- Joined
- May 2025
- Subscription
- Live
Admissions profile
Applications
Discussions
So I've been working on my personal statement, and part of the story I'm telling in that statement is something that I wrote about in an article for my college newspaper/magazine, which is published online. I'm not worried about the general topic being similar since here it has a different purpose (explaining why this experience motivated me to go to law school) but there is one particular scene/vignette that I'd really like to include in the essay, which I wrote about in the article that's online.
I'm obviously not going to copy any exact phrases or sentences, but I'm a little worried about it somehow coming up as plagiarism or something? How should I avoid this/should I just take the vignette out?
On this note, should I avoid using any dialogue, or would a sentence or two be okay? If you can't tell, I was an English major, so trying to figure out where the line between creativity and professionalism lies!
Another thing I was thinking about is that I want to reference the general idea behind this one monologue in this one (old, like 1940s era) movie. It's not like an incredibly unique idea, but I've really connected with the movie and I feel like mentioning it briefly would be helpful in the essay. Would that be a no-go, or would it be okay?
Thanks!!! Any advice is very appreciated
the placement of this question at the end of the last PT section is cruel and unusual and may have broken my brain permanently
would moving to direct action not constitute a change in their general political goals??
I initially read this question as saying essentially "the only ones who appreciate these advances are computer scientists," which seemed to be completely logical and not flawed. After flagging and returning, I realized it was saying something more like "all computer scientists (and only computer scientists) appreciate these advances." The wording of "only those" is a little deceptive.
The 'before' in A really threw me off. The evidence given is "In many cases monetary payment can adequately compensate for the refusal to fulfill the terms of a contract, and thus the court commonly need not consider ordering specific performance." Sure, but the passage also states that "[Specific remedy] is often the only reasonable remedy when monetary damages could not adequately compensate the one who has been harmed by the breach of contract." What about in cases such as the latter, where it is clear that specific remedy is the only reasonable remedy? Why would monetary damages need to be considered before? Rather than just simultaneously as one of two options? And I get why C states monetary damages are coercive, but the author does not once refer to them as such, and in fact states that monetary damages should happen rather than specific performance due to "the kind of coercion that enforcement would necessitate," implying that there is at least a greater degree of coercion. This definition implies that all legal verdicts are coercive, which I guess can be considered true, but is a huge jump in tone from other language used here related to monetary damages, and really not an assumption I would assume we are supposed to make.
While the spirit of B instantly seemed correct to me the “no reliable way” convinced me this was wrong. The scope of this passage is concerned with injunctions and the court process, and the answer implies that the passage refers to every possible means of accomplishing these means. What about something besides an injunction? This passage doesn’t even discuss if there are legal mechanisms at play besides injunctions. I feel like there are so many cases where an answer seems to be correct, but you have to be too careful because it’s “too strong”, stating something like always or never, so it’s wrong, and you have to choose something that seems ‘less right’ but is within the scope. Why is this different? How to tell if something is “too strong” or not?
@JacobBaska Thank you so much! Yeah, I figured I was probably being paranoid haha, but just wanted to be absolutely sure this wouldn't be a problem.