The Ortega Family Vacation Forum

[Hey-O]

Who had Ortegas for their writing sample? Where did you send them?

My family went to Country 2 which I named ClearSkyLandia because young Jose Ortega wants to be a foreign aid worker and his younger sister Suzy dreams of a career in astronomy.

[Ragged]

I wanted to keep the family away from potential civil unrest of country 2 and allow them to enjoy rich cultural heritage of country 1 all while being able to maneuver around the clouds in their own (rental) car.

[kk19131]

Country 1... for reasons really not associated with eclipse viewing.

I used the final paragraph to brush off potential critics of my suggestion.

[justinmcl]

.

[June09Sucked]

h

[Aggiegrad2011]

Can we talk about this? :O

I agreed with Ragged, and said that C1 > C2 because civil unrest is NEVER good, and a guided tour could easily become a target for insurgents that want to make a point of some kind.

There is an inherent lack of possibility of eclipse viewing, anyway ,and the vacation won't a total and complete bust even if they don't see an eclipse in C1, whereas in C2, if that small chance of cloud cover came to pass, they'd be left with... driving around a country fraught with danger? No thanks.

C1 all the way.

[Bildungsroman]

Careful, pretty sure we're not supposed to talk details (even on the writing sample).

Edit: Also, pretty sure the writing sample is designed to have two options that are both about equal in terms of being a good answer. So, if you're posting to vindicate the choice you made, just realize that there is no "correct" answer, and it's 100% how you write on behalf of your pick.

[justinmcl]

.

[kk19131]

I had no idea we're not allowed to discuss details.

[Hey-O]

This is just for fun. I don't think it could possibly matter. The writing sample isn't even scored.

That being said. The Ortegas should clearly have gone to C2. They have gumption! What could be more worthwhile than civil unrest?

[bk1]

I had no idea we're not allowed to discuss details.

I can't tell if this is serious or sarcastic.

[kk19131]

I had no idea we're not allowed to discuss details.

I can't tell if this is serious or sarcastic.

I'm serious. I wasn't aware of this forum rule.

What's the purpose?

[justinmcl]

.

[bk1]

I'm serious. I wasn't aware of this forum rule.

What's the purpose?

Because it is against LSAC's rules?

http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... =6&t=36019
http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 6&t=119285

[Bildungsroman]

http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 6&t=119285

Please be advised that discussion of any questions from the June 2010 LSAT with anything more than an extremely broad level of specificity will result in a temporary or permanent ban. This may include a ban on your IPs if necessary, which will block you from viewing the TLS forums.


...

Please note that this warning applies to the Reading Comprehension section as well as the writing sample.

[kk19131]

Seems pretty convoluted to me.

I can't imagine how or why discussing aspects of questions is a "violation of copyright law", but so be it.

[jarofsoup]

I thought that civil unrest would enhance their experience. I wanted one of the Ortegas not to make it back.

[bk1]

Seems pretty convoluted to me.

I can't imagine how or why discussing aspects of questions is a "violation of copyright law", but so be it.

Do you not recall your proctor stating that test takers are specifically prohibited from discussing the contents of the test until it is released by LSAC?

[kk19131]

Seems pretty convoluted to me.

I can't imagine how or why discussing aspects of questions is a "violation of copyright law", but so be it.

Do you not recall your proctor stating that test takers are specifically prohibited from discussing the contents of the test until it is released by LSAC?

Yes I am aware of that, but I'd like to see them sue me. Besides, the proctors work for the LSAC, and just because they tell me not to do something doesn't mean it's illegal if I do.

Again, since it's a forum rule I'll abide by it.

[bk1]

Yes I am aware of that, but I'd like to see them sue me. Besides, the proctors work for the LSAC, and just because they tell me not to do something doesn't mean it's illegal if I do.

Again, since it's a forum rule I'll abide by it.

It's not illegal. But you did agree to abide by LSAC's rules and by breaking them they could, hypothetically, put a note in your file that screws over your chances for law school admissions.

[Bildungsroman]

Seems pretty convoluted to me.

I can't imagine how or why discussing aspects of questions is a "violation of copyright law", but so be it.

Do you not recall your proctor stating that test takers are specifically prohibited from discussing the contents of the test until it is released by LSAC?

Yes I am aware of that, but I'd like to see them sue me. Besides, the proctors work for the LSAC, and just because they tell me not to do something doesn't mean it's illegal if I do.

Again, since it's a forum rule I'll abide by it.

Yes, LSAC probably wouldn't sue you.

However, they completely control the test required by every reputable law school in the country for admissions, and have the power to cancel your score and place a note in your file that all law schools will see. So, I'd wait until at least 1L before you start swinging those brass balls talking about how LSAC can't touch you.

[kk19131]

Seems pretty convoluted to me.

I can't imagine how or why discussing aspects of questions is a "violation of copyright law", but so be it.

Do you not recall your proctor stating that test takers are specifically prohibited from discussing the contents of the test until it is released by LSAC?

Yes I am aware of that, but I'd like to see them sue me. Besides, the proctors work for the LSAC, and just because they tell me not to do something doesn't mean it's illegal if I do.

Again, since it's a forum rule I'll abide by it.

Yes, LSAC probably wouldn't sue you.


However, they completely control the test required by every reputable law school in the country for admissions, and have the power to cancel your score and place a note in your file that all law schools will see. So, I'd wait until at least 1L before you start swinging those brass balls talking about how LSAC can't touch you.

Again, does LSAC have some subpoena power I'm not aware of?

[CMDantes]

Country 1 was obviously superior.

[Bildungsroman]

Again, does LSAC have some subpoena power I'm not aware of?

The word "again" seems to imply that you are restating a point made earlier. However, your earlier point was about how LSAC can't tell you what to do. Your new point seems to be that you'll just never get caught. These points, while different, are equally stupid. If you're doing something that you only feel comfortable doing because you're sure nobody will ever find out you did it, you're probably doing something wrong, and the risk here definitely outweights the benefits (the only benefit seeming to be the meaningless vindication of your choice, despite the fact that your clear lack of an ability to make a coherent argument will make that writing sample an embarassment for you).

[romothesavior]

Seems pretty convoluted to me.

I can't imagine how or why discussing aspects of questions is a "violation of copyright law", but so be it.

Do you not recall your proctor stating that test takers are specifically prohibited from discussing the contents of the test until it is released by LSAC?

Yes I am aware of that, but I'd like to see them sue me. Besides, the proctors work for the LSAC, and just because they tell me not to do something doesn't mean it's illegal if I do.

Again, since it's a forum rule I'll abide by it.

Talking about test questions is a bad idea. Although you'll likely never get caught, it is possible.

It does seem like the mods are cracking down extra hard this year though.