Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Author Topic: October 2004 LSAT: the aftermath  (Read 15106 times)

_EKC_

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 2859
  • LisBeth
    • View Profile
Re: October 2004 LSAT: the aftermath
« Reply #90 on: October 02, 2004, 03:33:38 PM »
I hate it when people talk about what they got for certain questions because I can never remember exactly what I put. I'm all worried now because I can't remember if I chose 3 or 4 for that F question in games!

EKC

Reason

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 33
    • View Profile
Re: October 2004 LSAT: the aftermath
« Reply #91 on: October 02, 2004, 03:35:18 PM »
i believe one of the condition was that all three FOG had to be present...if i am not mistaken...so i think F could be only 3

calibos11

  • Guest
Re: October 2004 LSAT: the aftermath
« Reply #92 on: October 02, 2004, 03:35:50 PM »
I didn't do this reading comp passage.  Was it the third of the fourth one?  Was it really hard?


Yea...I think it was the 4th one.  I thought the first one was hardest.  Some *&^% about Canadian union pre-paid legal plans--bored the @#!* out of me + it was my first taste of the LSAT, so I was quite nervous.  

_EKC_

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 2859
  • LisBeth
    • View Profile
Re: October 2004 LSAT: the aftermath
« Reply #93 on: October 02, 2004, 03:36:12 PM »
Also, this car alarm kept going off. During the 2nd and 3rd sections it went off about every 2 minutes or so. It would go off like 6 times in a row and then stop for a while. It was SO ANNOYING. Then after the break it went off once and everyone started getting pissed. I don't think it really affected me, though, because it was during experimental and LR, and in LR, a little distraction takes time away, but doesn't ruin it.

EKC

dr_draino

  • Guest
Re: October 2004 LSAT: the aftermath
« Reply #94 on: October 02, 2004, 03:36:47 PM »
Aight, I really am out this time.

To the west-coasties or anyone else that gets here later, pick whichever the following applies:

1)  Yeah, the RC did suck
2)  Congrats!  I knew you'd do great!
3)  Chin-up, I bet you did better than you think.
4)  Yep, I'm glad I don't have to take another practice test again too!

AIMis180

  • Guest
Re: October 2004 LSAT: the aftermath
« Reply #95 on: October 02, 2004, 03:41:51 PM »
forbearing maybe?


review topics
RC:
modernist architecture
nerve growth factors
legal plans
??

LG
???
dogs
archaeologists
parkng lots

BAFF213

  • Guest
Re: October 2004 LSAT: the aftermath
« Reply #96 on: October 02, 2004, 03:42:45 PM »
I didn't do this reading comp passage.  Was it the third of the fourth one?  Was it really hard?


Yea...I think it was the 4th one.  I thought the first one was hardest.  Some *&^% about Canadian union pre-paid legal plans--bored the @#!* out of me + it was my first taste of the LSAT, so I was quite nervous.  

Yea, I was not a fan of that Canadian *&^%.  What else was there for reading comp?  Was the Chinese on the Pacific Coast on the real RC?  Oh yea and then the NGF *&^% or whatever that someone mentioned earlier.

BAFF213

  • Guest
Re: October 2004 LSAT: the aftermath
« Reply #97 on: October 02, 2004, 03:43:57 PM »
Also, this car alarm kept going off. During the 2nd and 3rd sections it went off about every 2 minutes or so. It would go off like 6 times in a row and then stop for a while. It was SO ANNOYING. Then after the break it went off once and everyone started getting pissed. I don't think it really affected me, though, because it was during experimental and LR, and in LR, a little distraction takes time away, but doesn't ruin it.

EKC

That sucks - I would be so pissed. 

superiorlobe

  • Guest
Re: October 2004 LSAT: the aftermath
« Reply #98 on: October 02, 2004, 03:44:46 PM »
i believe one of the condition was that all three FOG had to be present...if i am not mistaken...so i think F could be only 3

I double checked that.  O did not have to appear.

JGC

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 9
    • View Profile
    • Joe's Page
Re: October 2004 LSAT: the aftermath
« Reply #99 on: October 02, 2004, 03:45:14 PM »
What about the question in the modernist architecture section asking what the author's purpose of referring to Frank Lloyd Wright, etc. I put the answer along the lines of the modernists claming that these were representative works--can't remember exactly...