Law School Discussion

You know... that guy that you almost pity.

Tetris

  • ****
  • 2117
  • Michigan Rocks
    • View Profile
    • LSN
Re: You know... that guy that you almost pity.
« Reply #10 on: June 15, 2007, 03:00:54 PM »
Whatever.  You guys are just stunned by my intelligence.  Send me a postcard from Cooley.  I'll be somewhere in Cambridge, MA 02138. 

And seriously what the hell crawled up everyone's a**.  This is an internet forum.  Who f*ing cares who says what.  Jesus.  Who called the arrogance police? 

Re: You know... that guy that you almost pity.
« Reply #11 on: June 15, 2007, 03:11:10 PM »
The ONLY reason I practiced any sections besides the Logic Games was so I could find my actual score on the test. If you really think you need special study to know how to do RC identical to a million standardized tests or trivial logic, you are the one to be pitied.

(Arrogant enough?)

Tetris

  • ****
  • 2117
  • Michigan Rocks
    • View Profile
    • LSN
Re: You know... that guy that you almost pity.
« Reply #12 on: June 15, 2007, 07:15:59 PM »
The ONLY reason I practiced any sections besides the Logic Games was so I could find my actual score on the test. If you really think you need special study to know how to do RC identical to a million standardized tests or trivial logic, you are the one to be pitied.

(Arrogant enough?)

Ummm... I disagree with your premise that the LSAT RC is "identical" to "a million standardized tests."  First of all, the topic matter changes (science, art/culture, law).  Second of all, the question prompts are different. 

Also even if I did concede that your premise is true then I disagree with the assumed premise that "if a test section is similar to test sections in other standardized tests then you do not need to study for it."  That assumption is needed to make the conclusion "thus you should not have to study for the RC section" sound.  And ummm... no.  That's dumb.  Obviously training oneself to recognize elements in the structure and so forth will tend to give one an edge in answering questions quickly and effectively.  Even if all my training made it so I was able to get one more answer right on the test, that one answer will probably be 1 point on the test.  So it's worth it considering all the people applying to law schools.

There's some more flaws with your argument but instead of wasting my time pointing them out to you I will let you try to figure them out.

Re: You know... that guy that you almost pity.
« Reply #13 on: June 15, 2007, 09:24:03 PM »
The additional information I offered was not intended to be complete explanations of just why exactly RC and LR are so ridiculously easy, but they do give at least a hint. I guess I'll put it simpler terms for you: RC and LG are easy for smart people, so your belief in necessary study shows you must be dumb.

Not that I necessarily believe that, but the information available certainly defines limits on your intelligence much more conclusively than it does on his. It's at least in doubt whether he may be a smart person who can already get perfect, but it's not in any doubt that you are too dull to do well without huge amounts of study, and, in fact, you seem to be so far away that it doesn't even occur to you that not all are so weak-minded.

Thistle

  • *****
  • 6324
    • View Profile
Re: You know... that guy that you almost pity.
« Reply #14 on: June 15, 2007, 09:34:09 PM »
i pity your future classmates.

you sir, are a trollhole.

Hank Rearden

  • *****
  • 8241
  • Zurich is stained
    • View Profile
Re: You know... that guy that you almost pity.
« Reply #15 on: June 16, 2007, 12:53:52 AM »

You don't understand the context.  First of all, he indicated that he did NO prepping.  None.  And he didn't know the number of sections there would be (he thought there were 4 sections one of which were experimental).  Also he went to a community college.  Plus we were in South Dakota... not that many geniuses in South Dakota.  There were 14 people in the class and I was scoring in the 170s so statistically speaking I should be the only one who even scored in the 160s+. 

 ::)

Tetris obviously doesn't know you, Shanny.   :-*

Tetris

  • ****
  • 2117
  • Michigan Rocks
    • View Profile
    • LSN
Re: You know... that guy that you almost pity.
« Reply #16 on: June 16, 2007, 08:46:48 AM »
The additional information I offered was not intended to be complete explanations of just why exactly RC and LR are so ridiculously easy, but they do give at least a hint. I guess I'll put it simpler terms for you: RC and LG are easy for smart people, so your belief in necessary study shows you must be dumb.

Not that I necessarily believe that, but the information available certainly defines limits on your intelligence much more conclusively than it does on his. It's at least in doubt whether he may be a smart person who can already get perfect, but it's not in any doubt that you are too dull to do well without huge amounts of study, and, in fact, you seem to be so far away that it doesn't even occur to you that not all are so weak-minded.

Your argument SO isn't supported.  Jesus.  What about my argument that even increasing one's score 1 point is worthy enough of an endeavor to pursue (and in all likelihood the 1 point is more like 5 or 10 points with practice)?  If you believe that "intelligent" people must be able to score as high on the LG and RC sections on their first practice test as they will on their real test regardless of the amount of practice they put in then I am going to call you on your B.S.  That is B.S. and you know it. 

Vapid Unicorn

  • ****
  • 381
  • Who, me?
    • View Profile
Re: You know... that guy that you almost pity.
« Reply #17 on: June 16, 2007, 12:37:12 PM »
If you believe that "intelligent" people must be able to score as high on the LG and RC sections on their first practice test as they will on their real test regardless of the amount of practice they put in then I am going to call you on your B.S.  That is B.S. and you know it. 

I took 5 practice tests and the LSAT once.  I've never missed a logic game question.  I've never missed more than one LR on any test.  My first-ever practice score was a 176.  Not all people need to study/practice every section.  Deal with it.

Re: You know... that guy that you almost pity.
« Reply #18 on: June 16, 2007, 12:57:09 PM »
This thread is sad.

Vapid Unicorn

  • ****
  • 381
  • Who, me?
    • View Profile
Re: You know... that guy that you almost pity.
« Reply #19 on: June 17, 2007, 06:12:48 AM »
If you believe that "intelligent" people must be able to score as high on the LG and RC sections on their first practice test as they will on their real test regardless of the amount of practice they put in then I am going to call you on your B.S.  That is B.S. and you know it. 

I took 5 practice tests and the LSAT once.  I've never missed a logic game question.  I've never missed more than one LR on any test.  My first-ever practice score was a 176.  Not all people need to study/practice every section.  Deal with it.


Interesting that you don't reference RC.  And, of course, you don't want to miss that one LR if you can help it.

Nothing interesting about it.  I've missed as many four RC questions on a single exam.  Of course, there have been exams where I missed none.  The points were that, contrary to the OP's continued assertions, (1) not every person needs to study every section and (2) some students naturally begin at scores such that the extra effort of studying has no commensurate benefit.  Given my GPA (~3.0) and the fact that I won't live in NYC or Chicago, Michigan was the best school that I had a shot at, regardless of LSAT score.  The difference between the 176 I started with and the 180 I could have guaranteed by studying is truly insignificant in my case.  Other students may have factual circumstances that similarly make achieving a higher score a superflous (and supercillious) exercise.