Law School 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 - CaptainSparrow

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5
I really feel much better about the LSAT. Even when I get the questions wrong, it's not because I don't know the material, it's usually due to overlooking a small crucial information. When I fix these, I see that I really should have gotten no more than 1-2 ish on the LR. My score isn't improving due to this problem. On the games I am usually solid and get almost all of them correct consistently. Is this due to mental fatigue or combination of some other flaw?

what say you? a bit tired but need to study more.

General Off-Topic Board / Re: Daily Prose for Miss P
« on: December 03, 2008, 10:18:25 PM »
In the dark, on the phone
You tell me the names of your brothers
And your favorite colors
I'm learning you
And when it snows again
We'll take a walk outside
And search the sky
Like children do
I'll say to you
I'm glad to have met you P.

It's about the mathematics and abstraction one. It's a justify question. I picked B, but I wasn't sure. Why is A correct? What's missing in the stimulus? It seemed like a complete argument and A is simply paraphrasing it.

I haven't seen the Oct. 08 test but, in a JTC, the answer choice when added to the premise(s) has to be the piece that makes the conclusion logical.

You said "A' is a paraphrase of the argument? If "A" in fact paraphrases a part of the argument, it is probably a MBT question. Is the stimulus an argument or set of facts?


If "boys" is okay because "boys" and "men" are both humans, then why isn't "chicks" okay because both "chicks" and "female homo sapiens" are both animals?

because the latter is dehumanizing, presumably.

i once knew a lefty feminist who used the term "chicks" to refer to women.  it confused the living hell out of me.

I'm a lefty-ish feminist-ish person.  I think taking your husband's name is sexist.  I think a lot of marriage-related traditions are sexist.  I think a lot of the ways that men speak to and about women are sexist.
And I use the term chick all the time.  My dearest female friend, a greater leftist and feminist than I, is not offended by the term.  I found it interesting that the lecture I got about using that term was from a man.

Chick is just old-fashioned slang.  I wouldn't recommend someone speak that way at work, but I see nothing wrong with saying "this chick I met ...." 

I certainly wouldn't put chick in the same category of "offensive" as a lot of the words I see used for females, e.g. b-i-t-c-h, ho (or is it hoe?), whore, female private part.  People use those terms all the time.  The first two are even used when someone isn't intending to insult women.

If a man's most un-gentlemanly attribute is referring to women as "chicks," I'd say that's a pretty great man (or boy, or guy, or dude).

So tell me more about this expectations of how we the men ought to behave.

How do we look for the necessary assumption in a assumption question?? and suff. in a justify are they in the stimulus itself? or are they in the answer choices?? if in the stim, are they immediately before the conclusion??or anywhere before the conlusion.. I'm I looking for a necessary assumption in all Assumption questions?? Same as for justify questions?? Totally confused of about this..

Thanks.. : ) ??? ???

Justify question asks you to add to the argument to make the conclusion complete. It's like bridging the gap. "I have five dollars, and I bought the CD. Justification is that the CD was at least 5 bucks and under."

Necessary question asks you what the conclusion depends or assumes on. Like "I will take the december 2008 lsat." It's necessary to assume that LSAC won't cancel the exam at the last minute and that the world will not blow up due to the meteor strike etc. Endless possibilities.

Studying for the LSAT / Need help on october 2008 #55 prep test Sec 2 #21
« on: December 03, 2008, 02:31:28 PM »
It's a principle question about the TV show being canceled and ads. Why is A wrong? is it because of the word "one" as opposed to "many?" B states the same thing except it uses "many" so this is my guess.

Studying for the LSAT / Need help on LR problem. Prep #55 oct 08 Sect 2, #6
« on: December 03, 2008, 02:29:53 PM »
It's about the mathematics and abstraction one. It's a justify question. I picked B, but I wasn't sure. Why is A correct? What's missing in the stimulus? It seemed like a complete argument and A is simply paraphrasing it.

Studying for the LSAT / all As ---> B and all As ---> C; so Some Bs are Cs?
« on: December 03, 2008, 02:21:51 PM »
^ is this correct?

Also, most As ---> Bs; Most As--->Cs therefore some Bs ----->Cs?? this is also correct?


By Tara Winter Wilson
Last Updated: 7:31PM GMT 26 Nov 2008

" Some women are like businessmen - utterly ruthless, and seeing a rich man as their career path  Photo: GETTY  "

'You loser!" screamed Katie, aiming a vase at her husband. "You've destroyed my life,'' she continued, hurling it. "Just look at my hair, look at my nails! You loser, you jerk, you nobody."

Katie's husband, Jack, whose property portfolio disintegrated in the financial crash, had just told his wife that she would have to cut back on her thrice-weekly visits to Nicky Clarke, the nail salon in Harvey Nichols, and the oxygen facials, chemical peels and seaweed wraps at Space NK.

Not only that, but they no longer had the money to pay for an army of bullied Eastern Europeans to wait on her hand and foot.

Worse was to come – the brow-lift would have to be cancelled; her black Amex card would have to be snipped in half; and there was no way, he told her, that he could carry on spending £28,000 a year on Henry's school fees at Eton.

Chloe, too, would have to leave the marginally cheaper (only £25,000 pa) Wycombe Abbey immediately.

Such was the aggression and verbal and physical abuse that followed that Jack was left with cut lips and blood streaming from a broken nose.

Their eight-year-old child, not yet at boarding school, sat cowering in a corner and dialling 999. When they arrived, they had to restrain Katie forcibly from attacking her husband.

An extreme and isolated example of the global economic meltdown hitting the £1 million home? Sadly no. When the super-rich feel the pinch, inevitably, the Toxic Wife heads off.

The Toxic Wife, first identified in these pages almost two years ago, is a particular and terrifying species.

Not to be confused with the stay-at-home mother who selflessly devotes herself to the upbringing of her children, with all the housework and domestic chores that entails, the Toxic Wife is the woman who gives up work as soon as she marries, ostensibly to create a stable home environment for any offspring that might come along, but who then employs large numbers of staff to do all the domestic work she promised to undertake, leaving her with little to do all day except shop, lunch and luxuriate.

Having married her wealthy husband with his considerable salary uppermost in her mind, the Toxic Wife simply does not do "for richer, for poorer". Little Dorrit, she ain't.

Indeed, lawyers and financial advisers have reported a 50 per cent increase in the number of divorce inquiries since the financial markets collapsed in September.

A recent survey conducted by community website makefriendsonline revealed that a third of 10,000 respondents believe that financial hardship will cause a relationship to fail, while matrimonial law specialists Mishcon de Reya have reported up to 300 per cent more inquiries.

Numbers have risen significantly as couples seek to reach an agreement before the recession tightens its grip. But for the Toxic Wife, "agreement" is the last thing on her mind.

There are countless stories of them acting in the most bizarre and inhumane ways. For gold-diggers are materialistic to such an extent that they are emotionally detached from other people.

There's an inability to empathise with another human being. They certainly don't ''do'' conscience. Money, on the other hand, they both love and understand.

''I told my wife to stop this organic food malarkey,'' said Jeremy, a beleaguered hedge-fund manager, another man who fell for an extremely beautiful yet extravagant woman.

"She went ballistic. Organic Hass avocados cost £1.75 each and she wanted me to buy six of them! In the end, I just peeled off the labels that said they were certified organic and put them on ordinary avocados – she didn't notice the difference. I did the same with bananas…''

''So why did she walk out on you?'' I asked.

''She has a very high standard of living,'' he said. ''She's never taken the Tube or a bus; it's always taxis. And she likes to eat out a lot, at the best restaurants, and she likes to buy expensive gifts for people she wants to impress.

"As soon as the financial wobbles started, she must have joined some upmarket dating agency because somehow she's found another very rich man pretty damn fast.''

Another case is Sasha who, for the past few months, had been gloating about the £3.4 million chalet in Verbier her husband was about to exchange on, how she'd managed to hire a high-society interior decorator to do it up for a song (''more an anthem, actually", she'd giggled) and how much she was looking forward to a white, snowy Christmas there.

At the last minute, Husband pulled out of the deal. Never mind that he had lost his lucrative job in the City, she felt he had deliberately traumatised her and is suing him for divorce on the grounds of mental cruelty. '

'She's got the personality of an overindulged infant,'' he sighed, ''a spoilt brat who starts screaming the moment a toy is taken away.''

In the grown-up world that toy is money and what it can buy: status, power, glamour and arrogance. It also has a way of making these particular women precious. ''Because I'm worth it'' has become the catch-all legitimiser for any personal indulgence.

According to Susie Ambrose, a marital psychotherapist and CEO of Seventy-Thirty, an upmarket introduction company that takes its name from the work versus free time balance, there has been an unprecedented demand from married women recently.

''We are being targeted by women on the fence between leaving their husbands who are on the brink of losing their wealth, and wanting to meet someone extremely rich straight away,'' she says.

Like a frog, the Toxic Wife needs to hop safely on to another lily pad, and a rich one, before leaving her husband. She won't stand on her own two feet. And finding a job is quite beneath her.

Yet Susie Ambrose thinks such women ''are like businessmen – utterly ruthless". The rich man is the career path, the meal ticket, and it doesn't matter how fat, old, balding or unattractive he is – it's solely about money.

''These particular women know how to fake love,'' adds Ambrose. ''They're actually very good at it.''

She now has a waiting-list for her life-coaching sessions – a course costs between £10,000-£60,000 – on how to distinguish a gold-digger from a genuine woman.

Men, it seems, have got wise to the potential Toxic Wife and don't want to end up with someone who is going to bolt the moment they experience some financial bad luck.

For men, divorce is one of the most expensive trials in life – emotionally and financially. As the joke doing the rounds among City men goes: "This credit crunch is worse than a divorce. I've lost half my net worth and I still have a wife."

But this is no joke. I've seen at first hand how, as soon as money disappears, so does love.

Olivia and Richard had a set of beautiful and expensively conceived twins (we're talking around £30,000 worth of IVF treatments for the right gender – she joked how she would send them back if they were girls), a fabulous house, great holidays several times a year, two nannies and a lifestyle of which most of us lesser mortals could only fantasise.

How we laughed when Richard, with admiration in his voice, mentioned at a drinks party last year that he'd turned to his wife in the middle of the night and asked her if she'd still love him if he lost all his money.

''F--- no!'' had been her answer. Such a feisty, amusing (and obviously joky) response delighted him. But today he is scratching his head with abject dejection. She had meant it.

She left him the moment he lost his senior post at an investment bank and immediately hooked up with another rich man.

Worse, she took their boys with her and he rarely sees them because she has since moved to America to start afresh with her new, unsuspecting milch-cow.

As most of us are battening down the hatches and finding inventive ways to cope with the new austerity, some unfortunate men have not only lost their jobs, they are also having the scales ripped from their eyes.

The horrible truth has dawned: they married a woman who wanted them solely for their money.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5