The Matheatician and the LSAT

Prepare for the LSAT or discuss it with others in this forum.
bfarag

New
Posts: 15
Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2007 1:20 pm

The Matheatician and the LSAT

Postby bfarag » Thu Nov 11, 2010 8:11 pm

I just finished talking to a girl who got a 173 on her LSAT and majored in math. I'm not much of a mathematician... Will that prove detrimental to my 170+ ambitions?

Gaaaaaaah I'm so worked up about this...

User avatar
glitter178

Silver
Posts: 773
Joined: Sun Mar 07, 2010 8:21 pm

Re: The Matheatician and the LSAT

Postby glitter178 » Thu Nov 11, 2010 8:14 pm

bfarag wrote:I just finished talking to a girl who got a 173 on her LSAT and majored in math. I'm not much of a mathematician... Will that prove detrimental to my 170+ ambitions?

Gaaaaaaah I'm so worked up about this...


there are plenty of non-math majors who have scored well on the LSAT... i'd suggest taking a practice test and seeing how you do before you start thinking about any correlations between UG major and lsat score.

User avatar
theavrock

Silver
Posts: 601
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 10:52 pm

Re: The Matheatician and the LSAT

Postby theavrock » Thu Nov 11, 2010 8:21 pm

IB the picture of the LOL WUT pear

2011Law

Silver
Posts: 822
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 2010 3:40 pm

Re: The Matheatician and the LSAT

Postby 2011Law » Thu Nov 11, 2010 8:30 pm

Sarah is both a mathematician and a high LSAT scorer. Matt is not a mathematician. Therefore, Matt will also not be a high LSAT scorer.

Which one of the following arguments uses flawed reasoning most similar to the reasoning above?



EDIT: Either this is a flame or OP is definitely not 170+ material, or both.

EDIT v2.0: OP, you spelled mathematician wrong. You will definitely not get a 170+.

bfarag

New
Posts: 15
Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2007 1:20 pm

Re: The Matheatician and the LSAT

Postby bfarag » Thu Nov 11, 2010 8:38 pm

2011Law wrote:Sarah is both a mathematician and a high LSAT scorer. Matt is not a mathematician. Therefore, Matt will also not be a high LSAT scorer.

Which one of the following arguments uses flawed reasoning most similar to the reasoning above?



EDIT: Either this is a flame or OP is definitely not 170+ material, or both.


I wasn't trying to say that. But, sure. I was more concerned that being weak in math would put me at a disadvantage in the types of thinking needed. Sorry for not being specific. Also, I'm just panicking and not thinking clearly because of the three tests I have tomorrow.

I like the off the cuff put down though--it adds a nice touch.

Edit: Thanks, jerk.

Edit v2.0: I'm not sure how I misspelled the word. Does that mean you'll do poorly?

bfarag

New
Posts: 15
Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2007 1:20 pm

Re: The Matheatician and the LSAT

Postby bfarag » Thu Nov 11, 2010 8:51 pm

A mod should just delete this. This is kind of pathetic...

User avatar
Kabuo

Silver
Posts: 1114
Joined: Tue Aug 31, 2010 8:53 am

Re: The Matheatician and the LSAT

Postby Kabuo » Thu Nov 11, 2010 9:03 pm

bfarag wrote:A mod should just delete this. This is kind of pathetic...


Is this self deprecation?

turkfish

New
Posts: 17
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2008 1:01 am

Re: The Matheatician and the LSAT

Postby turkfish » Thu Nov 11, 2010 9:14 pm

there are likely other, far more important reasons that may make it difficult for you to obtain a 170+ on the LSAT

2011Law

Silver
Posts: 822
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 2010 3:40 pm

Re: The Matheatician and the LSAT

Postby 2011Law » Thu Nov 11, 2010 9:21 pm

bfarag wrote:I'm not sure how I misspelled the word. Does that mean you'll do poorly?


No, it means you will.

EDIT: EDIT v2.0 was a joke in itself. I am not surprised you did not get it.

User avatar
ShuckingNotJiving

Bronze
Posts: 266
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 2010 11:24 am

Re: The Matheatician and the LSAT

Postby ShuckingNotJiving » Thu Nov 11, 2010 9:25 pm

well, you definitely won't score 170+ if you spend the time you're supposed to be studying arguing with people on here.

also, i would suggest reviewing causation vs. correlation. it's shows up on plenty of questions in the lsat and you seem to be confusing the two.

2011Law

Silver
Posts: 822
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 2010 3:40 pm

Re: The Matheatician and the LSAT

Postby 2011Law » Thu Nov 11, 2010 9:36 pm

ShuckingNotJiving wrote:well, you definitely won't score 170+ if you spend the time you're supposed to be studying arguing with people on here.


That's not true at all. I know someone who spent all his time arguing with strangers on this site and he got a 180. If he can do it, then OP can do it.

User avatar
ShuckingNotJiving

Bronze
Posts: 266
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 2010 11:24 am

Re: The Matheatician and the LSAT

Postby ShuckingNotJiving » Thu Nov 11, 2010 10:00 pm

2011Law wrote:
ShuckingNotJiving wrote:well, you definitely won't score 170+ if you spend the time you're supposed to be studying arguing with people on here.


That's not true at all. I know someone who spent all his time arguing with strangers on this site and he got a 180. If he can do it, then OP can do it.



as a matter of fact, since your friend argued with people on this site and got a 180, then clearly that's the only way once can do so. op, now you know what you gotta do.



Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum�

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests