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 - killblues

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 ... 19
So a quick question, and I promise it's the last thread I'll create today hehe.

Are we allowed to mark our answer sheets in any way?  So far I've been placing a very tiny pencil dot to the left of a number I've skipped (outside the section box), because it's easier for me to see which ones I need to go back to (as opposed to circling them in the actual question book, where I'd have to page through to see which ones I skipped over).

Is this ok?  Or would these "stray" pencil marks mess up the automatic correction thing in some way?  (Also, I try to make the marks as *tiny* as possible, but I'm still not sure whether this is something I should keep doing)

Studying for the LSAT / Re: What's your plan for the next 3 weeks?
« on: September 09, 2007, 11:11:56 AM »
I think I am going to take Dec. LSAT.....

How are you doing right now?

And how much time do we have before the test to reschedule?  I'm gonna push it til the last minute, but if I'm not at the level I want by then then I might just reschedule.  I recommend doing the same -- I think we're all just freaking out right now, hehe.

Studying for the LSAT / Re:
« on: September 09, 2007, 10:19:40 AM »
This is the way I diagrammed it:


We are told that Investment is not Decreasing, which means ID. Via the contrapositive, we know ID-->EW.
Therefore, (A) must be FALSE since we know investment is NOT decreasing (says so right in the stimulus) and the economy is NOT weak (via the contrapositive).

Ah that makes sense.  I've been thinking it over and I think I'm sort of getting it...can you guys help me see whether I'm thinking this through correctly?

I diagrammed it like you as well but if you do the contrapositive you get this:

-ID --> -UR, -EW, -PC or -UR

(B) -- I didn't cross this off because it sounded like it's false.  However now I'm seeing that it's not necessarily false; we don't know enough whether it must be true, but it could be true, so it's crossed off.

(C) This is straight from the diagram, EW -> ID.  It must be true so it's crossed off.

(D) This is what threw me off initially also.  The first part is false (because economy is not weak, from the contrapositive).  However, it's either prices are not constant (-PC) OR unemployment is not rising (-UR).  Because it's not necessarily false that prices are constant -- it could be true that prices are constant, but unemployment is not rising (-UR) so it'd still be logically correct -- then it could be true, so it's crossed off.

(E) We know unemployment is not rising from the contrapositive of UR -> ID, so the first part of the answer is false.  However it's true that economy is not weak (contra of EW --> ID; -ID -> -EW), so the latter part of this answer is true, so it could be true, so it's crossed off.

And like you said, for (A) it has to be false because both parts are false.  (-EW from the contrapositive of EW --> ID, -ID from the premise).

Is that reasoning sound?

Thanks again

Studying for the LSAT / Re: ehhhh
« on: September 09, 2007, 10:07:22 AM »
I am posting the question because it bothers me!

Even the earliest known species of land animals, known from fossils dating from the late Silurian period, 400 million years ago, show highly evolved adaptations to life on land. Since neither aquatic nor amphibious animals exhibit these adaptations, early species of land animals must have evolved very rapidly after leaving an aquatic environment.

Assumption question:

a) known fossils of early land animals include fossils of animals that lived relatively soon after the first emergence of alnd animals.

e) all animals alive in the late Silurian period lived either exclusively on land or exclusively in the water. --> this is what i picked

Can someone explain why A is right?
thank you!

If I'm understanding this correctly, I think the key here is this clause:

"early species of land animals must have evolved very rapidly after leaving an aquatic environment".  Ie, the conclusion.

If you negate A, you get something like "known not include fossils of land animals that lived relatively soon after the emergence of the first land animals".

If they don't include fossils of land animals that lived "relatively soon" after the emergence of the first land animals, then that means they're from land animals that lived a relatively long time after the first land animals.  Which means that it's not necessarily true that the first land animals evolved rapidly -- e.g., if the known fossils are from 200 million years after the first land animals, then their adaptations could have taken 200 million years to take place. Meaning, it's not evidence/proof that the first land animals evolved very rapidly (which is the conclusion).

Hope that helps.  (Though as usual, I think my explanations may be convoluted/confuses more than it helps, lol)

Studying for the LSAT / Re: How much is enough?
« on: September 09, 2007, 09:24:13 AM »
Oh, and with regards to running out of tests -- there's a whole boatload of tests out there!  IMO it's probably more worrisome to not have enough time to take them all...

Studying for the LSAT / Re: How much is enough?
« on: September 09, 2007, 09:22:53 AM »
Well, as you probably know from my other post, I'm having the same problem, so I can't really give you advice on that. However, I can say personally that I have been able to memorize inadvertently stimuli and correct answer choices from past prep tests, even if they are just examples in books. I started an LR section when I forgot that I had already taken that particular prep test and I could recognize and answer correctly 95% of the questions within that section.  It's probably different for each individual, but I would recommend working on fresh prep tests.

Exactly.  One reason I'm afraid to run out of tests before the 29th (have all three "10 Actual" books, plus all the latest preptests.)  But I've decided to use all I have but the Sept and Dec 2006, and let the chips fall.  I too am just screwed on LR - I'm almost perfect on RC and LG, but just cannot get LR down, despite reading the PSLRB twice.  I consistently get questions 1-12 perfect, then literally fall apart on 15-25.  So, I'm just going to spend the next week doing 15-25 from every section until I get it right.

Life would be a hell of a lot easier if I could figure out how my GPA will be viewed.  But with 20 years grade inflation, plus some pretty hefty WE, plus URM, everything but the LSAT seems like a wildcard.  Do I apply to UMaine...or UMich?  If I wasn't enjoying the intellectual gymnastics so much, I'd really hate it.  A lot.

I'm in a similar boat as yours.  Doing relatively well RC/LG, and LR is always up in the air.  (Though every once in a while a game comes along and kicks me, hard).

Let me know if you find anything that helps it 'click'.  Right now I'm gonna use that LSAT problem finder and just try to do as much of each problem type that I'm having trouble with.

Studying for the LSAT / Re: What's your plan for the next 3 weeks?
« on: September 09, 2007, 09:19:50 AM »
I'm taking off the week before the test and doing a practice EVERY MORNING like it was the real thing.  This way, my mind will not put so much stress on it for the real thing - it'll just be the pattern I'd been going through.

I've also been faking taking notes in my classes and secretly doing practice sets.  The professor caught me a few times, but he didn't care.  They cut grad students a lot of slack.

I also cancelled an exam I had scheduled for the undergrads I'm teaching because it meant I couldn't take off the week of the test.

God, if anything this LSAT prep has made me realize that undergrad was a breeze compared to this law school junk.  And we're only on the cusp :(

Studying for the LSAT / Any specific tips to help improve LR?
« on: September 09, 2007, 09:02:51 AM »
First off, sorry for the gajillion new threads but I haven't been on in a while and have a whole bunch of (different) questions that's popped up.

In this case, LR -- I really, really, really can't get a handle on it.  My scores fluctuate wildly and I can't get a consistent score.  It's making me more nervous since there seems to be no improvement over the last 5-7 timed tests I've taken, and I've been stuck in the same score range for a while.

Right now I'm working on isolating the question types I'm having problems with (so far seems to be method of reasoning / flaw in the reasoning, parallel / flaw parallel).  Then I'm thinking of using Jeffort's excellent LSAT finder tool to just practice on those over and over (for the past LSAT tests I've done already).  But I'm not sure if that's enough to get me any real improvements.

Do you guys have any specific tips you can give on how to improve LR?  I always look over my mistakes and seeing how I get them wrong but I still consistently miss stuff.  And over the last couple of days my weak spot's swung massively from LG to LR...this is driving me insane.

As usual, thanks in advance!

Studying for the LSAT / Re: What's your plan for the next 3 weeks?
« on: September 09, 2007, 08:55:23 AM »
In my recent madness, I've been classifying LR questions by what puppy picture I would place next to them. Now, when I read a question I haven't taken on before, the first thing in my mind is which puppy picture which, oddly enough, actually can be helpful in figuring out the answer. Y'all name 'em (weakening, strengthening, etc)--I have images of puppies.

That's either the weirdest or most brilliant idea I've ever heard.  Guess you'll know by test day ;)

On my end, just gonna go for a test barrage from here on out.  Argh..hope it works.

Good luck everyone!

Studying for the LSAT / LR Question - confusing conditional (retitled)
« on: September 09, 2007, 08:53:30 AM »
Hi all, yet another LR that's stumped me, argh.  Have a go at it LSAT buffs:

20.  If the economy is weak, then prices remain constant although unemployment rises.  But unemployment rises only if investment decreases.  Fortunately, investment is not decreasing.

If the statement aboves are true, then which one of the following must be false?

(A) Either the economy is weak or investment is decreasing.
(B) If unemployment rises, then prices remain constant.
(C) The economy is weak only if investment decreases.
(D) Either the economy is weak or prices are remaining constant.
(E) Either unemployment is rising or the economy is not weak.

I think it's the "although" that's throwing me off; I have no idea if I should diagram that as EW -> PRC -> UE or EW -> PRC / EW -> UR (or neither!).

Thanks in advance.  Will post credited answer tomorrow morning.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 ... 19