Is it okay to reuse material for different law schools' supplemental essay questions? For example, if I wrote about something for Georgetown's 250 word essay, could I use some of that verbatim in another school's optional essay? Or is this considered self-plagarism?
I want to punch myself every time I go back to a flagged question and change an answer choice. 9/10 times I change it to the wrong answer. Will I ever learn? Nope. Question 22 I'm looking at you
I think a subtle part of the passage that helped me get this question is the pivot in line 53: lines 48-first half of 53 discuss how current laws make exemptions for researchers/private studiers, but the latter half of 53 goes on to say BUT, even if we make the laws for digitalization more sophisticated in this way, the culture on the internet is different than for print materials (they're "accustomed to treating information as raw material available for everyone to use") so this won't work. Idk if this is right, this was just how I read it. I also agree with what @kharaksengh said in the thread below, that just letting researchers or academics use the web would exclude regular users who have grown accustomed to having resources at their fingertips.
I completely misread 23 ... like "an established theory by the scientific community" not "an established theory, by the scientific community" ... so I was thinking AC B was saying that the scientific community established classic wave theory but it was rejected by other scientists because of these reasons, not that the scientific community was doing the rejecting facepalm that's what I get for rushing!
Not retaking until the spring but I live for your posts! Thank you so much king
Don’t know if this is the best advice but I did this on the August test and ended up fixing the inference, checking my answers for the first few questions, and still had more than enough time to finish the section confidently! For me, I would have been stressing if I skipped it, so I just fixed it then and there. To each their own!
As WinningHere said, if you pay the $40 for two month access, you get the crystal ball webinar!
In the same boat, my best was 176 but now I am stuck at high 160s/low 170s.
following
Hey! I didn’t really think of this as JY did (in terms of the main purpose) because it seemed to me that all the other answer choices distorted what his research actually did, making them inaccurate. From the last paragraph, it only claims that he studied wet tundra grasslands, not different habitats (a conjecture is made in the last line, but it doesn’t explicitly say he studied them and proved it). Thus, it can’t be said that his research answers the question posed in AC A: if it did, it would have evaluated different habitats. This was just my thinking, anyone can correct me if I am way off base!
Apparently I do not understand basic biology, because I thought that just because a gene is responsible for something doesn’t mean it is present … AP bio failed me
Came down here to see if someone explained this…D also feels like it can go either way #help
Thank you! I hate equivocation flaw Qs
Thank you so much for sharing! Congratulations and best of luck in all your future endeavors :)
Thank you for this response! Reading back my answer, I wasn’t clear enough with what I meant. I do agree that C doesn’t help us, thus why I said “if anything” it would support the stimulus, otherwise nothing (thus not making it the answer). A better phrasing than “leads to” would have been “is linked to” or “makes one more susceptible to”. But I absolutely agree about B, the problem is that it doesn’t address the marijuana-THC assumption: we can’t extrapolate a conclusion about an ingredient in something to the whole.
Hi! This is the way I understood it. The argument the author is making is that because people have spent money on natural gas equipment, they won't want to switch back to oil heating and lose what they've invested in the gas equipment. Thus, they would need a strong incentive to switch - they aren't going to sacrifice the investment they've already made in the gas equipment and go back to oil, unless oil and the equipment for oil would save them more money than staying with gas and their current equipment would - but C doesn't give us this information, so we can't assume this. D is correct because it tells us that not only has the oil equipment price fallen dramatically, it is now cheaper to heat your home with oil than gas. This supports the idea that consumers would be willing to switch to oil despite the investment they made in the natural gas equipment, as they likely would be losing money by continuing to use their natural gas system.
Had the same thought process during the timed session, but switched to B in blind review. Anyone can correct me if I'm wrong, but my thought process was THC kills herpesvirus --> inactive herpesvirus resulting from the THC consumption leads to a weak immune system --> weak immune system can lead to cancer, which is more or less the same reasoning as the stimulus (THC inactivates herpesvirus --> inactive herpesvirus can cause cancer). The logic of C still implies that THC is behind the cancer (because using it kills herpesvirus and dead herpesvirus means a weakened immune system which can result in cancer), and if anything provides a further explanation of the phenomenon in the stimulus. Hopefully this helps!
I'm going to get preptest C2 on Saturday and score a 180! Just kidding but pls let me crack 170 or I will cry