I want to submit a diversity statement that is based on how my religion shaped me. Would this be wanted for the Northwestern Admissions team? Is there something I should be aware about before submitting such a statement?
Any thoughts appreciated!
@"Cant Get Right" and anyone else who applied to/attended Northwestern
At first I was like that too, but when I realized that the content of the questions is interchangeable, the only pieces left are the universal, logical indicator words-- think of them as the skeleton for what you are reading. They are strong words and determinants of the operating logic of the stimulus (increase, all, some, often, etc.).
Hope this helps!
Yeah-- I was really stuck on that one-- by POE I thankfully chose the right answer, but it wasn't until really thinking about that question that I got what it was asking.
It was an in and out game that had very restrictive rules and the stem gave a premise that triggered a lot of pieces. The question was essentially asking which one of the following pairs could be true but doesn't have to be true-- this is essentially the comprehensive definition of a could be true (could be true but also could be false). The thing that tripped me up was that one of the pieces HAD to be there and the other one didn't. After realizing that it was talking about the group and not each piece, I realized that this could be a pair that's in but both (namely the one floater) don't HAVE to be in together.
Hope this helps!
The key is understanding the main idea of the conclusion.
It is clear that nothing will justify a means except an end's value
This is the conclusion. The first thing I would would do is reword that based on the strong logical indicators (in this case). Basically the author is saying that the ONLY way to justify a means is in it's end's value. Looking through the AC, none of them mirror this strong language and concept except AC C. The trick they did with this AC is exchanging "end's value" with the definition they gave for this concept in the context portion of the stimulus. They do that fairly often.
For key points in conclusion questions, always make sure that any strong language is mirrored-- this is not a MSS, it's labeling the direct conclusion the author is asserting. Also, note any definition the author proposes for an idea-- the LSAT writers will probably use that interchangeably to trip you up (they'll also do this with RC)
Hope this helps!
I would start thinking about testing strategy if you find your BR score in or very close to the 170s-- consider how to most efficiently get the most points you can in 35 minutes-- whether that means skipping or losing some certainty (dropping from 100% to 80% certainty when you do questions timed), figure out and implement an effective strategy that works for you.
What??? No standardized testing requirement! I think I should've pushed off applying to law school until all the changes settled down...
Can I hope that they'll also take away the Bar exam one day :)
Thanks for writing this-- I always wanted to know what it was like! What is this option called?
What! Why are so many things changing for applying to law school this and next year???
No! Best to reschedule until you feel confident and ready to take the test
Finished!!! Have no clue how it went except for LG 100%... Now for the wait-- I finally understand the agony!! lol
I would put Sufficient Assumption also on that list -- especially when it uses conditional logic
Yep! Great job :smile: that's exactly it! The purchasing and transport costs can't outweigh the savings in energy cost resulting from the use of recycled glass
Sorry, just read how you asked about B not A:
It is the fundamental principle at play in rule #2. Trade, sale-- i.e. monetary value out of UCH is fundamentally incompatible with proper management of UCH-- why? because there is inherent non-monetary value in the object that must be maintained (see rule #1 for hints into that)
This is where the argument of different classes of artifacts came into play-- selling coins vs. cultural items. This is the only major distinction made in Passage A (taken from the words of the question) and it does play a role in the author's argument-- particularly with the idea of whether or not archeological integrity is kept if the coins are sold (as per the terms in the contract between the company and the British government).
I checked in right when the timer counted to 0 and I was fine... though, I did notice you can check in a bit earlier
Sure! I liked this one too because it was one of those conditional logic questions.
The stimulus basically lays out this framework-- (I'm linking everything at once, but review the stimulus to see how it works)
Morally virtuous--> Moral Excellence --> Repeatedly overcoming inclinations to do the wrong thing
Just to quickly lay out the definition of "overcoming inclinations", a person has to be inclined/tempted to do something (in this case something wrong) in order to even overcome it in the first place. How would it be possible to overcome something that you weren't even struggling/had an issue with in the first place??
To give an out side example, if you want to throw a ball, you have to have the ball in your hand in the first place. Similarly, if you want to overcome something, you have to already have that thing as an issue needing to be overcome in the first place.
So, just to put everything together, anyone who is morally virtuous (link one of the conditional), had to have been inclined to do something that is wrong in order to overcome the inclination.
While this isn't an explicitly stated conditional, the definition of overcoming requires having the issue in the first place.
Hope this helps!
This is a classic NA correct AC-- this is blocking alternative explanations that could perhaps ruin the argument. The conclusion is that using recycling glass will do two things-- one, lower costs and two, benefit the environment. What AC D is saying is that it blocks the possibility that outside factors/costs might greatly outweigh the potential benefits-- i.e. transportation costs, etc.
This MUST be true for the argument to stand. If the costs were significantly greater, then the benefits discussed would be irrelevant, because, they wouldn't actually be beneficial, due to the external costs.
Hope this helps!
Sure-- I loved this question because it reminded me exactly of a logic game mini puzzle:
There are two possibilities for a new course to get approved-- either by the Dean or the committee. There is more information about each group: the Dean got only one proposal; the committee only received upper-level course proposals. The last piece of information/ "rule" we are given, is that all upper level courses next year will have pre-requisites.
Now that we have all our rules, lets see how things work with each other (just like in LG)-- first, we know that if any of the course proposals from the committee are approved for next year, then they must have pre-reqs. (just linking up the upper level conditions). What about the Dean? We don't know anything about that course proposal, except for the number she has-- only one course proposal-- that means max amount possible of new courses next year that cannot have pre-reqs is one.
Just keeping in mind that the last conditional applies for any course next year that is upper level (both new and old courses), we get to AC C-- that if there is more than one new course next year (that must mean it was approved by either of the two groups) then at least one of them HAS to have pre-requisites. Why? because of the constrained number of possibilities we were given of possible courses that don't have to have pre-requisites-- which is ONLY the Dean group.
Hope this helps-- When I did this question I just made sure that the two groups were separate (Dean and Committee)-- definitely map it out though-- it will really help clarify things; just like a logic game, notice your constrained possibilities.
I considered this a "false dichotomy" flaw-- even though the premises did assert this split, it doesn't make it logically ok. We can accept that it is what the author is saying, but we are saying this is logically fallacious- I think it's why the question asks: a flaw in the author's reasoning.
Hope that helps...
Yes-- it sounds like you are sorely lacking in a consistent approach. Make one, and use that to guide you through the section. I.e. LR -- my process for stimulus analysis is 1. Identify premise and conclusion 2. Identify Method of Reasoning 3. Make a goal for what the AC will need to address. LG-- my process is 1. Identify game type 2. Write down rules and pieces 3. make everything as visually representative as possible 4. See how the rules play with each other 5. Go to the questions. For RC, I just have different tactics that help me stay focused on reading the passage correctly
Oh, also try to make sure that you have plans/ways of dealing with your anxiety on test day-- whether that's with taking short breaks, self affirmation reminders, etc. just make sure that your headspace is most optimal to do the work on the test.
Hope this helps!
First-- you won't know on test day if it's a five star question. Some people map out every conditional relationship, but often the harder PM or MBTs (especially now) use a more abstract, less mechanical logic (which is a lot harder to map out)
It all depends on your preference, but I personally like taking a step back and finding the thread of the stimulus in my head