take a practice test (10 untouched remaining) once a week and review it and go through the remaining LR and Games sections to practice 2-3 hours each weekday and 8-10 hours on Saturday and Sunday.
Could a tutor offer me additional insight other than to practice more, and point out why a particular answer is wrong, which I can usually figure out by myself after the fact? Would I get a good return on my investment with the $100 hourly fee that is charged?
Thanks for any information/help.
« on: July 02, 2008, 01:58:31 PM »
I am a hater and I will never vote for Harvard or Yale. Bring down the East Coast (Harvard and Yale at least)!!