- Joined
- Jun 2025
- Subscription
- Live
Admissions profile
Applications
Discussions
I'm looking for more perspective on this older question for which there isn't much help online––
Being a Principle question, it has a clear "should" gap. After reading the stimulus, I immediately started looking for an answer choice that says something like steps should be taken to educate people...
The only answer choice to do that is (B), so I picked it. I admit that "formulating ethical guidelines" is not the same as educating people, but it does count as a step toward educating people, which is what the stimulus' conclusion is about. Hence, no red flags stood out to me with (B).
Yet, somehow, surprisingly, (A) is the correct answer. Despite the fact that it misses the "should" gap. All it does, in my view, is strengthen the argument's reasoning by asserting a link between "education" and "increasing one's moral responsibility."
Clearly, (A) and (B) have their own weaknesses. (A) lacks a "should," and (B) is less precise than (A). How do I choose between two imperfect answers? Which weakness is greater?
Is there perhaps a definitive lesson can I conclude from this question to decide between two imperfect answers in the future? Happy to hear anyone's thoughts.
The argument's main causal link is: increased minimum wage --> more disposable income --> more consumer spending--> more demand for consumer goods --> more factory jobs to meet production --> decreased unemployment.
Answer choices that weaken the argument will try to weaken this chain of events. They'll most likely add a confounding factor that stops the chain somewhere, or breaks one or more of the causal relationships. Let's see which answer choices do this, and select the one that doesn't.
(A) weakens the argument by saying people won't have more disposable income. Instead, the higher prices of goods would restrict their disposable income. The chain stops there, this is a weakener.
(B) weakens the argument by saying more demand for consumer goods won't lead to more factory jobs in Country X, because these goods are produced in another country. The chain stops there, this is a weakener.
(D) weakens the argument by saying we won't have decreased unemployment, we'll actually have increased unemployment because of layoffs. The conclusion is thwarted, this weakens the argument.
(E) weakens the argument by saying more demand for consumer goods won't lead to more factory jobs, because most factories have a surplus of goods that they have to get rid of first. The chain is affected, this is a weakener.
(C) is not a weakener, even though some of its words may allude it to be. It's especially not a weakener because of the word many, which effectively means some. If some factories pay most of their employees more than minimum wage, it doesn't affect any part of the chain of events. What about other factories? What about other non-factory minimum-wage jobs? Even with (C), minimum-wage job holders could have more disposable income, leading to more spending, more demand, more factory jobs, and decreased unemployment. The argument is not weakened.
To make (C) work, you are probably assuming that it says most factories pay most of their employees more than minimum-wage, and thus that there aren't many minimum-wage jobs holders who will follow this chain of events. These are two unfair assumptions, and not what (C) says (many≠most). In fact, the stimulus also implies that a large segment of the working population holds minimum-wage jobs.
I hope this helps.
Hey Thomaess,
I too am an international applicant, and I had a lot of the same questions when I started applying to law schools. I'm happy to help in all the ways I can. Congratulations on your LSAT score jump!
In response to your questions:
It's hard to say whether a single factor (like GPA) is competitive. Law school admissions in the U.S., unlike most other parts of the world, is "holistic review," as in they assess all your application materials to judge your fit for their school. This includes a Personal Statement, LSAT score, GPA, other Essays, Letters of Recommendation, Undergraduate Courses, Extracurricular Activities, etc. There is a greater emphasis on the narrative you present to admissions officers.
That said, law schools do report a median GPA and median LSAT score. This would be the 50th percentile where half of the students scored above, and half scored below. Some law school applicants like to use medians to judge their competitiveness for admission. For instance, your GPA of 3.82 would be said to be competitive at law schools with a median GPA of 3.8 or 3.75 or such. However, you should remember that many applicants get accepted into law schools with scores below the median; it's your overall application that matters most.
Inevitably, a higher LSAT score unlocks a better range of schools. Your target score depends on the specific law schools you're targeting. To give you some perspective, the median LSAT score at the Top 20 Law Schools (T20) is around 170-175, while the median LSAT score for the T50 is around 165-170. The T100s have a median around 158-165.
This a tough question. As an international applicant, I've struggled with this myself. The short answer is: law schools in the U.S. are not as generous with merit scholarships/aid as undergraduate programs here are. Federal (and private) loan programs are far more common. Unfortunately, international students are ineligible for federal loans, while private loans require a U.S. cosigner (and are quite extortionate!).
That said, the topmost law schools typically have comprehensive options for scholarships/aid that international students are eligible for. Yale, for instance, has the Hurst Horizon Scholarship Program, while Harvard has privately-negotiated private loans that do not require a U.S. cosigner.
Then, individual law schools will also have their own scholarship programs that you can apply to. A lot of schools have Public Interest Scholarships, for instance. In these cases, the LSAT score is not as determinative as your interest in a specific program.
Lastly, different schools differ in their "generosity" regardless of LSAT scores. You can get a good idea of their generosity by reading their ABA 509 report, where they note how many students receive scholarships/aid, what their median award amount was, etc.
The opinion is mixed. Many will say a stronger application is a better application, even if its submitted "late." Some will say submitting an early application is more important because "more spots are open" and "more scholarships are available," increasing your chances/competitiveness for admission. Given that there are pros and cons either way, you should evaluate what makes most sense for you. Do the law schools you're applying to strongly recommend applying earlier? Do they emphasize a higher LSAT score that you're confident you can get in January? How different would your application look, as a whole, now versus in January? Those are questions you'll want to ask yourself.
Also, keep in mind that taking the January LSAT means receiving your score by early February.
In terms of GPA, LSAC converts your foreign college transcript. I don't know much about that.
For the LSAT, I can't imagine that they'll look at international applicant's LSAT score any differently.
And for scholarship eligibility, thankfully, you would be eligible for most scholarships, especially the ones that you're automatically considered for upon application. However, specific scholarship programs may have their own eligibility requirements. Sometimes, citizenship requirements apply.
All of those seem like they can contribute to a compelling narrative about who you are. The weight of each factor is hard to say. Being a college athlete, working full-time, and having an international background can likely all be inferred from your resume. Outside of that, how much you choose to emphasize one detail over another (in a Personal Statement or Essay, for example) depends on how much it matters to you and the narrative you're trying to tell.