December 2012 Re-takers

User avatar
anteater1
Posts: 610
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2010 1:37 am

Re: December 2012 Re-takers

Postby anteater1 » Mon Nov 19, 2012 1:06 am

mrizza wrote:
anteater1 wrote:Glad to know i'm missed :)

I'll come chat and PW with you guys during the waiting thread


+1


I hope your beard is of epic proportions by now, you know how Hawk likes to be tickled in all the right places.

User avatar
Alorain
Posts: 229
Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2012 5:57 pm

Re: December 2012 Re-takers

Postby Alorain » Mon Nov 19, 2012 1:21 am

HawkeyeGirl wrote:
AKsnow wrote:
Alorain wrote:Canucks fan here. Nah, I don't hate Pittsburgh so much. Hate Boston and Chicago though :D


Figured as much. Nucks are pretty nasty. I'm in on the hawks hatred. Not as bad as wings or Philly though.


TOEWS AND KANE FOR THE WIN

Image

User avatar
AKsnow
Posts: 167
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2012 4:41 pm

Re: December 2012 Re-takers

Postby AKsnow » Mon Nov 19, 2012 1:23 am

HawkeyeGirl wrote:
AKsnow wrote:
Alorain wrote:Canucks fan here. Nah, I don't hate Pittsburgh so much. Hate Boston and Chicago though :D


Figured as much. Nucks are pretty nasty. I'm in on the hawks hatred. Not as bad as wings or Philly though.


TOEWS AND KANE FOR THE WIN


I dislike toews for the sole reason that his name is pronounced tabes when it looks like toes. Drives me absolutely bonkers.

M.M.
Posts: 381
Joined: Mon Sep 06, 2010 5:16 pm

Re: December 2012 Re-takers

Postby M.M. » Mon Nov 19, 2012 2:45 am

Anyone know if it's possible to construct a truth tree which is sufficient to determine if two symbolic logic / propositional logic propositions are logically equivalent?

Edit: NVM

CU44BMD
Posts: 51
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 12:49 pm

Re: December 2012 Re-takers

Postby CU44BMD » Mon Nov 19, 2012 3:31 am

Wasn't going to say anything but come on best franchise in terms of making something out of nothing are THE NJ DEVILS, gimme flack for Parise gone:( and Marty getting old but never, NEVER, underestimate Lou.

User avatar
NoodleyOne
Posts: 2358
Joined: Fri May 25, 2012 7:32 pm

Re: December 2012 Re-takers

Postby NoodleyOne » Mon Nov 19, 2012 4:45 am

CU44BMD wrote:Wasn't going to say anything but come on best franchise in terms of making something out of nothing are THE NJ DEVILS, gimme flack for Parise gone:( and Marty getting old but never, NEVER, underestimate Lou.

Something out of nothing? It's not like the Devils were devoid of talent last year with Parise and Kovalchuk, and a pretty easy path to the Finals. And their other Cups came with teams that were stacked to the brim with talent.

User avatar
AKsnow
Posts: 167
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2012 4:41 pm

Re: December 2012 Re-takers

Postby AKsnow » Mon Nov 19, 2012 1:03 pm

NoodleyOne wrote:
CU44BMD wrote:Wasn't going to say anything but come on best franchise in terms of making something out of nothing are THE NJ DEVILS, gimme flack for Parise gone:( and Marty getting old but never, NEVER, underestimate Lou.

Something out of nothing? It's not like the Devils were devoid of talent last year with Parise and Kovalchuk, and a pretty easy path to the Finals. And their other Cups came with teams that were stacked to the brim with talent.


Devils got lucky getting to the finals. Then the finals were a joke. Then again, anyone playing the kings looked like they didn't know what hit them. There's no chance you'll see em in the finals again for a long time barring some dumb mistakes from better teams (bruins, flyers, pens, caps--if they ever learn not to choke)

User avatar
PickledPanda
Posts: 292
Joined: Tue Oct 30, 2012 5:43 pm

Re: December 2012 Re-takers

Postby PickledPanda » Mon Nov 19, 2012 1:03 pm

Wormfather wrote:I dreamed that all of you guys were getting into Yale Harvard and I was still working on my 250.


Have standards man.

CU44BMD
Posts: 51
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 12:49 pm

Re: December 2012 Re-takers

Postby CU44BMD » Mon Nov 19, 2012 1:12 pm

Easy Path? Florida o.k, Flyers and Rangers I wouldn't say thats "easy." Never said that they didn't have a plethora of talent, they just win without "superstars." The Devils would have done better w/o Kovalchuk any ways, such a lazy hockey player.

M.M.
Posts: 381
Joined: Mon Sep 06, 2010 5:16 pm

Re: December 2012 Re-takers

Postby M.M. » Mon Nov 19, 2012 1:14 pm

<---- Has been vanquished by LSAC.

Guess I'm not allowed ITT any more :(

User avatar
PickledPanda
Posts: 292
Joined: Tue Oct 30, 2012 5:43 pm

Re: December 2012 Re-takers

Postby PickledPanda » Mon Nov 19, 2012 1:18 pm

M.M. wrote:<---- Has been vanquished by LSAC.

Guess I'm not allowed ITT any more :(


Sorry man. It's not the end of the world. Like some posters said, you could have hope for a Feb retake. It gives you more time to prepare for a higher score AND at worst you sit out a cycle and you're ready to go at the first of next cycle.

M.M.
Posts: 381
Joined: Mon Sep 06, 2010 5:16 pm

Re: December 2012 Re-takers

Postby M.M. » Mon Nov 19, 2012 1:28 pm

PickledPanda wrote:
M.M. wrote:<---- Has been vanquished by LSAC.

Guess I'm not allowed ITT any more :(


Sorry man. It's not the end of the world. Like some posters said, you could have hope for a Feb retake. It gives you more time to prepare for a higher score AND at worst you sit out a cycle and you're ready to go at the first of next cycle.



For sure ... I'm over the initial shock of it and have come to terms with the fact that I can still apply to some really great schools by taking the Feb LSAT.

What do you guys think my scholarship prospects will be like, applying that late in the cycle though? Because as it stands the vast majority of schools I would be applying to with little chance for scholarships have Feb 1 application deadlines. And if I can't get scholarships at the lower ranked schools, it's not remotely worth going to them

User avatar
Cobretti
Posts: 2560
Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2012 12:45 am

Re: December 2012 Re-takers

Postby Cobretti » Mon Nov 19, 2012 2:32 pm

M.M. wrote:
PickledPanda wrote:
M.M. wrote:<---- Has been vanquished by LSAC.

Guess I'm not allowed ITT any more :(


Sorry man. It's not the end of the world. Like some posters said, you could have hope for a Feb retake. It gives you more time to prepare for a higher score AND at worst you sit out a cycle and you're ready to go at the first of next cycle.



For sure ... I'm over the initial shock of it and have come to terms with the fact that I can still apply to some really great schools by taking the Feb LSAT.

What do you guys think my scholarship prospects will be like, applying that late in the cycle though? Because as it stands the vast majority of schools I would be applying to with little chance for scholarships have Feb 1 application deadlines. And if I can't get scholarships at the lower ranked schools, it's not remotely worth going to them


Scholarships will likely be a big problem... I think you should apply this cycle and see how it goes, but be ready to wait out a cycle if you don't get what you're hoping for.

User avatar
scottyc66
Posts: 719
Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2012 4:19 pm

Re: December 2012 Re-takers

Postby scottyc66 » Mon Nov 19, 2012 2:40 pm

Doesn't it kind of make sense that they'll have plenty of scholarship money left over late in the cycle if they don't properly adjust for the massive decrease in test takers, most likely resulting in a massive decrease in applications. I really doubt schools will make the full adjustment and will find themselves trying harder to get people they normally would simply take or leave.

User avatar
Cobretti
Posts: 2560
Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2012 12:45 am

Re: December 2012 Re-takers

Postby Cobretti » Mon Nov 19, 2012 2:42 pm

scottyc66 wrote:Doesn't it kind of make sense that they'll have plenty of scholarship money left over late in the cycle if they don't properly adjust for the massive decrease in test takers, most likely resulting in a massive decrease in applications. I really doubt schools will make the full adjustment and will find themselves trying harder to get people they normally would simply take or leave.


I agree it will be better this year than other years. But not applying until March will still mean they've given away a substantial amount of their aid packages already, so it will absolutely be worse than if he was applying early january. It might still be worth it though, that's why we're saying he should apply and see how it goes.

User avatar
londonsportsguy
Posts: 21
Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2012 9:16 am

Re: December 2012 Re-takers

Postby londonsportsguy » Mon Nov 19, 2012 2:57 pm

Can someone explain this to me:

"If there are any inspired musical performances in the concert, the audience will be treated to a good show. But there will not be a good show unless there are sophisticated listeners in the audience, and to be a sophisticated listener one must understand one's musical roots.

....

[Correct answer] The audience will be treated to a good show unless there are people in the audience who do not understand their musical roots." (quoted from PowerScore LR, chapter 7)

Is this correct because ...by not having UMR, you can't have SL. And if IMP exists then GS and SL must also exist?

Deeply confused by this one...but I might just need a break.

User avatar
Cobretti
Posts: 2560
Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2012 12:45 am

Re: December 2012 Re-takers

Postby Cobretti » Mon Nov 19, 2012 3:19 pm

Inspired Musical Performances -> Good Show
Good Show - > Sophisticated Listeners
Sophisticated Listener -> Understand One's Musical Roots

Answer:
-Understand Musical Roots -> -Good Show

We derive this from...

-Understand One's Musical Roots -> -Sophisticated Listener -> -Good Show

User avatar
scottyc66
Posts: 719
Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2012 4:19 pm

Re: December 2012 Re-takers

Postby scottyc66 » Mon Nov 19, 2012 3:22 pm

What's the stem?

User avatar
londonsportsguy
Posts: 21
Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2012 9:16 am

Re: December 2012 Re-takers

Postby londonsportsguy » Mon Nov 19, 2012 3:30 pm

If all are true what must be true.

I think I just got hung up on looking for something involving IMP.

User avatar
Cobretti
Posts: 2560
Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2012 12:45 am

Re: December 2012 Re-takers

Postby Cobretti » Mon Nov 19, 2012 3:43 pm

londonsportsguy wrote:If all are true what must be true.

I think I just got hung up on looking for something involving IMP.


That's how they get you. Those questions almost never utilize the whole chain, and its always tempting to pick an answer that seems like it does.

User avatar
Lenahan3
Posts: 264
Joined: Fri May 11, 2012 12:57 am

Re: December 2012 Re-takers

Postby Lenahan3 » Mon Nov 19, 2012 4:02 pm

Just finished PT 67. As said before, I didn't look at it or review any of it, in the hopes of coming close to replicating a clean PT. Obviously, that's not entirely possible, but I think it was pretty close.

Ex. RC: -1
RC: -4
LR1: -1
LR2: -2
LG: -0

173/180

My original score was a 165. Something about this test just throws me. LR contains more "role" questions than I remember, and those usually kill my soul. I almost completely jacked up one of the games by neglecting to calculate the bi-conditional, the second time I've done that recently, so I need to watch it. I still worked up until the very last second to finish the games section, just like the real deal. I failed hard at RC, fucking again, missing 3/4 of my question on the !Kung passage. I must have missed that passage's tone and structure completely, which is irritating. What's really infuriating is going -1 on the RC right before it, and considering it's a 50's RC, it wasn't super easy.

Back on the grind.

User avatar
gguuueessttt
Posts: 473
Joined: Tue Oct 30, 2012 5:18 pm

Re: December 2012 Re-takers

Postby gguuueessttt » Mon Nov 19, 2012 4:08 pm

mrizza wrote:
londonsportsguy wrote:If all are true what must be true.

I think I just got hung up on looking for something involving IMP.


That's how they get you. Those questions almost never utilize the whole chain, and its always tempting to pick an answer that seems like it does.


Yeah I don't think I've seen a single one that uses the entire chain. That'd be too easy.

User avatar
gguuueessttt
Posts: 473
Joined: Tue Oct 30, 2012 5:18 pm

Re: December 2012 Re-takers

Postby gguuueessttt » Mon Nov 19, 2012 4:09 pm

Lenahan3 wrote:Just finished PT 67. As said before, I didn't look at it or review any of it, in the hopes of coming close to replicating a clean PT. Obviously, that's not entirely possible, but I think it was pretty close.

Ex. RC: -1
RC: -4
LR1: -1
LR2: -2
LG: -0

173/180

My original score was a 165. Something about this test just throws me. LR contains more "role" questions than I remember, and those usually kill my soul. I almost completely jacked up one of the games by neglecting to calculate the bi-conditional, the second time I've done that recently, so I need to watch it. I still worked up until the very last second to finish the games section, just like the real deal. I failed hard at RC, fucking again, missing 3/4 of my question on the !Kung passage. I must have missed that passage's tone and structure completely, which is irritating. What's really infuriating is going -1 on the RC right before it, and considering it's a 50's RC, it wasn't super easy.

Back on the grind.


Jumping from 165 to 173 without looking at it in between (I assume) is still pretty darn good.

User avatar
londonsportsguy
Posts: 21
Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2012 9:16 am

Re: December 2012 Re-takers

Postby londonsportsguy » Mon Nov 19, 2012 4:54 pm

gguuueessttt wrote:
mrizza wrote:
londonsportsguy wrote:If all are true what must be true.

I think I just got hung up on looking for something involving IMP.


That's how they get you. Those questions almost never utilize the whole chain, and its always tempting to pick an answer that seems like it does.


Yeah I don't think I've seen a single one that uses the entire chain. That'd be too easy.


Thanks folks. Looking at it 10 min later it made total sense...I just needed a workout, I was brain tired.

M.M.
Posts: 381
Joined: Mon Sep 06, 2010 5:16 pm

Re: December 2012 Re-takers

Postby M.M. » Mon Nov 19, 2012 5:04 pm

mrizza wrote:
scottyc66 wrote:Doesn't it kind of make sense that they'll have plenty of scholarship money left over late in the cycle if they don't properly adjust for the massive decrease in test takers, most likely resulting in a massive decrease in applications. I really doubt schools will make the full adjustment and will find themselves trying harder to get people they normally would simply take or leave.


I agree it will be better this year than other years. But not applying until March will still mean they've given away a substantial amount of their aid packages already, so it will absolutely be worse than if he was applying early january. It might still be worth it though, that's why we're saying he should apply and see how it goes.

So basically Im fucked no matter what?

Unless I guess I somehow miraculously get accepted to a reach school that late in the cycle ?




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: bearedman8, cianchetta0, donoto, goldenbear2020, jag9953, packerboy31489, SiddFinch85, Tsubomi93 and 28 guests