To add to my previous post -- in case Canada interests you, you might want to look at this site: https://flsc.ca/national-committee-on-accreditation-nca/

As well as these: https://flsc.ca/national-committee-on-accreditation-nca/applying-to-the-nca/

https://flsc.ca/national-committee-on-accreditation-nca/faqs/

Typically, all foreign educated law students will have to have their credentials assessed by the NCA in order to practice in Canada. This would typically mean that you'd have to sit for accreditation exams and/or take extra law courses. Once you clear that, the question of finding a job in Canada would still need to be addressed. Corporate law is an area that's been mentioned, so you might want to look at the percentage of foriegn educated lawyers working for big law firms here. AFAIK, they're no more than a handful (and these usually tend to be from HYS and Oxbridge).

I myself have contemplated moving south for law school (I'm Canadian), but after having spoken to some folks in the legal field here I was advised not to if I intended to come back home to practice. Canadian employers are most familiar with the Canadian schools, and they tend to favor such candidates by a significant margin. Just as majority of American employers aren't aware of the quality of U Toronto, McGill and UBC, for instance, it's reasonable to expect Canadian employers to not know about the quality of the law schools I've mentioned in my previous post.

Name recognition/prestige probably becomes of primary importance if you're looking to work outside the US with a US JD. I'd imagine outside of the T3, only a handful of T14 schools would give you a strong shot outside US (I'm pretty sure not many outside the States are aware of the quality of UVA, UMich, and Northwestern, for instance).

The general rule of thumb is to attend law school in a region where you intend to practice. You'd have to hop over a bunch of licencing hurdles in order to secure a job as a lawyer outside of your country. Not many go down this path.

The percentages of those employed internationally from T14's seems to hover between 2-4% of the graduating class. Some reference points:

https://hls.harvard.edu/dept/ocs/recent-employment-data/

https://law.yale.edu/student-life/career-development/employment-data/class-2017-employment

https://www.law.virginia.edu/career-services/employment-data-recent-graduates

@ said:

wow.. that cleared it up! thank you so much for your help. I really appreciate it :)

Happy to have helped! Glad that you got it!

Hey there! The problem in (b) lies in the word "commonly performed actions". There's no mention of "commonly performed actions" anywhere in the stimulus.

Let me try and breakdown the premise:

The stimulus says: everyone sometimes acts in ways which are a result of how they were treated as an infant/child.

What does this mean? Of all the actions that adults commit, there are some actions that every adult performs which are a result of how they were treated as a child.

Now, what does (E) say?

No adult should be held morally responsible for every action. In other words, every action isn't in our control - there are some actions, as the stimulus indicated, which are a result of how we were treated as kids. Therefore, we should not be held morally responsible for every single action that we commit.

Congratulations!!

@ said:

Remember this thread (https://classic.7sage.com/discussion/#/discussion/13281/case-study-what-i-did-wrong-on-test-day)? ;) @, I think the movie now has a happy ending! (3(/p)

LOOOOOOOOOOL I remember this.

gr8 ending indeed #CaintStopWinning

That's huge! Congratulations!!!

Re: C, you're right. Not to mention, we don't know if a decline in profits necessarily implies a decline in market share. The argument C purports doesn't "wreck" the argument that the stimulus makes.

Re: D - I think your reasoning might be a bit off here. D is right because it introduces an alternative explanation on how a company's market share can grow. The stimulus suggests that the only way a company can grow its market share is through mergers (and not aggressive marketing). D, in contrast, states that, in fact, it isn't mergers but rather cost-cutting measures implemented by bigger firms that has caused an increase in their market share.

Hope this helps! :)

OH GOSH, CONGRATULATIONS!!!!!!!! Was wondering where you disappeared from the forum.

That's big! So incredibly happy for ya! I hope you the time you spend celebrating is victory is directly proportional to the effort/perseverance/sweat/tears that's gone into this entire process.

@ said:

@ said:

@ said:

Wow, what an interesting mix on here! It's cliche, but I really do listen to a little of everything. Granted, a lot more podcasts than music these days. But, I'm a sucker for anything 90s dance/pop, alternative, indie pop, straight up top 40 pop, Broadway soundtracks and some artier things. Lately have been listening to a lot of Sigur Ros in the background while I study. Kinda perfect background music like that, but also you guys got me inspired to rotate in some soundtracks too.

The assorted list of what gets played the most in my spotify: Carly Rae Jepsen, Sigur Ros, Tegan and Sara, Chvrches, Jimmy Eat World, John Mayer, Matt and Kim, Death Cab for Cutie, Hamilton soundtrack, Dear Evan Hansen soundtrack, Justin Timberlake, Ed Sheeran, Copeland, Bon Iver, and an assortment of standup comedy albums (but that's not music, I know haha).

I love Sigur Ros as well! I've been listening to them a lot lately. Incredibly ethereal sounding music -- it has quite the calming effect. Hoppipolla and Sæglópur are my favorites.

Would you (or anyone else) happen to know of similar-ish post-rock/indie pop bands/artists? I haven't had much success in looking for bands that play music of the same genre...

Hmm... I don't know a lot in that genre, and I think Sigur Ros are in a class of their own. (3 But maybe check out Explosions in the Sky? I also think Bon Iver and Volcano Choir fit into that genre for me too, more or less. English lyrics, but nearly as difficult to understand as Icelandic haha.(/p)

Awesome! Thank you so much for the suggestions! I really loved Explosions in the Sky. It's exactly the kind of music I needed right now.

Sigur Ros' music is definitely a notch above most. Have you heard of the band Sleeping at Last? Sometimes their music (low-key) reminds me of Sigur Ros; especially songs like Saturn and Light.

@ said:

Does C means the sentence provides support to the conclusion by excluding the obvious alternative?

Hey there!

I'll break up answer choice C and try to explain each component in detail:

Part I: "It provides a basis for excluding as unacceptable an obvious alternative to the proposal of fining owners"

"Provides a basis" implies that the first half of the last sentence (in the stimulus) gives us some reason. Some reason for what? A reason for excluding an "obvious alternative" as unacceptable. In other words, there is an obvious alternative which is rendered to be unacceptable based on a reason given by (the first half of) the stimulus' last sentence.

Now, what exactly is this "obvious alternative"? It's the alternative which suggests that burglar alarms, because of the unnecessary havoc that they this cause (giving false alarms 99% of the time), should be removed all together.

How exactly does the passage's last sentence remove this "obvious alternative" from consideration? Or, how does it "provide a basis for excluding"? Well, by stating that alarm systems are actually effective in deterring burglaries. In other words, as per the last sentence of the passage, the installation of an alarm system preemptively deters burglars from breaking into homes, and therefore cannot (and should not) be removed from houses. This is the primary role of the statement within the context of the argument.

Hope this helps!

June 2019 is an undisclosed test? :confused:

Your numbering might be off. Question 14 appears to be an Argument Part question. Is that the one that you're referring to?

@ said:

Wow, what an interesting mix on here! It's cliche, but I really do listen to a little of everything. Granted, a lot more podcasts than music these days. But, I'm a sucker for anything 90s dance/pop, alternative, indie pop, straight up top 40 pop, Broadway soundtracks and some artier things. Lately have been listening to a lot of Sigur Ros in the background while I study. Kinda perfect background music like that, but also you guys got me inspired to rotate in some soundtracks too.

The assorted list of what gets played the most in my spotify: Carly Rae Jepsen, Sigur Ros, Tegan and Sara, Chvrches, Jimmy Eat World, John Mayer, Matt and Kim, Death Cab for Cutie, Hamilton soundtrack, Dear Evan Hansen soundtrack, Justin Timberlake, Ed Sheeran, Copeland, Bon Iver, and an assortment of standup comedy albums (but that's not music, I know haha).

I love Sigur Ros as well! I've been listening to them a lot lately. Incredibly ethereal sounding music -- it has quite the calming effect. Hoppipolla and Sæglópur are my favorites.

Would you (or anyone else) happen to know of similar-ish post-rock/indie pop bands/artists? I haven't had much success in looking for bands that play music of the same genre...

Hey there!

You've rightly labelled all components of the stimulus. However, (E) still connects the second last sentence to the conclusion.

Here's the flow of the argument:

Context = US should not get rid of a 3 month summer vacation because its tradition

Conclusion = Nope; you're missing the point

Major Premise = They had 3 month summer vacations sot that children could contribute in the harvest.

(E) is essentially saying that if an appeal to tradition must be made, then the rationale for those traditions must be accurately identified. And that's exactly what the second last, not the last, sentence is doing. It's identifying the rationale and then concluding that the justification of the policy is missing the mark.

The last sentence actually serves as an example of the the principle. Within the context of the argument, it's an addendum of sorts. It's providing the reader with an example of a policy that would be justified on the basis of an appeal to tradition. If you read it carefully, it's really a reworded version of answer choice (E).

The strengthening characteristic of the principle underscored in answer choice (E) is primarily utilized to bridge the gap between the conclusion and second last sentence.

Thanks so much for this!

A quick note: I see UBC's median GPA is entered as 3.0

On their website, the law faculty indicates that their median GPA is 83% (http://www.calendar.ubc.ca/vancouver/index.cfm?tree=12,207,358,326). By Canadian/UBC standards, that translates to about a 3.85.

You can find UBC's GPA scaling here: https://students.arts.ubc.ca/advising/academic-performance/gpa-equivalency/. I believe the Faculty of Law uses the same conversions.

@ said:

thanks for the reply! but where does it say that they are looking for the relative age of the tombs to one another?

your explanation on why C was correct makes perfect sense assuming that they're looking for the relative age of the tombs to one another. were we to assume that because they said "relative age?"

That's exactly right! "Relative ages of the ancient tombs" here implied that the tombs were being compared to one another.

The archaeologists are looking for the relative age of the tombs to one another. In other words, they're seeking to establish which tomb is the oldest and which is the youngest.

(C) states that each log has (among its other rings) a distinctive 12 year pattern on the rings. This distinctive 12 year pattern is used as a benchmark to help determine which log is older and which is younger.

A tree with the distinctive pattern + 2 rings is younger than a tree with the distinctive pattern + 5 rings.

I had trouble with that too. Can't locate it under the resources tab anymore for some reason. Perhaps this should be clarified by the admins.

Regardless, I ended up having to google the webinar I was looking for and found it under archives.

You can find it here: https://classic.7sage.com/webinar/

So based on the evidence provided in the stimulus, formaldehyde was the only toxin to have been removed through the use of certain plants. The question stem tells us that those very same plants are being used in similar a well-insulated house. The stimulus most strongly supports the removal of formaldehyde with the use of said plants. Given the evidence in the stimulus, we don't know if benzene would be removed by those same plants.

Re: C - you're reading the well-insulated = warm bit into the stimulus. We do not know if that is true.

Alternatively, a second reason for ruling out is C is as follows: the stimulus says that the use plants removes some toxins and thereby eliminates their danger (i.e., the danger posed by the toxins). Does this mean that the air supply is now safe? Is the quality of air supply only affected by toxins? Can you remove some toxins and still have relatively unsafe air?

AC (C) inherits an absolute and authoritative tone by the use of the words "have a safe air supply" that's simply not supported by the stimulus.

Tough question. E was a bit tricky and I had to spend some time thinking about why it weakens the question.

As an alternative explanation for why (E) weakens the question, I'd refer back to the context of the stimulus. In it, it is stated that many of the people who benefit from the tax subsidization are from outside the city. The next sentence then proceeds to stating that only taxpayers should be beneficiaries of the subsidization. I assumed that the city councilor(s) made a link between the beneficiaries and their geographical location (as a basis for exclusion). Answer choice (E) weakens the stimulus from this standpoint -- it says that, in fact, there are at least some beneficiaries who are from outside the city but still have to pay taxes. It challenges the assumption underpinning the councilor's criteria for excluding beneficiaries based on their geographical location, thus, weakening the stimulus.

@ said:

But it does require the assumption that these outside commuters are earning above the nationally mandated minimum. Why are we allowed to make this kind of assumption for this question? Or is it not an assumption at all -- rather that even the theoretical possibility of this already constitutes weakening?

To answer your question directly: It is an assumption but one that is safe/reasonable to make when we contrast it with AC (D). On the basis elimination, you'd be much more hard-pressed to eliminate D than E. There is an evident weakening element in E (as outlined in the rationale above) that's simply not present in D.

Hope this helps!

@

https://media1.tenor.com/images/971464a50ecdde0db12fde133a829b06/tenor.gif?itemid=3394823

this thread right now

https://media.giphy.com/media/3o752jUdKmV3exZNPW/giphy.gif

> @ said:

> I _really_ need to figure out how to post gifs so I can properly express my excitement!

>

> Congrats to everyone <3

It's real simple! You go on google images. Google the kind of gif you want to post (for instance, if you want to post a laughing gif make sure to google the words "laughing gif"). Once you find a gif you like, select it by hitting the left mouse button. Once you select it, hit the right mouse button on the gif and then click on "Copy Image Address". Once the image address gets copied, just paste the link in the text box on this forum and post your comment. Your gif won't appear in the text box, though; you only get to see it once you post your comment.

!!!!!!!! Y'ALL ARE SO NICE THANK YOU SO MUCH

https://media3.giphy.com/media/l2Jho0cO4vh2iU1S8/giphy.gif

CONGRATULATIONS EVERYONE!