#6

So on question 6, I know I'm mistaking sufficiency for necessity, but I can't see how. The diagraming I did was eligible -> IW and 501C, then I had the correct contrapositive of this. I'm not seeing how Eligibility is not considered the sufficient piece for having both of these, as they are both required for eligibility (necessary). The way it is written up in the lesson the eligibility is necessary for IW and 501C, which doesn't make sense. Can someone explain or confirm this? Is there wording that I'm missing?

Hello, fellow splitter here. I can't speak for Canadian law school, but 2.9 with a good LSAT (160-170) has a good shot to get into anything below top fifty. The higher your LSAT, the better. Splitters are fairly common, and sometimes it will come down to what an admissions class looks like. If they have your exact opposite candidate with a high GPA and a low LSAT, they might balance out your admissions with each other. From what I understand, it is just a numbers game. They want to have certain medians, which means better rankings for their school. A GPA addendum explaining extenuating circumstances will help if nothing else, but your main predictor for admission will be your LSAT. If it's high enough, you should have a large selection of schools to choose from, and with a 2.9, I would say 165 should be a goal score, but 160 could get you into a smaller school. Hope this helps!