- Joined
- Jul 2026
- Subscription
- Core
Admissions profile
Discussions
Claude told me this for this questions
Mechanical test:
Premise: column led people to damage farm
+ AC
= "IF reasonably expected → should pay" must be undeniable
Answer A:
Premise: column led people to damage farm
+ AC: any action where one could reasonably expect it would lead others to cause damage → one should pay for that damage
= "IF Sandstrom reasonably expected → she should pay"
Result: undeniable. Her case is just one instance of A's general rule. If she reasonably expected it (the conclusion's "if"), rule A forces "she should pay." Conclusion cannot be false while premise + A are true. ✓
Answer D:
Premise: column led people to damage farm
+ AC: Sandstrom knew her column could incite trespassing/damage
= "IF reasonably expected → should pay" still deniable
Result: fails. Premise + D tell us she knew — but nothing anywhere says knowing/expecting creates an obligation to pay. You can accept both and still say "sure, she knew, but that doesn't mean she owes money." The if→then link never gets built. ✗
But yea I guess D fails to show the 'should pay' part of the conditional conclusion. Knowing that the damage was caused doesn't equate the obligation of payment.
Hi all, I graduated in 2022 from a stem major and have been working at a big 4 company as a consultant. I'm planning to apply for the 2027-2028 cycle so I have a bit of time, but I just wanted to see if these academic failures (?) will hurt my application a lot. I don't know what my LSAC GPA is but i remember having around 3.6 when I graduated.
Academic Dishonesty:
I took a Statistics course in the summer of soph->junior year that I got caught cheating. I shared answers with a classmate and he copied the same wrong answer I got. Our school policy was that the first violation is a warning, won't leave any record (I think) but your grade will be lowered which I ended with a D. I was so ashamed of myself so I retook the class the following semester with the same professor in person and got an A even though I couldn't do grade replacement (you can't do grade replacement if you have an academic dishonesty for that class).
Failed Class:
I failed a class my senior year first semester but it was just a hard course. I took a different class in the following semester that gives the same credit and got a A, but turns out I didn't need to take these classes at all for my graduation; the academic advisory professor just messed up and gave me the wrong advice.
Back then, these things didn't really matter to me too much and I was just relieved I got to graduate, but looking at it now when I'm trying to apply for law school, I realized these things hurt my GPA calculation too much. If I write addendums and explain it, would I be okay as long as I have a good LSAT score and personal essay? How bad are these 'fuck ups' in my undergrad years?
I guess I do have a speeding ticket in 2023 or 2024 that I got which isn't on my record per say since I took the online driving course lol. Does this matter a lot too?
I chose B because i was fixated on "derive a reasonable financial reward from their works". But I guess the keyword is from the first sentence "Copyright was originally the grant of a temporary government-support monopoly on copying a work" and the AC needs to expand that you need to "go beyond" this first sentence in the stimuli...?
how many of these type of questions are on the LR section? im scared that im going to get a bunch of these questions on the exams and get it wrong lol
how is the timing for this a minute lool im taking 5 minutes but i hey i got it right :)
i got it wrong but got it right during BR
what do we do when there the stimulus gives two types of conditional indicators like this?
First sentence I saw cannot so I mapped
People with serious financials problem -> /Happy
Happy -> / People with serious financials problem
Last sentence I saw only if so I mapped
Happy -> Financials problem are solved
contrapositive is
/Financial problems are solved -> /Happy
So to me it looked like first sentence talks about happiness regarding having financials problem and last sentence talks happiness regarding solving financial problems.
A: /Happy -> Have serious problems
From having lawgics, I just figured serious problems are not financial problems so removed
B: Solve serious financial problem -> Happy
From solving lawgics, it is not in any of the ones identified so removed
C: /Have serious financial problem -> Happy
From having lawgics, it is not in any of the ones identified so removed
D: /Happy -> have serious financial problems
From having lawgics, it is not in any of the ones identified so removed
E: Happy -> /serious financial problems
which is one I identified.
Can I approach it this way? or do I need to combine the two lawgics i found from two different sentences since they are very similar?
my brain immediately screamed circular reasoning