Hi! If you want to message me, I could review it this weekend. I already finished my personal statement so don't need to swap but more than happy to provide feedback.

I guess it depends if the creative language style detracts from the message you are trying to get across with the diversity/personal statement. If so, then probably. If the message is clear then I'm not sure it's an issue.

I have been out of undergrad for 10 years, and have more or less kept in touch with the two professors I've asked (they have written my recommendation letters for other things throughout the years, but even the most recent of those was 4/5 years ago). I admittedly had close relationships with my professors, but I still wanted to give them as much time as possible to write the letter. I would ask ASAP. I sent this late summer/early summer. Obviously this would be different now if I were writing it since I have finished my personal statement, but you get the idea. Hopefully this helps - the sooner you ask, the better! That way if a professor says no, you have time to figure out a back up plan.

Subject: Recommendation Letter for Law School

Hi [name], (admittedly you could say professor xyz)

I hope you’re doing well and enjoying summer. As you can tell from the subject, I’m in the process of applying to law school this fall and I was hoping that you would be available to write me a letter of recommendation. I will probably not submit my applications until mid to late October, so I figured I would I ask now to give you enough time.

If you have the time and are willing to write me a recommendation letter, I can send you a copy of my résumé along with some points I was hoping you could address in the recommendation letter. I’m not done writing my personal statement, but I can also explain why I am applying to law school or share any other information that you feel would be helpful, either over email or the phone if that is easier.

Thank you so much,

[name]

Thurgood Marshall, a famous civil rights attorney and subsequent supreme court justice, presented many cases that helped him establish the arguments necessary for his ultimately successful argument in the landmark case, Brown V. Board of Education, which made segregation illegal.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thurgood_Marshall

No, this is key. The way I see C, it has two parts. The comment below explains it well. The first part says:TBT used to kill a an imported variety of oysters. We also know that the this variety of oyster proliferates as the expense of the oysters in warmer water. Now that the TBT is gone, nothing is killing the imported oysters (that we know of) and we also know that the waters are warmer now, so the imported variety of oyster flourishing at the expense of the other could help explain why the oysters have not grown back yet despite TBT levels being almost eliminated/the chemical no longer being in use.

I think that you're confused about what the negation of C does. It definitely doesn't support the Egyptian tablets challenging anything. Hopefully this explanation clears it up for you.

Context: clay tablets discovered were dated between 3,300 and 3,200.

Premise: One appears to contain literary writing

Conclusion - there is a belief that Sumerians in Mesopotamia were the first to create literature, and this finding challenges that.

How could finding something in Egypt that seems literary dated between 3,300 and 3,200 challenge a belief? It must be that 1) if it is true that the literary tablet is literary, then Sumerians did not write anything literary before that time period. If they did, the argument would fall apart.

A: who cares if most of what has already been translated is literary? We already know that one record appears to be literary. This doesn't change anything. Eliminate. In the alternative, what if Most of what has been translated is not literary? It still doesn't change the fact that this finding can challenge the widely held belief.

B: this is a general statement about every civilization and does not have anything to do with Sumerians specifically, which we know nothing about from the premises. In the alternative, the negation of this sentence would say some civilizations that keep tax records do not keep other written records. This doesn't change anything.

C: this is a good answer on the face to dive deeper in because it tells us something about Sumerians, which is not mentioned AT ALL in the premises. If we were to negate this, historians generally believe Sumerians DID create literature earlier than 3,000 - why is it that the finding of something literary dating between 3,200 to 3,300 challenges the widely held belief that Sumerians were the first to create literature? It doesn't - this date does not come earlier than what historians believe about the creation of literary writing by Sumerians. That is why this AC is correct.

D: this is about historians doubting authenticity. What if All historians do not doubt aka BELIEVE in the authenticity? It still doesn't tell us anything about the relationship of the tablets in Egypt to literary creation by Sumerians.

E: if we negate this, are we to assume that it arose between an earlier or later time period?

So exciting to be a FIRST COMMENT!

Criticism #2 - https://www.bookshare.org/browse/book/2880269?gclid=CjwKCAjw5c6LBhBdEiwAP9ejG1-AhVs8Bxf1k9ykeRuSbc5wngQ_gMNPbIb32rDWoL9fmdBwlNoWJhoCho8QAvD_BwE

YES! I got this question right because I remembered this question from pt 37.

thank you tulip museum in amsterdam!

I see why answer E on question 5 is attractive during review. I took that to mean that the metaphor was used to discuss the everyday images, which I would argue is an element common to all corridos, however, this is not what the answer says. It says that the metaphor is an element common to all variants of corridos - which is plainly contradicted.

All I could think about when I read the medicine name was #antifa

Premise: Human emotional tendencies are essentially unchanged

-technology enables a wider range of choices

Conclusion: humans are generally unable to choose more wisely.

GAP: This is going from emotional tendencies being unchanged to being unable to choose more wisely.

Having a wider range of choices does not make you choose more wisely.

This is assuming something like choosing more wisely depends on emotional tendencies being changed?

A: This does not have to be true. What if they have undergone significant changes in their height? They could still be unable to choose more wisely.

B: What does being in control of their emotions have anything to do with anything? This doesn’t make it so that humans are generally unable to choose more wisely.

C: This is so out of left field. This says If humans are not emotionally disposed to heed lessons of history, history can’t make them wiser. So what if they are not able to heed lessons of history BUT history can make them wiser. Does this mean it is not possible for it to be true that humans are generally unable to choose more wisely? no.

D: Do humans choosing on the basis of their emotions alone make it so that humans are generally unable to choose more wisely? What if humans choose based on the day of the week? or the color of their clothes? The could still be generally unable to choose more wisely.

E: This is a simple argument. There is only one premise. Emotional tendencies are unchanged. Therefore, we are unable to choose more wisely. What does emotional tendencies have to do with choosing wisely? The author is assuming that they are linked. So that means being able to choose more wisely depends on emotional tendencies having changed. This answer choice negated says that: Humans can make wiser choices and an emotional change had not taken place. If this is the case, why is it that a change hasn’t taken place, and humans can’t make wiser choices? the argument falls apart.

@ahirth100379 if you do any other sessions I can always help with Zoom! I have an account through my job. DM me if you want.

How long will this go for?

148 I think? I can't remember!! I didn't actually write it down but that was the number I have in my head.

sampling bias/unrepresentative sample

when I find a stimulus like this just throwing info at me that I may not be able to keep straight in my mind, writing it out helps even if it takes me a couple more seconds.

This phenomenon is actually (at least tangentially) covered in an earlier reading passage. I can't remember the test number though!

I got this wrong because I had such a hard time understanding what the conflict is that I had to address.

Not timed, I could see it was: why is it that there was a reduction in allergens, but no reduction in symptoms?

A: I picked this without fully understanding this AC. I thought it was saying that symptoms can be caused by other things besides the allergens, such as the bedding. But this is just a comparative statement that allergens from begging are more irritating than from the carpet. I just came back/panicked and picked it.

D: explains the conflict. the reduction wasn't enough to lower symptoms

I find that if I am having a hard time understanding the stimulus I should skip, come back, write down shorthand what helps me understand/digest the stimulus

this question is covered in the strengthening/weakening webinar. There's a good explanation of it too there!

I think the historical fact is that photography obviously has not replaced all painting (which you can infer from the premise). That's how I looked at it anyway.

The way I did this last question (huge time sink) was looking at the last answer choice and going through all the options. If it's a published unrequested manuscript, you know it can't be anything in the first half of the stimulus (it's not submitted by literary agents/not requested directly from fiction writers) and you know that it's unrequested so it can't be requested after a careful review of the writer's proposal, leaving the only option: it must be from a renowned figure.

I read this passage two days before taking a flight. Didn't make me feel great lol!

This is very similar to a weakening question on the 7sage weaken/strengthen question webinar. There is a question from a later tests that talks about the incidence of a virus in cows and that in the past less cows died of the disease and now more cows died of the disease. The author concludes it must be because the virus is more virulent now. The question stems asks to weaken, and the answer is that only the most severe cases are reported/the milder cases are treated so they don't count in the cases reported.