Law School Discussion

Nine Years of 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 - Barnum

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 33
1
Black Law Student Discussion Board / CLEO Event in DC this Saturday
« on: March 09, 2011, 08:57:02 AM »
Hey everyone,

Just thought I'd post a link for a CLEO event this Saturday held at Catholic Law School in case anyone is interested.

The CLEO website is http://www.cleoscholars.com

They have other events throughout the year in other major cities, but I know the one this Saturday has a free practice LSAT with a follow up 2 hours LSAT strategy session.

Also, for some of the posters who are much earlier in the process, there are also seminars for Freshman and Sophomores to get their feet wet with an introduction to logical reasoning.

2
Studying for the LSAT / Re: DC LSAT forum this Saturday
« on: March 09, 2011, 08:55:54 AM »
How'd you guess?

3
Studying for the LSAT / DC LSAT forum this Saturday
« on: March 08, 2011, 06:01:32 PM »
Hey everyone,

Just thought I'd post a link for a CLEO event this Saturday held at Catholic Law School in case anyone is interested.

The CLEO website is http://www.cleoscholars.com

They have other events throughout the year in other major cities, but I know the one this Saturday has a free practice LSAT with a follow up 2 hours LSAT strategy session.

Also, for some of the posters who are much earlier in the process, there are also seminars for Freshman and Sophomores to get their feet wet with an introduction to logical reasoning.

4
Studying for the LSAT / Re: LSAT explanations?
« on: March 03, 2011, 11:11:10 AM »
Unfortunately, pretty much only SuperPrep has explanations in it for the three tests.  The other LSAC books that contain ten tests do not have explanations.  That is why these boards come in handy.  If you get stuck, post the test # section# and question # and usually someone will jump on with an explanation.  Don't post the question itself as that violates copyright.

5
Studying for the LSAT / Re: Best prep-course company?
« on: December 23, 2010, 12:10:31 PM »
Hey LSAT Freedom,

Just thought you should be aware that you need to fix your website.  On it you claim that you are the ONLY company to have LSAT prep created exclusively by Harvard Law Grads, but mentor prep http://www.mentortestprep.com/index.htm has been doing that since 2005.

By the way not a shill for Mentor, in fact I work for a direct competitor.

6
Studying for the LSAT / Re: Free extra help in Washington, DC
« on: June 22, 2009, 10:36:14 AM »
Last week, the event went so well, we thought we'd do it again.  A few changes though:

To consolidate, we won't be at Java Green today.  We will only be at ME Swing from 2-5:30 and Java House from 6:00-9:30.  Bernie and I will be at both locations the entire time.

If you have some time on your lunch hour, come join us at ME Swing or after work at Java House.  Bernie and I get kind of a twisted enjoyment from helping students.  Yesterday, we got stuck in traffic on our way home so we stopped at a Borders and just started helping a couple random people we saw tutoring.  We found it sadly entertaining while we waited out the traffic.


7
Studying for the LSAT / Free extra help in Washington, DC
« on: June 12, 2009, 03:10:09 PM »
Hi Everybody!

On Monday, we're going to be at local Washington DC coffee shops answering LSAT, GMAT, and GRE questions.  Bring homework questions, general questions, or just come hang out with us while we get our caffeine fix.  This is a great chance to support the local coffee shops and the local economy while getting questions answered!  If you have any friends that are thinking about law school, business school, or grad school, please pass this info along to them as well!

Here are the locations and times. 

M.E. Swing with Jeff (Barnum on this board) 2-5:30, 1702 G Street N.W.,  http://www.swingscoffee.com/ (Between 17th and 18th street near the White House and World Bank)

Java Green with Bernie (She actually posts as Bernie) 2-8pm, 1020 19th St, N.W., http://www.javagreencafe.com/  (Between K and L, with a VERY yummy vegetarian menu!)

Java House with Jeff 6-9pm, 1645 Q St NW, http://www.javahousedc.com/  (Just down the street from Dupont Circle)

Hope to see you there!

If you have any questions, please feel free to email me directly at jglazer@griffonprep,com

8
Studying for the LSAT / Re: experimental
« on: June 09, 2009, 06:34:58 PM »
ok, to I am going to try to explain why it is likely that the experimental has always been in the first three and will probably continue to be so.

Notice that if you look at what people had minus the experimental, everybody had the same two scored sections before the break, and the same two scored sections after the break, even if they had them in a different order.  This is intentional.  This means during the break, no test-taker could give a "heads up" to another test taker because everyone has seen the same material and yet to see to the same material.

However, now lets consider the possibility that some people had section 2 as experimental, but others had section 4 as experimental.  The people with section 4 as their experimental would have three scored sections before the break, whereas those with section 2 would have only seen two scored sections.  This would mean that if you discussed what you had seen with other testers during the break, it would be possible for some testers to "give away" some details that could help other testers out who still had two scored sections to go.  We all know you are not supposed to discuss the test during the break, but LSAC at least recognizes the reality that this could and very likely does occur.

Until recently, everybody even had the experimental during the same section.  However, it seems due to some allegations that this enabled some test-takers to more easily deduce what section was experimental while taking the exam, which allegedly allowed them to cheat, LSAC has seemed to recently had test-takers taking the experimental during different sections starting around February of 2008. 

And as much as you may not like being the guinea pigs for future tests, it is the part of the process that allows the test to be standardized and you are now benefiting from past test takers who went through the exact same things as you.

9
Studying for the LSAT / Re: A if, but only if, B
« on: June 04, 2009, 10:09:29 AM »
I think the confusion stems from not understanding the use of the word "but" in the English language.

The word "but" is a conjunction to join two ideas the same way as "and."  Generally, "but" just adds some emphasis to the meaning.  "But" does not introduce a separate or inconsistent concept.

Take, for example, the statement

He is a nice guy AND he loves his mother.

This might be a great guy to date because of those two things combined.

Now take

He is a nice guy, but he doesn't have a job.

Now you might not want to date him.  More importantly you should realize though you still know both facts.  The "but" doesn't create two separate ideas, it simply adds emphasis to the second piece possibly having a different connotation in regards to your decision to go on a date.

This is why there is no real difference between if AND only if vs if BUT only if.

Both "and" and "but" are conjunctions that combine two ideas.

For more information on this idea http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mkO87mkgcNo

10
Studying for the LSAT / Re: a GMAT LR problem - try it out!
« on: April 17, 2009, 03:23:56 PM »
This is the problem with working from fake questions.  There is no really correct answer choice.  The reason B would be tempting is because the original argument presumes that the raise will only be from $5 to $5.50 for a small number of companies and therefore negligible.  B is trying to point out that if some companies are paying less, let's say $3/hour, then the raise to $5.50 is more significant.  However, as Matthies has pointed out this requires that the businesses that have been violating the minimum wage to suddenly think "oh gee, now that it is more, we should probably pay it."  This of course would seem unlikely, so B really does not weaken it.

C would seem tempting if you thought it was suggesting that by raising the minimum wage, you would have to also raise the wages of the trained workers to keep them happy, thus indicating more people than just the minimum wage people would be getting raises indicating a larger change than initially suggested.  However, since the argument already stated only a small portion receive less than the $5.50 already, only that same small portion would have to worry about trained workers who receive more.  It would also have to assume that the trained workers were probably not making more than $5.5o themselves because if they were making $6 for example, they would still be making more than the new hires after the hike and might not require an increase to their wages.

Either way B and C really require huge leaps to make them weaken and those leaps seem to be in contrast to presented information making neither a good weakener.

Whether you are studying for the LSAT or the GMAT, please always remember that it is best to study from real questions.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 33