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 - Nizzy

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6
31
Oh btw, didn't notice what section of the board this was posted on.  Are you a URM?

32
What up guys,

I'm a junior at an Ivy League school, have near a 3.3 (got the nasty grade trend, 2.8 1st 3 semesters, 3.8 next 3 semesters) VP of my class, Capt of a Varsity Sport and in ROTC.  What do I need on the LSAT to get into a top 10? Advice would be greatly appreciated.  I'm in the testmasters class right now and I scored a 155 on the 1st diagnostic.

Schools 11-14 not doin it for yah?  Decent first diag, but you'll prolly need something close to a 170 to have good shot

33
Reviews, Visits, and Rankings / Re: MAFIA LAW PROGRAMS
« on: May 11, 2005, 03:13:07 AM »
what is the best law school after which i can work for the mob? any kind: italian, russian, colombian, israeli, japanese, chinese or even french (kidding, they were kicked out of the mafia olympics).

i heard havard, chi town or even stanfart might be pretty good for this field, but i have my doubts. maybe indiana bloomington or seattle? usc must have connections... or cooley? but it is imperative for my gargantuan ego i go to the first tier.

where did robert duvall attend in godfather?

Columbia

34
The assumption would be that molting and age correlate, i would think.  This was never mentioned and is needed.
Quote

Actually, it's funny that you mention that. If you look at the answer choices, one of them is basically a restatement of that idea.....but it's wrong.

The incorrect answer is something to the effect of "Rattle snakes molt exactly once a year". If you negate it, however, the argument still holds up. For example they could molt four times (NOT once) a year and the size of the  rattle would still be a way to determine age.

To me, this question showed me the power of the negation technique and why it is sometimes not necessary to prephase answers. It's only thanks to guys like Casa, AJ, and Theo that I managed to pick it up.

The thing about molting once a year is quite noticeably not the same as what i said.  I said they had to correlate, and a statement that says that they have to correlate a specific way goes too far and is incorrect.  Could you give the answer choices?

(BTW, i am making no comment about the good and bad of paraphrasing, I don't actually use any technique with these sections, i just pick the one that sounds write.  Go philosopy)

The one that sounds write, I see. Do they teach spelling those philosophy classes too? ;D

Here are the answer choices for the rattlesnake question:
a- rattlesnakes molt exactly once a year
b- the rattles of rattlesnakes of different species are identical in appearance
c- rattlesnakes molt more frequently when young than old
d- the brittleness of a rattlesnake's rattle is not correlated with the length of the rattlesnake's life
e- rattlesnakes molt as often when food is scarce as they do when food is plentiful.

I agree the "exactly once a year" takes your idea too far. But for someone like me, its all to easy to go from "correlate" to "once a year" and get the question wrong.

 :'( Mean you are.  They do not teach spelling in those classes, though i would attribute that dumb mistake to my lack of proof reading more than anything else.  This question blows, actually, but I would have to go with E. (essentially using negation)  Got a 168 if that has anything to do with my opinion being valid.

35
The assumption would be that molting and age correlate, i would think.  This was never mentioned and is needed.
Quote

Actually, it's funny that you mention that. If you look at the answer choices, one of them is basically a restatement of that idea.....but it's wrong.

The incorrect answer is something to the effect of "Rattle snakes molt exactly once a year". If you negate it, however, the argument still holds up. For example they could molt four times (NOT once) a year and the size of the  rattle would still be a way to determine age.

To me, this question showed me the power of the negation technique and why it is sometimes not necessary to prephase answers. It's only thanks to guys like Casa, AJ, and Theo that I managed to pick it up.

The thing about molting once a year is quite noticeably not the same as what i said.  I said they had to correlate, and a statement that says that they have to correlate a specific way goes too far and is incorrect.  Could you give the answer choices?

(BTW, i am making no comment about the good and bad of paraphrasing, I don't actually use any technique with these sections, i just pick the one that sounds write.  Go philosopy)

36
Oftentimes there are patterns to what the testmakers use as answer choices on these types of questions. While I wholeheartedly support the use of the assumption negation technique in deciding among attractive answer choices, prephrasing is also a powerful tool in anticipating what the correct answer might be.

For example, in many of the cause and effect questions, the correct answer often goes something as follows: there are no other causes that may have led to the observed effect.

In other cases, especially in which the argument advances a course of action, the correct answer simply affirms that it is actually possible for the action to be implemented.

Keeping some of these patterns in mind may help push you toward a right answer or shave off some time as you approach these questions.


Does prephrasing work here?

<<<<<
The folktale that claims that a rattlesnake's age can be determined from the number of sections in its rattle is false, but only because the rattles are brittle and sometimes partially or completely break off.  So if they were not so brittle, one could reliably determine a rattlesnake's age simply from the number of sections in its rattle, because one new section is formed each time a rattlesnake molts.

Which one of the following is an assumption the argument requires in order for its conclusion to be properly drawn?
>>>>>


The assumption would be that molting and age correlate, i would think.  This was never mentioned and is needed.

37
Who here knows the difference between "reserve" and "waitlist" from Columbia? (other than the "reserve" isn't ranked) Which is better, and how do they decide between putting someone on "reserve" and placing someone on the waitlist?



Pretty sure the reserve is just columbia's special name for their wailist.

38

1. The right to not fill a prescription is protected by the state. Their license is not revoked or censured.

2. Pharmacies are governed by administrative codes, not laws.

3. Business owners, expecially in "right to work" states, can fire employees for any reason at any time without any notice. It's not illegal to go to a bar, get stinking drunk, and tell everyone that your boss is a big jerk, but they can fire you for it. It's not illegal to divulge trade secrets, but your boss can fire you for it.

4. You are too ignorant to live.

Nice Dodge... So you are still claiming there is no contradiction between #1 and #3?

I can't speak for what he is claiming, but i only claimed there is theoretically no contradiction unless a law exists forbiding firing in that case.  They may very well exist, it is not something i have researched.  However, i would like to add that if a pharmacist has moral objections to selling something, he should have to mention this fact when he is being hired, or forever hold his peace (piece?).  Else, he could decide one day to be a Christian scientist and basically be allowed to sit around all day doing nothing. (ridiculously extreme example, but you get what i am saying)

39
General board for soon-to-be 1Ls / Re: Anyone else going to GULC?
« on: May 06, 2005, 05:16:53 PM »
3Peat,

From the Curriculum B description on GULC's admitted student's website:

...Exposure to the important common-law principles comes in a context that emphasizes the connection between different areas of law and other disciplines. More emphasis is placed on the emergence of the regulatory state and on the impact government regulation has on legal theory and practice. Most significantly, the faculty make a concerted effort to integrate their various offerings and to teach students the ways in which seemingly unconnected legal problems pose common, recurring issues. In short, the curriculum focuses on the "big picture" -- not just the "what" of law, but also on the "why."

that sounds right up my alley.  why woudnt everyone want to focus onthe big picture?

Thats pretty funny, man.  And how come so many people don't like discussing philosophy with me?  A majority of people consider the 'why' rather irrelevant and want to focus more on practicality.  I can't tell them they are wrong to feel that way, but I just feel differently.  Join the club. (I imagine you literally will)

40

Your post is contradictory.  If a state allows that a pharmacist can refuse to fill a prescription on ANY grounds, then the business owner CANNOT FIRE him for what the state 'law' permits.

The fact remains that business owners do fire pharmacists for refusing to fill a prescription, so the pharmacist's refusal is NOT protected by those states.  So the prior posts indicating states allowing pharmacists to refuse on ANY grounds is totally hogwash.

As for the statement of not understanding how stocking and refusal to fill are not linked, that is not the case.  You seem to believe they are synonymous, which they are not.  I'm stating stocking and filling a prescription, although related, are not necessarily synonymous, and for the purposes of the original poster's question, are outside of the scope.  Anything can be linked if one tries hard enough, but that doesn't mean they are the same entities.

1. The right to not fill a prescription is protected by the state. Their license is not revoked or censured.

2. Pharmacies are governed by administrative codes, not laws.

3. Business owners, expecially in "right to work" states, can fire employees for any reason at any time without any notice. It's not illegal to go to a bar, get stinking drunk, and tell everyone that your boss is a big jerk, but they can fire you for it. It's not illegal to divulge trade secrets, but your boss can fire you for it.

4. You are too ignorant to live.


Tell me sir, how can you have it both ways:  #1 and #3.
If a pharmacist is protected under #1 for refusal for ANY reason (BTW: whoever mentioned ANY in a previous post is full of darn) , how can the business owner fire him under #3 ?



I am a bit confused how you could think there is a contradiction.  According to the law, the pharmacist would be allowed to decide not to fill the order.  Hence, he can't be forced by police or arrested.  But if his boss wants those orders to be filled, and he refuses, he can be fired.

This whole topic is silly to argue about since it is basically the moral arguement that gets the juices flowing, but it is the law the decides what is gonna be.  I think it should be the case that people can get their prescriptions filled, which is really only a problem if the pharmacy is the only one around.  And while i suppose i can understand the pro-life arguement about the morning after pill, objecting to birth control is unbelievably destructive and a reason why it is so hard to take them seriously sometimes.

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6