@
"A consent decree is an agreement or settlement that resolves a dispute between two parties without admission of guilt (in a criminal case) or liability (in a civil case), and most often refers to such a type of settlement in the United States."
LSAC entered into a consent decree. They did not lose the lawsuit.
@ said:
This might seem a little unorthodox but whenever I have to write something about myself I am always drinking while I do it lol having a really mild buzz helps me get my words onto the paper, then edit/revise at a later date. I really struggle with actually typing the words because I always feel like the words are not good enough. A little buzz makes me not care and just get them out so I can have something to work with :smiley: best of luck!
As they say, the real pro tip is always in the comments.
Also, to add on to the second comment, it sounds obvious, but really force yourself to be honest. Don't step around the issue you are addressing in your draft. Be clear and say it with conviction. Once you have something that you genuinely care about down on paper, you can work in saying it well.
Agree with the below from @
"-Develop a skipping strategy for both whole games and potentially difficult questions, with the goal being to maximize points as efficiently as you can under the time pressures."
My application of this was to skip a game if I read the rules and decided it didn't fit neatly into either a grouping or sequencing framework / if I felt it would take much longer than a typical game. I would skip this game entirely and return at the end as the section usually had 3 easy/medium games that you could snag a bunch of points on and then sink your remaining time into the difficult one. Don't count on having the time sink game show up as the last one in your section.
On a question by question basis, this means skipping over rule substitution/equivalence questions and either returning to them after you have completed all questions on that specific game or, if you are really stuck, at the end of the entire section. On more standard question types, like a MBT, I'd skip these difficult ones and return at the end of the other questions for that game because by then you have either more time to think or have a better understanding of the game and so can crack it open.
These approaches are all about maintaining momentum and stopping you from just spinning your wheels as the clock runs out.
I went -0 for my actual LSAT LG section. My biggest breakthrough was thinking about the questions before looking at the answers and developing a tactic in advance. The best way to pick this up is to carefully watch JY's videos on LG.
For example, if you are answering a CBT question and one answer, say D, uses a floater item, check that one first as it is the easiest one to satisfy/test. There are no rules applied to a floater, so in a CBT situation it is most likely to be the correct answer. In this case, I'd test D first and hope that my instinct was correct, quickly moving to the next question.
Likewise, if the question was MBT, I'd only want to test answer choices that have a floater item after I've tried the others, for the same reasons above.
You'll also begin to notice certain standard question approaches and answers. For example, in a sequencing game, you can eliminate answers quickly as some will try to push a piece off the game board and hope you don't notice this problem (e.g. in a CBT question).
The overarching point is to be strategic in your approach to each question once you have a sense of the game. Even if you aren't currently rushing headlong into the choices and working from A to E, you can still benefit from taking a few seconds and thinking about which choices you want to try first. As you develop a feel for this, you will save some serious time and start to really understand the games themselves.
Agreed with the above. I always found it easier to think of these types of statements as the below:
No N without L, which is equivalent to N requires L
N --> L
Their view is that the credits are issued by a foreign institution and are only converted by Butler, so the credits are not included in the GPA calculation. My undergrad transcript included the study abroad information, but this was removed by LSAC for calculating the GPA.
@ Thanks! That seems to be it. Can't wait to get bombarded with emails.
Hi all,
I studied abroad via a popular US program run out of Butler University in the United States (IFSA-Butler) [http://www.ifsa-butler.org/for-alumni/transcript-information.html]. I though that, since Butler University is a US institution and was issuing a US transcript, LSAC would accept these credits as part of my undergraduate record.
Has anyone had success with IFSA-Butler specifically, or with other study abroad programs in general?
Many thanks!
Is there a possibility of having checked a box not to send any emails to my account when I signed up on LSAC? I've not received any emails from law schools and have had a score on record since June.
If you are coming from the LSAT trainer,
https://classic.7sage.com/discussion/#/discussion/9223
https://classic.7sage.com/discussion/#/discussion/comment/38821
https://classic.7sage.com/discussion/#/discussion/comment/66022
I think I understand the distinction you are making here (how likely is person X to say yes vs. what is the likelihood of a person in a group having a certain property). In my reading of what you have excerpted from the Trainer, I think the context doesn't allow us an inference on how likely an individual person is to say yes, but instead the question is going after the proportion that said yes from each of the sundae and banana split groups. In this case, the key part of the statements is that most sundae persons said yes, whereas less than half of an already reduced number (by the some statement) of banana split persons said yes (i.e., most said no). That is the inference to be made here that a majority of one group said yes while a majority of the other said no.
I'm mapping it out as follows:
Sundae --> Offered cherry
Sundae -m-> say yes
Banana split (-s-)offered cherry (-s-) say yes
I made side 1 of flash card the "premises" (e.g., A-most->B->C) then made side 2 the conclusion to be drawn (in this case, A-most->C). That is the key point of memorizing these forms: to draw the inferences, or otherwise determine no inferences can be drawn. I wouldn't list the valid or invalid or the inference in the side you use to prompt yourself.
I'm sure this was mentioned at least indirectly in the responses above, but the next step when I was in your place was tactics for specific question types. You'll pick this up by watching JY's explanations and learning to think ahead like he does. For example, if you have a CBT question, scan for a floater item and try that one; alternatively, scan for items that have rules associated and try to force a contradiction so you can eliminate that choice.
You will see the patterns in the way the questions are put together. A big one I noticed in preparing was the use of game pieces in a sequencing board where the question stem supplies a premise that makes it possible to place an existing two block item in one or two spots only. This kind of forward thinking is your next step and will let you see how the games are built and what you are really being tested. This approach spills over into the dreaded new or "misc" games as those basic core competencies are still being tested by LSAC, no matter what the format/setup.
Was LSAC just taking pity on us after the virus game? We are getting an easy MP question as #17! Had to double check my work on this one.
Was caught between B and E for about 30 seconds. Forced myself to consider what B would look like: It would be dismissive of the idea that the person is the worst inspector and perhaps say that the persons' critique is off the mark or outlandish. E instead very abstractly states that the counter argument rejects an assumption made in the original argument. I felt that the original argument had made the assumption that all inspectors reviewed an equal amount of product.
In BR I wrote this out as B‑m→G-few-B
Whatever number B is, that number will have to be subsumed into G as a minority, so G & not-B members will be greater than B always. That proves D and disproves E, as it is not possible for B to be greater than G yet have B be a minority within G.
Was able to correctly eliminate (B) because it would seem to require some real outside knowledge to truly place in the context of the argument (performance of investment vs. overall market); however, if the conclusion is the guests' recommendations are not good, then just them outperforming ONE type of investment (stock portfolios) is not really a means of suggesting that their recommendations have value. If I told you to buy Tyco instead of Enron stock in about 2002, my recommendation would be "better" than holding Enron stock when that company went under. However, it would still be a worthless recommendation when Tyco went under shortly thereafter.
Maybe a meaningful recommendation would have been to buy something that tracks the market but isn't actually a stock portfolio, e.g. options on S&P 500 or, even better, Dow Jones TOTAL Stock Market Index?
Interesting, because I think B definitely does weaken in the sense that it provides an instance where you would want to follow these person's advice, IF you had only to choose among the two options given. However, the argument's point of relating the performance to the overall market isn't considered in this choice, so it more just counters the conclusion.
The error committed by Tom rests on his use of the singular "the yard" in his final sentence. He is referring to the specific house that Rolanda was suggesting to rent that has the largest yard of houses the two have viewed. He is basing his conclusion on the idea that the large yard of this one house is deceptive because 20 ft of that would be city property and thus he strongly implies that the yard is actually not the biggest yard they have seen.
However, we can equally apply the 20 ft reduction (actually, we must apply for houses in Prairieview) so that using Tom's reasoning just leads us straight back to Rolanda's original argument, just every yard is now reduced by 20 ft on their respective property lines.
If Tom has made a claim about all yards in his final sentence, he would have avoided the flaw of failing to apply the rule to all cases, but his argument would be useless still. The yard in question would still be agreed by both to be the largest of all houses viewed and so Tom has not supplied any information to counter Rolanda's claim, but has instead just flatly denied it.
I took just over a month to focus solely on LG and that was beneficial for me. In retrospect, I may have been better off throwing in some LR/RC sections to stay fresh. It depends on how you are doing on LG. When I started I was always grasping at straws when I came to a new game and so sitting down and plowing through a bunch of them was the best thing. You may even make some gains just getting distance from LR/RC and honing your logic/lawgic.
When I was focusing on LG I worked my way through the curriculum on 7Sage to get the basics of game types. Then I went back and cycled through PTs 1-35. This was useful because it keeps you on your toes instead of just going through game after game of the same format. Be sure to keep track of your games completed and time/score.
Starting to prefer these brutal SA questions that almost don't sound like English over the stimuli that you need to tease out the subtle meanings from :/
Had to rub my eyes after reading A: it essentially says that the author is assuming their reasoning makes sense...duh.
Why do we assume that the hammers are not stored in the front of the store? How do we know that the M hammers are now in a shockingly different location??
Made it out alive on this one, but seriously Q22 with the "top bottom" theory x_x missed that and would have led me to B...
#20.
I think J.Y. summarizes the difficulty of this question well beginning ta 19:22: he says that psg A says you should not lie to the person and psg B states you should, but both of those are not explicitly stated. Instead, both passages actually seem to agree that you have license to lie to the person. A says you don't have sufficient "justification" which may or may not mean you should do so and the first paragraph A simply says you would be giving "respect" by acting back in a rational manner, that is, to lie to the person.
You really have to restrict your view of psg B to the first paragraph AND tease out that supposed conflict otherwise the question is very difficult. To me it just appeared as if both arguments/views agreed that a liar had no expectation of being treated honestly.
Not sure the earlier response ruling out C is solid.
Here's the original:
C. overlooks the possibility that a few of the manufacturing sites are responsible for most of the defective items
NO.
If the 20% is comprehensive then maybe all the defects came from one place and skewed the inspection results.
Suppose there are four sites and three send 25 samples each and one sends 60. Suppose only one out of each of the first three is defective but 24 out of the 60 from the 4th site are defective. Over all that is 20%. Something’s going on at the 4th site. And maybe that’s why they sent more samples, because they know something’s up and thought that the defects would be a smaller percentage of a larger sample. However, remember that the conclusion is that the supplier breached contract: not the manufacturer. Regardless of how the dispersement of defects across manufacturers occurs, its still 20% for the supplier."
So to start we have 3 factories providing 25 items and a fourth providing 60, for a total of 135 items. One defective items was found at the first three sites and 24 at the last site for a total of 27 defective items. This results in a 20% defect rate for the four factories (27/135 = 0.20).
I'm not sure why the distinction between supplier and manufacturer is acceptable or relevant. First of all, we don't know whether the supplier is or is not the manufacturer. However, even if we assume them to be separate, there is still the issue that we could have the above sample of 20% for these four sites, yet have many OTHER sites that the supplier uses that result in an aggregate defect rate that is below 5%. In this case, the supplier is NOT providing a 20% defect rate, which is exactly why C is tempting. It is not true that, as given above "regardless of how the disbursement of defects across manufacturers occurs, it's still 20% for the supplier."
Why is the issue I've highlighted here not a flaw in the argument? Couldn't it be that the sample that supports the claim doesn't show an overall defect rate, but rather one input for the overall defect rate?