Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;
Discussion Discussion
Resources Resources

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 - weinmatt

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5
31
Studying for the LSAT / Re: Q about LSAC GPA
« on: February 16, 2005, 12:50:36 PM »
in regards to fairness... we are on a plus minus system here at umd but the pluses and minuses dont actually count. However, you'd be pleasantly surprised to see that it helps profs distinguish between A/B and B/C. thus i've gotten a few more than i might have without the system. Same goes for plus.

I would imagine thought that... my LSDAS gpa is identical to my actual GPA, because even with A+ = 4.333 I have as many pluses as minuses. I dont know of any school that does plus/minus without giving A+'s... even if they are the same value as A's in that schools system

32
Studying for the LSAT / Re: SQUIDS- .001
« on: February 15, 2005, 11:57:19 AM »
Not to pipe in and start up discussion again... but I'm in the court with the .001 answer here's why: This was an inferance question... and you could not infer that before the invention of SQUIDS that measurements that small were unattainable. With regard to the .001 answer : some kind of experiment has to be done to establish that measurement! Hence, that answer makes more sense.

At least to me.

I tend to agree with what's being said there on that other topic: Everybody brings what they remember and hence some of their bias to the boards... so who knows :)

33
Studying for the LSAT / Re: LR: Pangaea
« on: February 14, 2005, 11:22:02 AM »
the answer choice that said "computer models was incomplete" was not sufficient to most weaken the theory that volcanic plumes broke up Pangaea. Just becase it was incomplete doesn't necessarily imply the theory was not correct. The answer choice that specifically identified the cause of Pangaea's breakup with the statement "Pangaea, by itself,..." was correct because it ruled out the theory described from occurring AT ALL.

34
Studying for the LSAT / Re: Feb Writing Sample: Which position did you take?
« on: February 14, 2005, 10:28:11 AM »
Flaws with the magazine made me want to choose the seminars.

1. The competing drug had also run ads the past few issues.
2. The magazine was targeted at the audience for the drug, mostly older people
3. The two drugs sound similar. Lustalor and... Lofalin I think? Could lead to confusion ESPECIALLY among old people

Also, my dad is a physician and if there is one thing i have learned its that doctors, not patients, prescribe the drugs, and educated patients is useless if the doctors don't have the necessary experience with the drug -- because they will NOT prescribe it. Hence you've gotta hit the docs first, then later when you've got more $, then do the magazine ads

35
Studying for the LSAT / Re: LR: tv computer one.
« on: February 14, 2005, 10:14:01 AM »
the answer to the question was definitely a "all of these things strengthen that computers will take over" EXCEPT.

tvs were once new... strengthens, even if slightly, implying that tv's were once new and they took over, just like computers

computers are getting cheaper... strengthens because it opens the market up. and it did say relative... so this is definitely not it

computers offer more options... strengthens again, even if slightly, that they are better
-- but implies that computers can offer more and thus people will buy -- not it

the fourth one was definitely something totally out there... and wrong

Quote from: Heyabrendan on February 12, 2005, 11:32:19 PM
If people have both TVs and computers, then it does nothing to strengthen the claim that computers will replace TVs as the entertainment source. Why haven't they gotten rid of their TV's?

that both own... does NOTHING for the argument just as heya said, because if computers were "taking over" people would have gotten rid of their tvs, because that is what the argument implied. hence it weakens because it basically says "people could own both and tv would still be king"


36
Studying for the LSAT / Re: LR: Pangaea
« on: February 13, 2005, 08:07:23 PM »
thats two different questions i think you have confused...

the one with the answer that ocean movements counteracted the plates was the one that said that tectonic plate movements were making the earth spin faster and that was a WEAKEN q. and the answer was that ocean movements or something was counteracting the tectonic plate movement.

the one with the pangaea was a weaken yes, but i thought the answer was the statement that Pangaea, by itself, broke itself up for some reason (which i can't remember) and that weakens the argument most because it would rule out any other contributory factors such as the tectonic movement

37
Studying for the LSAT / Re: wages for industrial workers versus service workers fill in the blank
« on: February 13, 2005, 05:13:00 PM »
the answer was definitely the one that suggested that the gov't doesnt prioritize any one job but makes sure that demand for both products and services remains high...i remember in the q. itself it clearly identified that the cause of high-paying jobs was demand for product/service, and nothing else

38
Studying for the LSAT / Re: Chinese/Europeans mummies/wheel
« on: February 13, 2005, 05:10:49 PM »
I was fairly sure that this was an except strengthen question... and the answer i chose was something like "no caucasians were native to china" which implied that the mummy had nothing to do with china at that time. I could be wrong, and probably am... but the nw china answer definitely strengthened because it implied "there were more"

39
Studying for the LSAT / Re: National Gov'ts local gov'ts
« on: February 12, 2005, 09:08:01 PM »
I took the salesperson one too... it was the only one that had the parallel reasoning

40
Studying for the LSAT / Re: LR: tv computer one.
« on: February 12, 2005, 05:35:45 PM »
picked that one as well. was the only one that didnt weaken... didn't strengthen either... but didnt weaken

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5