Law School Discussion

So how did we do?

Re: So how did we do?
« Reply #90 on: October 04, 2008, 02:49:00 PM »
I went with the book one, too.

For change of employer/exchange information reading comp, what was the recommendation that would most fit in the context of the passage? I narrowed it down to something about “employers are better off using incentives to keep their employees” and “something must be done to make it so that employers can identify traded secrets or something.”  I went with the incentive one, which I think is probably wrong, but the “must” in the other one sounded too strong.

And what about the limestone/quartz one?

And was one of the logic games answers that Lulu couldn't go sixth (assuming there are six).

Re: So how did we do?
« Reply #91 on: October 04, 2008, 02:50:37 PM »
Quote
ah, 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.

I think the last one of the last game was C.

It was a negation of a combination of two rules. If somebody stayed on the bus until a certain point then somebody else was off. This second person was on (states that in the prompt) so which must be false? Well if the second person is on the contrapositive is that the first person was off. I think this first person was V or J, one of the two, and then somebody had to come "above" them or get off before them. The answer I chose said that whoever was supposed to be above that person was off the bus or something, when in fact they had to be on. It's very hard to explain online but I remember having to negate the last rule then using the V gets off before J rule to get that somebody else should be on/off at a certain time.

tcwhat

  • ****
  • 341
    • View Profile
Re: So how did we do?
« Reply #92 on: October 04, 2008, 02:51:40 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.

I went with the book one, too.

For change of employer/exchange information reading comp, what was the recommendation that would most fit in the context of the passage? I narrowed it down to something about “employers are better off using incentives to keep their employees” and “something must be done to make it so that employers can identify traded secrets or something.”  I went with the incentive one, which I think is probably wrong, but the “must” in the other one sounded too strong.

And what about the limestone/quartz one?

And was one of the logic games answers that Lulu couldn't go sixth (assuming there are six).

Yes because there was a rule that said that the person who goes first goes last as well and Lulu couldn't go first.

Re: So how did we do?
« Reply #93 on: October 04, 2008, 02:51:51 PM »
And was one of the logic games answers that Lulu couldn't go sixth (assuming there are six).

I believe so. I remember that one being almost too easy.


Re: So how did we do?
« Reply #94 on: October 04, 2008, 02:52:06 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.

you overthought it.  i don't remember all of the other choices but none of them made as much sense and weakened it as directly as the book choice.

Re: So how did we do?
« Reply #95 on: October 04, 2008, 02:54:06 PM »
I went with the book one, too.

For change of employer/exchange information reading comp, what was the recommendation that would most fit in the context of the passage? I narrowed it down to something about “employers are better off using incentives to keep their employees” and “something must be done to make it so that employers can identify traded secrets or something.”  I went with the incentive one, which I think is probably wrong, but the “must” in the other one sounded too strong.

And what about the limestone/quartz one?

And was one of the logic games answers that Lulu couldn't go sixth (assuming there are six).

i chose the incentive one.  the prob is, unless the secrets were physical objects (e.g. the example in the last few lines), the whole point of the last paragraph was how difficult it was to identify which secrets were a product of the employee's prior knowledge with the employer, how much could be developed organically, etc.  so the author wouldn't recommend anything about identification after he/she just said how convulted and unclear the identification is.

Re: So how did we do?
« Reply #96 on: October 04, 2008, 02:55:20 PM »
I went with the book one, too.

For change of employer/exchange information reading comp, what was the recommendation that would most fit in the context of the passage? I narrowed it down to something about “employers are better off using incentives to keep their employees” and “something must be done to make it so that employers can identify traded secrets or something.”  I went with the incentive one, which I think is probably wrong, but the “must” in the other one sounded too strong.

And what about the limestone/quartz one?

And was one of the logic games answers that Lulu couldn't go sixth (assuming there are six).

i chose the incentive one.  the prob is, unless the secrets were physical objects (e.g. the example in the last few lines), the whole point of the last paragraph was how difficult it was to identify which secrets were a product of the employee's prior knowledge with the employer, how much could be developed organically, etc.  so the author wouldn't recommend anything about identification after he/she just said how convulted and unclear the identification is.

Alright, cool... I just thought that the incentive thing sounded so far out, but yeah, I chose it.

Re: So how did we do?
« Reply #97 on: October 04, 2008, 03:04:54 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 choose this also. It seems we're in the minority, but I thought the author was arguing that critics did not assess whatshernames books accurately by not taking the Chinese storytelling traditions into account. If Chinese American writing is not similar, wouldn't the argument be a lot weaker? Maybe I was oversimplifying it...

BarryLaine

  • ***
  • 92
  • "My aim is true..."
    • View Profile
Re: So how did we do?
« Reply #98 on: October 04, 2008, 03:16:00 PM »
If my experimental section is what I think it was, I probably did okay.  Usually RC gives me trouble (guesses on the last few...and, of course, too many wrong answers :P) and I finish the games...today I ran out of time on games and guessed the last two, but finished all the RC...

My biggest problem is my inability to sleep the night before I take the LSAT!  I think I fell asleep eight minutes before my alarm rang...WTF?!  If I could change one thing about myself it would be that I would able to sleep like a baby the night before I take the f-ing LSAT!!!!....and be taller...but that's two things...

Re: So how did we do?
« Reply #99 on: October 04, 2008, 03:17:38 PM »
Is there like a chatroom where we can review the test?  Anyone wanna set up an AIM room?