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 - Starresky

Pages: 1 ... 35 36 37 38 39 [40] 41 42
Studying for the LSAT / Re: Dec 2000, Section 3, #7
« on: January 11, 2005, 10:06:43 AM »
Well I don't know if dividing the conclusion in half really matters, but yes you can by saying that more tv coverage=more violent crime is the first conclusion and the not leaving your home part is the second but I think you are overanalyzing ;)

Studying for the LSAT / Re: Dec 2000, Section 3, #7
« on: January 11, 2005, 09:48:43 AM »
First off, you must extract the conclusion from this and how the speaker reached this conclusion. The conclusion is that there is a lot of crime, specifically more crime now than there was before. The reasoning is that there is more crime being shown on TV and in the news so therefore there must be more crime in Real Life.

The flaw jumps out already because how can you assume that TV is a true representation of real life. Maybe there was more crime or the same amount of crime back then but no one covered it. Maybe people care more about crime now than they did back then and that's why there is more coverage. Etc. etc.

B is out of scope. Whether crime is out of control here, there or everywhere does not affect the author's reasoning of more crime coverage=more crime in real life. If it were true that there is crime out of control outside of that city how does that say anything about there being more crime NOW than the OLD DAYS? It doesn't.

A is the answer (see my deduction above) because it points out a flaw in the argument. It gives another reason why there is more crime in the news besides there being more crime in real life. The reason being offered is that they cover violent crime more comprehensively than they did before.

Sorry that was so long. HTH.

Studying for the LSAT / Re: Games -- Inferences & key constraints
« on: January 11, 2005, 09:40:29 AM »
I would never dive into a game without a setup or diagram unless I knew I couldn't figure out where to start the setup after 3 minutes, but fortunately that didn't happen to me on either the october or december (got perfect scores on both LG sections). It would be a waste of time to start in on a game without making the secondary or even tertiary deductions. It may feel like you are wasting time but you are actually saving a ton by seeing all the rules upfront and being able to cross off answers faster.

Studying for the LSAT / Re: Perplexing LR question?
« on: January 11, 2005, 12:27:57 AM »
C would be my pick just at first glance, but I can see why you'd be confused. They like to turn it around on what I call binary situations. There was one LR problem regarding parking and ug/faculty or something that had this similar logic issue. Anyway, basically something can either be turned down or approved, there is no middleway. So whether something affects the likelihood (likelihood DOES NOT EQUAL more likely, it could also mean less likely) of something being approved or turned down means the same thing. It doesn't say whether the effect is increasing the chances or decreasing the chances. In this situation, the supervisor is assuming that it would decrease the chances of being turned down because all the other ones previous were turned down. HTH.


Acceptances, Denials, and Waitlists / Re: In at GW, Notre Dame, Vandy
« on: January 10, 2005, 10:51:39 PM »

Law School Admissions / Re: grammer question- need help quick!
« on: January 10, 2005, 10:44:07 PM »
How does this sound?
When I accepted the position I truly had no idea what demands, time requirements, and difficulties would lie ahead of me.

Maybe I don't use that term very often and that's why it sounds awkward. I would have said "When I accepted the position, I had no idea what demands, time requirements and difficulties would be in store for me." But I am no writer, so maybe someone else can help here.

Law School Admissions / Re: grammer question- need help quick!
« on: January 10, 2005, 10:37:47 PM »
My vote is for "lay" :) BTW, it is grammAr, just in case you use that in your p.s. or somewhere else on your app you might want it spelled right (not saying it to be snarky!).


Law School Admissions / Re: Bad News?
« on: January 10, 2005, 10:09:29 PM »
The advisor at my school told me that I should not apply to any school unless they are in the 4th tier because of my "low LSAT score combined with a not so great GPA". She also said I would be throwing away my $ if I applied to any school in the top 100. Well, so much shw knows- I've been accepted to a tier 1 and a tier 2 school.

Low LSAT and not so great GPA? LOL. Glad you didn't listen!

Studying for the LSAT / Re: Omitting Questions: help or hurt???
« on: January 10, 2005, 09:52:36 PM »
Starresky, thanks for the encouragement. i'm prepared today to even take the was never about me being unprepared i was just really messed up that day and have included an addendum stating that. i'm pretty sure i'll do extremely well in february.

Yeah I was the same way. However, you probably shouldn't have listened to your parents. You know they average scores right?

Studying for the LSAT / Re: Test #30 Dec. LSAT Sct. 4 Q. 6
« on: January 10, 2005, 09:51:06 PM »
Well I picked B as soon as I read it because this is a common argument flaw, assuming that since something is sufficient it is the ONLY sufficient solution. E is wrong because you are trying to argue against a premise. In the LSAT if the speaker STATES something as FACT you must take it as so. You are trying to find the problem in their REASONING, not in their premises.

Pages: 1 ... 35 36 37 38 39 [40] 41 42