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 ... 21
Studying for the LSAT / Re: Reading ALL answer choices
« on: September 11, 2007, 03:08:07 AM »
Then start from E. If you think the answer is right move on. BOOM

That argument is incorrect for the same reasons sited above

If your aiming for a 160 this strategy might work. 170 you dont stand a chance.

I start from E, though I still read all answer choices. 

Studying for the LSAT / Re: Question for 175 - 180 Testers
« on: September 11, 2007, 03:07:00 AM »
I'm having the same problem as you guys.  Been stuck in the 171-174 range in my last 7 or so tests (with the occasional dip to 169, which is depressing).  (And I don't mean to sound like an ass with these scores, but I really need the 175+ to offset my crappy GPA).

My main plan right now:

LR -- I usually get -2 to -3 per section on this one, but occasionally -0 and occasionally -5.  Wtf.  One pattern though -- I seem to be getting the abstract problems incorrect, ie Method/Flaw/Principle/Evaluate.  So I'm gonna be using Jeffort's excellent LR tool to just hammer out each question from all the preptests I've done so far (7-28).  Did all Method questions for preptests 19-28 yesterday and got nothing wrong, so I'm crossing my fingers that this will help.

LG -- For some reason this just 'clicked' for me about a week ago.  Before I usually get -2 to -3 wrong because of running out of time, but for the last couple of tests I've finished all the games with no mistakes and remaining time.  I attribute it to getting more rest, hehe, and the LG barrage I've been doing (basically for a couple of days I just sat down and did every single LG I've done back to back).

RC - This is my strong spot; I don't think I've ever gotten more than -2 in any test (and usually -0/-1).  I'm hoping this'll carry through to the actual test, though of course I think it's still worth practicing.

I think we're all waiting for it to just 'click', but I feel the only way to do that is more and more practice.  Good luck guys!

Studying for the LSAT / Re: Interesting Question
« on: September 10, 2007, 06:57:49 AM »
How does LSAC keep the LSAT from getting leaked a couple days before it's scheduled to be administered?

You're starting off with the assumption that it's never leaked before ;)

Awesome, so I think I'll just keep doing what I'm doing (small pencil dot on the answer sheet, on the left of every skipped problem, then erasing afterwards).  Thanks for the replies.

Not sure how sensitive LSAC's scantrons are.  They have told me that bubbling in additional answers (like Q29 on a 28 question section) will not be detected by the scanner.  Marks in the margin I'm not sure.

Why don't you just circle the question number in the booklet?

Seems like it'd be faster to just mark it on the sheet right?  With the booklet, you'd have to leaf through to see which one you skipped.  (Marking it on the sheet would also reduce the likelihood of bubbling mistakes...)

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, 02:11:56 PM »
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, 01:19:40 PM »
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, 01:07:22 PM »
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, 12:24:13 PM »
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...

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 ... 21