Law School Discussion

So how did we do?

Re: So how did we do?
« Reply #80 on: October 04, 2008, 02:12:47 PM »
Come to think of it I'm not sure which one I picked because I was so torn between the two.

tcwhat

  • ****
  • 341
    • View Profile
Re: So how did we do?
« Reply #81 on: October 04, 2008, 02:14:34 PM »
Come to think of it I'm not sure which one I picked because I was so torn between the two.

I didn't pick the price one, that much I remember.

meggo

  • ****
  • 581
    • View Profile
Re: So how did we do?
« Reply #82 on: October 04, 2008, 02:16:09 PM »
^
I'm almost positive it was first of your guesses, not the latter. The passage specifically said that in using English idioms she was basically creating something that emulated Chinese words and their puns, or something to that effect. So the CR was one in which one type of fibre was being woven to look like another. Or this is what I reasoned it to be.

It's funny violaboy, I knew a lot about the cakewalk in June, but that passage took up loads of time! I never find that knowing about the stuff in the passage helps me go quicker! I was torn on a couple questions in that passage, mainly the ones about what person B would say about the people in Passage A and another question about Person B's attitude. I was down to two guesses on those, and chose the one I thought fit the best but we'll see.

Re: So how did we do?
« Reply #83 on: October 04, 2008, 02:17:35 PM »


Also, my proctor was a hot law student who looked like the lead singer from Third Eye Blind. Pretty damn nice way to start off the day.

lucky!

Re: So how did we do?
« Reply #84 on: October 04, 2008, 02:25:53 PM »
1.) the china RC was the hardest on the RC, but RC was still pretty easy.  the two difficult ones on the china passage were:

a.) the question about combining chinese with english and how its similar to cotton (using cotton to weave something that is similar to another type of fabric)
b.) which weakened the last paragraph (i chose the book discussed in the last paragraph was not representative on the author's work)

2.) for log games, #3 was pure sequencing (a bit tricky at that) and the day/night shift only mattered for one of the last few questions.

3.) the last game was a b*tch.  i chose D's/E's towards the end, made educated guesses on one or two of these but answered as many as i could on this game.

about the curve: they set it before the exam, BUT they look at general performance, both on the real test and the experimentals (these are not used just to pre-test questions, but to equate between test versions as well) to determine if there are significant differences that cannot be explained by simple variation but rather other variables in the test pool.  if there are such variations, they will adjust the scale.  BUT, they look at this across the entire test, not just section by section.  so an easy RC could comp for a harder LG, and they won't change the scale.  but people botch up everything, and they will equate to a degree (but not like in a college class - so if the top scorer's raw score was a 70, they wouldn't get a 180 lol unless they predicted that or the test was insanely inconsistent)

Re: So how did we do?
« Reply #85 on: October 04, 2008, 02:32:15 PM »
1.) the china RC was the hardest on the RC, but RC was still pretty easy.  the two difficult ones on the china passage were:

a.) the question about combining chinese with english and how its similar to cotton (using cotton to weave something that is similar to another type of fabric)
b.) which weakened the last paragraph (i chose the book discussed in the last paragraph was not representative on the author's work)


For a, I clearly remember my answer being D as I narrowed it down between B(don't remember the content of the answer somehow).
For b, I chose the same answer.

Re: So how did we do?
« Reply #86 on: October 04, 2008, 02:39:52 PM »
Thales, I also remember there being a lot of Ds and Es, so I think that's good. I was kind of suspicious that I had messed up.

In LG I found the answers followed a really odd trend. From being many As through Cs in the first half to being mainly Ds and Es for the second.

Actually, there were similarily odd trends all throughout the test... I didn't let it bother me during the test, but I'm hoping others have noticed this too.
^^ bumping this. Comments?

Gah, I distinctly remember my last two on the last game being AA, but I also seem to remember a DD in that game, as well.

Re: So how did we do?
« Reply #87 on: October 04, 2008, 02:41:05 PM »
1.) the china RC was the hardest on the RC, but RC was still pretty easy.  the two difficult ones on the china passage were:

a.) the question about combining chinese with english and how its similar to cotton (using cotton to weave something that is similar to another type of fabric)
b.) which weakened the last paragraph (i chose the book discussed in the last paragraph was not representative on the author's work)


For a, I clearly remember my answer being D as I narrowed it down between B(don't remember the content of the answer somehow).
For b, I chose the same answer.

For your response to what i said about a - i think what clenched it for B is the fact that the author mentioned in the passage (i forget her name) used english exclusively to express certain things in chinese/from chinese culture that were combined with western elements...so B, where you used one fabric to weave something else made more sense.  i don't remember the specifics of D, and i think i picked that first, but i remember it having someone that made it wrong (i think).

ahh, you see la, i think that's what made it wrong, is that it used two types of cotton, when what the author mentioned in the passage did was use one language to express it.

Re: So how did we do?
« Reply #88 on: October 04, 2008, 02:42:33 PM »
For the second one (what weakened the authors conclusion) I said it was she wasn't representative of Chinese-American writings. I stayed away from the one about the book because the book was just as example of a larger point whereas I thought the point he was trying to make was that she had a literary lineage if you will. If she's not representative then she may not have that lineage. I'm probably wrong though.

Re: So how did we do?
« Reply #89 on: October 04, 2008, 02:46:24 PM »
For the second one (what weakened the authors conclusion) I said it was she wasn't representative of Chinese-American writings. I stayed away from the one about the book because the book was just as example of a larger point whereas I thought the point he was trying to make was that she had a literary lineage if you will. If she's not representative then she may not have that lineage. I'm probably wrong though.

I actually chose the opposite as you, though I did narrow it down to those two. To me, it seemed as if the book not being representative of her work undermines the author's claim that her writing as a whole has a base in the whatevertalk tradition. That book is the only example he gives of her writing, so if that's nothing like her other writing, then she probably isn't heavily influenced by the whatevertalk roots.