I jump between the 70’s and 80’s, using the 60’s as “experimental” and 50’s and older as drills.
So, it’ll be:
PT70 (three section test) and PT60 S1 as experimental
PT80, PT60 S2 as experimental
PT71, PT60 S3 as experimental
Grade PT60
PT81, PT61 S1 as experimental
And so on.
As for BRing my experimental section, I’ll just create a separate problem set and input my BR answers when I finish Section 3 of that PT.
Hope that helps!
Thank you so much for posting this! I had a question about grades: if you are at a T-14 school, do firms have different GPA cut-offs depending in which school you go to (i.e. Harvard vs. Georgetown)?
Some schools specifically ask you to include why you want to go there in their PS prompt, so it varies by school. For me, I played it safe and included a short paragraph at the end of my PS for the schools that didn't give an option to upload a separate "why x" essay.
On the top of my head, I know that Berkeley and UMich has options for writing why X essays. I also think Cornell has a short answer question asking why you have an interest in their school. Most are not required, but it's highly encouraged. The only school I know that absolutely requires a why X essay is UCI.
You can skim through application requirements here: https://coda.io/d/The-7Sage-Law-School-Info-Doc_daa7untIi1o/App-Requirements_sumP8#Application-Requirements_tu3Am/r1
If a school doesn't offer an option for a separate why X essay, you can always add a paragraph at the end of your personal statement for why you want to go that specific school.
Hope that helps! :)
@ said:
@
Is it possible you're confusing (1) "The less X, the less Y" with (2) "If we reduce X, we will reduce Y"?
Ahhhh, yes! I was interpreting (1) to mean (2), but now I understand the difference haha
Thank you!
@
Unless it's given as a conclusion, of course, then that's a whole other issue!
Ohhh, I think I understand. So, if we look at these two arguments:
The more ice cream sales, the more swimming pool drownings. Therefore, the less ice cream sales, the less swimming pool drownings.
The more ice cream sales, the more swimming pool drownings. The less ice cream sales, the less swimming pool drownings. Therefore, we should lessen ice cream sales if we want to prevent people from drowning.
Both arguments are making a correlation-causation error, right?
I thought OP’s argument was in reference to arguments like (1), which is why I was so confused.
But, in (1) the “less A, less B” statement is used to infer a causal relationship because it’s in the conclusion. Whereas in (2), the “less A, less B” is in the premise, so that observation/statement is valid.
@ @
Does a “the more A, the more B” statement always imply that there is a relationship between A and B (meaning, A affects B )?
I think of arguments such as:
There’s been an increase in ice cream sales this summer. There has also been an increase in swimming pool drownings. Therefore, if we want less people to drown, we should lessen the ice cream sales.
If we break this argument down, the premise is implying that the more ice cream sales, the more swimming pool drownings and then it’s further inferring in the conclusion that the less ice cream sales, the less swimming pool drownings.
If this was a flaw question, we would say the the conclusion doesn’t follow because it’s making a correlation-causation error.
Is the error because it’s inferring a false “the more A, the more B” statement, or because there is no known causal relationship between A and B, so you can’t say “the less we have of A, the less we have of B”?
Unless you know if there’s a cause in the relationship, you cannot make an inference on a correlation statement.
If you’re given a correlation (the more A, the more B ), it gives rise to four possibilities:
A causes B
B causes A
C causes both A and B
No relationship
For example: The more money I have, the more things I can buy.
If I tell you that money determines how many things that I buy (A causes B ), then yes, you can say that the less money I have, the less things that I can buy.
Here, you can make an inference because I’m telling you that A causes B. But if you were only given the correlation statement, then you wouldn’t be able to make further inferences because you wouldn’t know which of the four possibilities it would fall into.
7sage has a coda doc with all the application requirements!
https://coda.io/d/The-7Sage-Law-School-Info-Doc_daa7untIi1o/App-Requirements_sumP8#Application-Requirements_tu3Am/r12
“Unfortunately, due to financial reasons I was not able to retest for dyslexia and got denied Accommodations for the LSAT”
I think you can explain this in an LSAT addendum rather than a diversity statement. For a diversity statement, the focus should be more about how your circumstances helped shaped you and I think talking about not being able to get accommodations for the LSAT may distract from that.
I don't think it's a stupid thing to write about at all! I would maybe keep it general and say something along the lines of, "during undergrad, I was going though personal issues that affected my academics but after I got over that, my grades went up in X semester and I continued to do well in my masters degree...therefore, I believe that my performance after X semester and masters degree is a better indicator of my academic potential"
@ said:
Okay got it. So if I don’t have an account already they’ll send me the login info on Thursday? I’ve never used ProctorU.
Yup!
When scheduling opens up, they will send you an email with your login info for proctorU!
Would anyone be down to have a BR session next week? I'm looking for maybe one or two people to BR with since I only have a free Zoom account. If someone has a Zoom account and is willing to host, I'm down to have a bigger group! Please comment below or PM me. All score ranges are welcome :)
You have no idea how much I needed to hear this -- thank you!
@ said:
I had 2 semesters of sub2.5 gpa when I was 18 followed by a 3 year gap. But then at 21 I began treatment and at 22 I returned to school and got straight As and -A's through undergrad and graduate school, along with some moderate professional success.
I think this information could be written in an addendum.
But overall, I don't think writing about addiction/substance abuse would be seen as a bad thing, or would open up the risk of judgment. I think that it is a powerful topic to write about. Just make sure to focus on how your experiences will help you contribute to law school/the legal field. Good luck! :smile:
Premise: 99% of people that use the Internet and download music don’t publish new music.
Conclusion: The music on the Internet (music that is published) is NOT a result of people downloading and reworking existing music.
The premise of this argument does nothing to support its conclusion. Just because 99% of people don’t publish music, does not that mean that the music on the Internet isn’t a reworking of existing music. What are the 1% that DO publish music doing???
The argument is flawed because it doesn’t consider that the 1% that do publish music could contribute to a majority of the music on the Internet, which gives rise to the possibility that their music could be a result of reworking existing music (a standpoint that the argument is trying to go against).
The plus about UCI is that it’s apart of the UC system so people in CA are usually familiar with that those schools, however, since the law school is newer, I don’t know if the name will stretch to the Bay in terms of law firms. I think that if you ultimately want to work in the Bay, you’re better off going to a school in that area (the only ones I know are Berkeley, Stanford, and Hastings) or a T14, unless you’re originally from the Bay area. I say that because I know some firms ask why you want to work there and unless you can say that you either went to school in the area or you grew up there, it makes it harder for them to assess how likely you are to accept that job if it is offered to you.
All of this is information that I’ve gathered from my research or from talking to people, so please take what I say with a grain of salt! Hahaha
UCI isn’t my top top choice, but it’s definitely on my list! I would prefer to stay in LA, so I’m looking at USC, UCLA, or Loyola. UCI is in the OC, so it’s not super close to LA but not super far either hahaha
@ said:
You're invited to my new group 'LSAT Social/Network/Support Group' on GroupMe. Click here to join: https://groupme.com/join_group/67606351/J0fjoObi
The link doesn’t work, so I started a new one!
You're invited to my new group 'Law Support/Network Group' on GroupMe. Click here to join: https://groupme.com/join_group/67607718/DGPEwshS
If you haven't already, I suggest listening to The Powerscore LSAT Podcast's most recent episode! They talk about the changes in rankings and they also mention UCI and how relevant the rankings are in terms of employment. My takeaway from that podcast was that the ranking doesn't really matter if you're planning to stay in that area, as the law firms are already familiar with the local law schools.
For example, they mention O'Melveny and how rankings aren't really relevant when it comes to LA schools. O'Melveny recognizes local schools such as Loyola and Southwestern, which are lower ranked schools.
UCI is a great school and I don't think that ranking should be a deterrent, especially if you are planning to practice there.
I'm not an alum, I've just done a lot of research on UCI and hoping to apply there for Fall 2022! haha
Congrats on your acceptance! :smile:
I'm interested! Maybe we can start a GroupMe too? :smile:
You can’t use past events to predict the present or the future. But I think you can still have past events in a premise, it just depends on how it plays with the conclusion.
Example 1:
-Alex has always had straight A’s from kindergarten through undergrad.
-Therefore, he will get straight A’s in law school.
There’s a "time-shift" fallacy happening here because you’re using his past grades to predict his future grades.
Example 2:
-Alex has always has straight A’s from kindergarten through undergrad.
-Therefore, he has a history of being a good student.
Here, however, there’s no “time-shift” fallacy because you’re not making a prediction about the future or the present. Here, you're still using the same timeline -- you're using past events to conclude past behavior.
@ said:
And others have mentioned meditation to me — I should definitely try it! I don't suppose you have any pointers for anyone just starting out?
I like the app, Insight Timer, for meditation! It has a lot of free guided mediations for whatever you want to target (mediations for stress, anxiety, sleeping, etc). I would also suggest doing meditation at the same time everyday in order to get used to it! :smile:
When I did this I was also iffy about drawing a causal relationship between books and less visits, but it didn’t prevent me from arriving at the correct answer because I interpreted the stimulus as:
There’s an experiment.
The result of the experiment is that books are linked with less visits.
Also, improved health is linked with less visits.
Therefore, books cause improved health.
Flaw: Just because books and improved health are both linked with less visits, it doesn’t mean that they are casually related.
A similar argument would be:
Exercise is linked with increased heart rate.
Anxiety is also linked with increased heart rate.
Therefore, exercise causes anxiety.
With that interpretation, I cancelled out answer choices A, B, and E because they are trying to say that the experiment is flawed but that’s not where the argument is flawed.
Answer C is saying that the books or improved health can cause other things, which is also not where the argument is flawed.
So we are left with answer choice D, which says exactly what we said the flaw was.
And to answer your second question, I understood “state of affairs” to refer to either the books or the improved health.