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 - ts369697
Pages: 1 2 3  5 6 7 8 9 10
« on: May 27, 2005, 02:44:42 AM »
sorry, but why are we picking on NBA players? are we just jealous? NBA must be pretty quick to learn considering they're the best in the world at they do. For people who have never known any real success in life - at least not that of NBA plyers, you guys sure are quick to bash a group of people who have spent countless hours honing and pefecting their game - that takes intelligence too. Long live the NBA - go Suns +5.5.
« on: May 26, 2005, 09:41:08 PM »
Well, Im 6'0 - slightly above the national average and my practice LSATs are about 165, so yes, there is an obvious correlation between standing 6'0 or more and scoring in the 160's. This study only involves males however, well, 1 male to be exact, but nevertheless the results speak for themselves.
« on: May 26, 2005, 09:36:19 PM »
Thanks Amanda - you got it. The actual answer was "The results of the analysis are interpreted as indicating that the use of titanium as an ingredient in fifteenth century ink both was, and was not, extremely restricted."
i guess i was having a hard time finding the implication that the titanium was rare - it didnt seem like that had been established until you cleared it up with: "This would support the idea that B-36 was also created by Guttenberg -- since it would make sense that the the only 2 products of that era containing titanium ink were put out by the same person." i guess since they automatically made that correlation the implication would be that the use of titanium was extremely rare. That still doesnt mean that Vinland Map wouldnt have it though because, hypothetically the drawer of the map could have been an experimenter in titanium ink. anyway, its definitely the best answer among the ones offered and i appreciate the help.
« on: May 26, 2005, 08:09:21 PM »
Hell no - dont take that class. the prep classes are for people who need somebody breathing down there back to stay focused on practicing. its basically an LSAT boot camp. you wont learn anything in that class that you didnt learn over the next couple of months if you work hard - especially the weekend ones. those are for rich kid slackers. it should be noted that ive never actually taken a course, just talked to people (and seent he types that take it). on my own though, im improved drastically and will continue to do so. you just need the practice tests - go through relentlessly and figure out what you're doing wrong. the classes offer access to these as a big selling point but obviously you can get em through lsac.org for about 100 dollars total - probably free in some places on the net.
« on: May 26, 2005, 08:04:08 PM »
On LR ?'s that ask you to identify the weakness or criticism in the passage, Im trying to get better at forming my own answers before i even see the choices on questions because there should be one definite answer (well, sometimes more depending on the clarity of the passage). anyway, i came across this passage in a practice test and thought i found the error - and my error complied with an answer choice. it was wrong though. I want to see if anyone can spot the real problem in the passage and explain why it bests the one i came up with:
Until recently it was thought that ink used before the sixteenth century did not contain titanium. However, a new type of analysis detected titanium in the ink of the famous Bible printed by Johann Gutenberg and in that of another fiften-century Bible known as B-36, though not in the ink of any of numerous other fifteenth-century books analyzed. This finding is of great significance, since it not only strongly supports the hypothesis that B-36 was printed by Gutenberg but also shows that the presence of titanium in the ink of the purportedly fifteenth-century Vinland Map can no longer be regarded as a reason for doubting the map's authenticity.
The reasoning in the passage is vulnerable to criticism on the ground that:
sorry, no choices. just gotta spot it. i figured that a possible lapse of reasoning came in the fact that they had found titanium in the map seemingly well before it was found in the gutenberg bible. why was the map tested to find titanium - probably to settle the debate about its authenticitiy. well, if you did that why not test other documents like the gutenberg bible's ink, which you know is authentic, and see if theres titanium in that? the presence of titanium was reason to believe the map was a fraud and not created in the 15th century. maybe my criticism is more with the process of analysis and not with the passage. also it did mention that a new type of analysis was used to detect titanium in the gut bible - maybe it was a different testing condition and the test used on the map could not have been used on the bible - im not really sure. anyway, thats not the criticism. can someone spot the real one and let me know what tipped you off to it?
« on: May 23, 2005, 04:52:37 AM »
hey frank, i was thinking too that everyone on here scores 170+, but i think thats because those people are a lot more anxious to drop their score. plus, you figure the people who are that lsat obsesed that they're constantly reading this board are probably putting a lot of time in and one thing ive realized is the LSAT has a larger room for improvement scale than most tests. if you're getting 151-152 on early practice tests then you should be able to get it over 160 by test day if you work hard. my personal scores have already jumped about 12 points, but im waiting til october anyway because i think i can move it up a little more and get into the 170s. maybe its cause i feel like everyone else is geting that so i need to as well. probably been reading too many scores on this board.
« on: May 20, 2005, 03:33:53 AM »
im currently planning on taking the June test with a higher than 50/50 chance that I'll cnacel the score at the end. since its fine to take it in october, ill cancel and take another four months to study if i dont feel good about the test or found it a little more difficult than some of the practice ones ive ben working with - anything, really - maybe that rumor about the Rc is true - whatever. anyway, from what ive heard a cencellation is no big deal. any reason to think otherwise? i know schools see it, but do they care?
« on: May 19, 2005, 01:43:18 PM »
how does the LRB give you confidence? is just the familiarity with the section?
« on: May 19, 2005, 01:40:07 PM »
maybe try reading Finnegan's Wake or A Brief History of Time - maybe some contemporary lit theory. If you can comprehend those you can tackle anything on the LSAT.
« on: May 19, 2005, 12:21:17 AM »
Ive been diagnosed with ADD and used to take adderall for it. I stopped maybe three years ago, but i did notice that while i was on it i was able to concentrate for long periods of time. anyway, when i first started studying for lsat i couldnt get through a section in time casue my mind was drifting so much. i asked a buddy for a couple of his addy and took it again. scored about ten points higher (went from 157-167). anyway, ive been working my ass off since then on the various sections and preactice tests. now my score is at about 165-168 on a regular basis. i recently took the tets on addy again and got a 167, again. so, long story short, ADD drugs might help if you havent praqcticed much mainly becasue they'll make the RC and LR sections more bearable, but once you put the time in, your brain will get accustomed to the work the LSAT requires and you'll basically "learn" how to take the LSAT with or w/o medication. i would recommend just going ahead with the trial of strattera - which from my knowledge is not a stimulant and therefore doesnt exhibit the powerful effects/sidebacks of ritalin or adderall. maybe what yuo need is just more practice though. consider the october test. that way you'll be used tot he meds and used to the concentration required for the LSAT.
Pages: 1 2 3  5 6 7 8 9 10