Discussions

All posts

New post

586 posts in the last 30 days

M → F

/J → /M

/M

I took the contrapositive of M > F which got me /F > /M

Then I inferred that /F or /J would net me /M. Which means that the arrows can split in the sufficient condition.

Which means the sufficient assumption for /M would either be to negate F (/F), or to make it that /F > /J (/F > /J > /M)

Is this correct? Or am I missing some other possible sufficient assumption.

0

I'm applying to UofT law and am struggling with the optional essay.

They recommend speaking about one of four suggested topics, but I'm struggling with selecting the one that fits best, as I already speak to my future ambitions in my personal statement.

One of the options is diversity. I'm of Lebanese origin and grew up in Dubai. Is there any way this would be an acceptable ground for diversity, or is it best to go with another topic?

0

Hello,

I'm wondering where the best place is to discuss a Senior Thesis on a résumé. I am planning to place this in my education section, but I'm struggling with how much detail to include in the description or if I should place it in a different section altogether.

Obviously, no admission committee is going to take the time to read such a long piece of text, but can anyone offer advice on how to highlight the work done in academic research? Thank you!

0

I know it all depends / repetition etc but im generally wondering- when I drill reading what difficulty should I do at? does anyone know what avg difficulty is on tests like one level two one level three etc for reading?

Like if I drill one 3 dot law passage, 4 dot science, 2 dot humanities, then mix it up another time, etc?

0

Hello everyone!

My name is Ken. My friends and I host an LSAT study meeting at Gangnam every Sunday. We do not charge to attend this meeting but ask that each participant only pays for his or her usage of the meeting room at the study cafe. If anyone else wants to join, please read the conditions below and send me a message to my inbox! (:

  • This LSAT study meeting takes place from 2:00 pm-5:00 pm every Sunday at the Gangnam station Exit 9 Wing Study Cafe.

  • The language of the study meeting is English and English only. Any constituent speaking Korean will be asked to speak in English. We will accept a mixture of English and Korean (Konglish).

  • We do not make a profit hosting this LSAT study meeting other than asking each constituent to pay for his or her usage of the meeting room at the study cafe. The fee for using this meeting room is 6,000 KRW per person (1,900 KRW per hour for each person x 3 hours = 5,700 KRW rounded up to 6,000 KRW). This fee must be paid for in advance as soon as the constituent confirms in writing that he or she will attend the upcoming study meeting. The cause for paying the fee in advance as soon as possible is because we have to reserve the meeting room at the study cafe according to the number of constituents attending the meeting.

  • The refund will be issued only if the cancellation is made 48 hours prior to the start time of the study meeting. For example, a constituent has to cancel at latest by 2:00 pm on Friday to receive the refund.

  • The method of payment is KakaoPay and KakaoPay only. The method of refund is KakaoPay and KakaoPay only.

  • Any constituent using profanity or exhibiting an aggressive behavior will be permanently removed from the study meeting.

    • Thanks!

    0

    In another discussion post about this question (the only other post about this question), one of the responses stated:

    the crux of the argument lies in the second part of the second sentence where the author makes an explicit attempt at underlining the underlying logic: "but the absence of sightings cannot prove that it does not (exist)".

    In lawgic that's: if there's absence, then we cannot prove non-existence.

    Absence --> /prove

    In order to weaken the argument, we need to find something that's loosely along the lines of: if there's absence, then that might actually mean non-existence.

    (E) encapsulates this best.

    But his underlying logic doesn't really make sense to me. If Absence of sightings -> cannot prove yeti does not exist, then the contrapositive is: prove yeti does not exist -> some sightings. The contrapositive doesn't make intuitive sense. If we prove that the yeti does not exist, then there must be some sightings of the yeti? That sounds like the complete opposite of what is necessary to prove something does not exist.

    How does answer choice E weaken the argument? Is focusing on the underlying logic in the final sentence the best way to approach this question?

    0

    I applied to CLS/Chi quite a few times about 3-5 years ago, last time in 2019-2020 cycle.

    I used PS-1 the first time and a different PS-2 in later apps over a few years.

    Since then my score has expired and I retook this Oct.

    All my other application material (Recs, Resume etc) is pretty much the same. I can't get another rec from elsewhere.

    Is it ok to reuse the PS, or do I need to write an entirely "fresh" one?

    What if I reuse PS-1 which wasn't the latest PS i reapplied with earlier, how much difference would it make compared to writing a new one?

    0

    Hello everyone!

    My name is Ken. My friends and I host an LSAT study meeting at Gangnam every Sunday. We do not charge to attend this meeting but ask that each participant only pays for his or her usage of the meeting room at the study cafe. If anyone else wants to join, please read the conditions below and send me a message to my inbox! (:

  • This LSAT study meeting takes place from 2:00 pm-5:00 pm every Sunday at the Gangnam station Exit 9 Wing Study Cafe.

  • The language of the study meeting is English and English only. Any constituent speaking Korean will be asked to speak in English. We will accept a mixture of English and Korean (Konglish).

  • We do not make a profit hosting this LSAT study meeting other than asking each constituent to pay for his or her usage of the meeting room at the study cafe. The fee for using this meeting room is 6,000 KRW per person (1,900 KRW per hour for each person x 3 hours = 5,700 KRW rounded up to 6,000 KRW). This fee must be paid for in advance as soon as the constituent confirms in writing that he or she will attend the upcoming study meeting. The cause for paying the fee in advance as soon as possible is because we have to reserve the meeting room at the study cafe according to the number of constituents attending the meeting.

  • The refund will be issued only if the cancellation is made 48 hours prior to the start time of the study meeting. For example, a constituent has to cancel at latest by 2:00 pm on Friday to receive the refund.

  • The method of payment is KakaoPay and KakaoPay only. The method of refund is KakaoPay and KakaoPay only.

  • Any constituent using profanity or exhibiting an aggressive behavior will be permanently removed from the study meeting.

    • Thanks!

    0

    I applied to HLS/CLS/Chi a few times, but since then my score (171) has expired and I retook this Oct.

    I wrote a new PS for this cycle (using partly on my previous apps' PS) that's based on my long work-ex in tech industry.

    Would be interested to know the feedback from those with law school experience.

  • Any law school student/graduate with experience with essays who can read my PS?

    • 0

    Hello,

    I just wanted to post this to see how other people are learning from their missed questions. As I was looking over some missed questions and seeing why the correct answer is correct, it struck me that I don't have a very good system for learning from my missed questions and remembering my mistakes. I've been blind reviewing of course, and then I will write out my thinking in the "explanation note" box. How are others keeping in mind the mistakes they've made, and carrying it over to similar questions? This is mainly for LR.

    Thanks!

    0

    When I first look at an LR question and try to map it out with conditional logic, I get the answer wrong often and in the video explanation, JY maps it out completely different than I envisioned. Sometimes, I map out elements that are irrelevant to the argument or I'm creating too complex maps that aren't easily boiled down.

    What do I need to review so I can get a better understanding?

    0

    I am between AC (C) and (D), however feel (C) is incorrect due to the wording of such. While the part about "providing reasons for rejecting an alternative course of action" fits the description, answer choice (C) also claims "it arrives at it's conclusion indirectly". The word indirectly is what is throwing me off, as the conclusion of the argument "The Transit Authority’s proposal to increase fares by 40 percent must be implemented." is DIRECTLY stated in the very first sentence. Can someone please explain?

    Admin note: Edited to remove the stimulus and answer choices. You can see our Forum Rules here: https://classic.7sage.com/discussion/#/discussion/15/forum-rules

    0

    I've just finished my resume and really need someone who could give me a proofread. Have been asking around but none of my friends have any experience with applying for a US law school. Really insecure about the resume. Don't know if it is what the law school ask for.

    Would someone be willing to review my resume? Much appreciated!

    0

    Confirm action

    Are you sure?