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
391
Law School Admissions / Re: Who has the best chance at these schools??
« on: January 11, 2005, 11:15:33 AM »
I bet this comment gets a lot of unpleasant replies.

Haha let me clarify!

392
Acceptances, Denials, and Waitlists / Re: In at San Diego
« on: January 11, 2005, 10:31:32 AM »
How honest am I being?  I feel that is overly rude.  I'm not sure how these boards work since I am new to the community, but I fell I have gained a strong understanding over the last two months. Why in the world would, after all the help everyone has been to me answering my questions, which were at times idiotic, post a false acceptance letter? I have appreciated the resource that this board has been, and thank all posters for the information provided.  I would not post a false acceptance. 

I think everyone is tense around here because acceptances/rejections are starting to come in and everyone is being super sensitive to possible flames. Thanks for sharing your info and please don't be hindered by the posts that questioned your integrity because those that believe you value your input.

393
Law School Admissions / Re: Who has the best chance at these schools??
« on: January 11, 2005, 10:11:39 AM »
Aren't we both considered urms?
 if you are from vietnam are you considered urm?

Being Vietnamese myself, and doing some digging around, I can tell you that we are NOT considered under-represented minorities unfortunately!

394
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 ;)

395
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.

396
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.

397
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.

Love,
Q

398
Acceptances, Denials, and Waitlists / Re: In at GW, Notre Dame, Vandy
« on: January 10, 2005, 10:51:39 PM »
That is AWESOME! CONGRATULATIONS!!!

399
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.

400
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!).

Love,
Q

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