LSAT vocabulary words. Forum

[paradoxpredator]

I know plenty of people who are "college educated." C's get Degrees.

The RC defines those words in the text and some words aren't defined (the ones that they assume EVERYBODY knows)

Yea, my C's got degrees. I hadn't read a single book from high school until my LSAT, and I still never ran into a word that I didn't know.

Hastened is a word they assume everyone knows.

Look, you got tripped up with a word you randomly didn't know. It happens. But if this is a common problem your vocab is deficient (LACKING). If it was a one time thing, why are you all butthurt about it.

I got fucked a different way on my actual LSAT. They used a word that has a technical definition and a layman definition, and I stupidly went with the technical definition and read too much into the question. Shit happens, I still got dat 176.

It ain't a problem like that man. You are right I did get tripped. My problem is all the assholes on here thinking their are fucking Webster and shit like they know it all. Them people know damn well they don't know definitions of some words. Bitches ain't shit!

LMFAO! Wow, it's going hard in here.


"i'm all between her legs like a seat on a bike, got a couple of broads with me and one is a d*ke"

[paradoxpredator]

Lol'ing so hard over here. Classic.

Right, I mean I chimed in but I had to get out of the discussion. These ppl started acting crazy.


"I smoke like Phelps"

[CyanIdes Of March]

I know plenty of people who are "college educated." C's get Degrees.

Yes, and those C's shouldn't be going to law school. Neither should people who struggle with the Law School Admission Test vocabulary.

It's a hard test, and that's a good thing. The vocabulary doesn't detract from it, it adds to it.

Assuming you haven't taken the LSAT yet, I kind of hope you run into a word that you, for one reason or another, haven't seen before or don't quite understand fully, and miss a question because of it. Would be fitting for someone acting as obtuse and elitist as you are. Enough patting yourself on the back because you have the amazing ability to grasp LSAT level vocabulary (or, for that matter, pretending people can't use dictionaries in the real word, making your entire argument asinine), yea?

[rinkrat19]

I know plenty of people who are "college educated." C's get Degrees.

Yes, and those C's shouldn't be going to law school. Neither should people who struggle with the Law School Admission Test vocabulary.

It's a hard test, and that's a good thing. The vocabulary doesn't detract from it, it adds to it.

Assuming you haven't taken the LSAT yet, I kind of hope you run into a word that you, for one reason or another, haven't seen before or don't quite understand fully, and miss a question because of it. Would be fitting for someone acting as obtuse and elitist as you are. Enough patting yourself on the back because you have the amazing ability to grasp LSAT level vocabulary (or, for that matter, pretending people can't use dictionaries in the real word, making your entire argument asinine), yea?

It's not elitist to think that unqualified people shouldn't go to law school. It's better for them to not go. I would never root for anyone to take on six figures of debt to attend a school that gives them a 5-10-15% chance of getting a decent job.

Now, saying all Cs shouldn't go to law school is a bit much. I know of some C+ undergrad GPAs at my T14, and I even had a few Cs (engineering is a bitch). But we proved ourselves with LSAT scores.

[facile princeps]

I generally agree with the principle the OP may be referencing. If the test is meant to evaluate intellectual capacity, an exceptionally high level of vocabulary shouldn't be used. That being said, i do not find the test to contain an abnormally high level of vocabulary, and i'm about average.

OP, have you never heard the term "haste makes waste?" When i was in my mid teens, i would log every single word i encountered that i didn't know the meaning to while watching late night TV. It helped. To this day i use and encounter words i credit to that weird practice.

By you saying "your milage may very" highlights my point. You may have an extensive vocabulary, but is it fair to someone who's vocabulary isn't has great has yours to be penalized for it? There are a lot of people who come from backgrounds where they are not exposed to such "words" in every day use. So why should they be punished for it? I'm just saying even it out a bit. That's all. I think it would be very magnanimous of the LSAT to do so.

No offense, but if you're seriously considering law school, you should know the difference between has and as. Do yourself some good by increasing your vocabulary (read more dense shit, look up every word you hear that you're unfamiliar with, etc) and get your overall reading/writing skills up to par.

Some of you need to stop being condescending assholes, though.

[Icculus]

Wow, this escalated quickly. I mean it got out of hand fast.

[quinnmittens]

I generally agree with the principle the OP may be referencing. If the test is meant to evaluate intellectual capacity, an exceptionally high level of vocabulary shouldn't be used. That being said, i do not find the test to contain an abnormally high level of vocabulary, and i'm about average.

OP, have you never heard the term "haste makes waste?" When i was in my mid teens, i would log every single word i encountered that i didn't know the meaning to while watching late night TV. It helped. To this day i use and encounter words i credit to that weird practice.

By you saying "your milage may very" highlights my point. You may have an extensive vocabulary, but is it fair to someone who's vocabulary isn't has great has yours to be penalized for it? There are a lot of people who come from backgrounds where they are not exposed to such "words" in every day use. So why should they be punished for it? I'm just saying even it out a bit. That's all. I think it would be very magnanimous of the LSAT to do so.

No offense, but if you're seriously considering law school, you should know the difference between has and as. Do yourself some good by increasing your vocabulary (read more dense shit, look up every word you hear that you're unfamiliar with, etc) and get your overall reading/writing skills up to par.

Some of you need to stop being condescending assholes, though.

Dude, I got so wrapped up in this debate that I didn't even trip on me typing "h" before "as." No excuse, I shall go down in shame.

And I never said my reading skills and writing skills are weak. This is why this shit got out of hand. People jumping to conclusions and shit trying to tell somebody they are dumb cause they don't know a 8th grade word. Now all of a sudden I can't read or I have poor writing skills. Child please.

[paradoxpredator]

I generally agree with the principle the OP may be referencing. If the test is meant to evaluate intellectual capacity, an exceptionally high level of vocabulary shouldn't be used. That being said, i do not find the test to contain an abnormally high level of vocabulary, and i'm about average.

OP, have you never heard the term "haste makes waste?" When i was in my mid teens, i would log every single word i encountered that i didn't know the meaning to while watching late night TV. It helped. To this day i use and encounter words i credit to that weird practice.

By you saying "your milage may very" highlights my point. You may have an extensive vocabulary, but is it fair to someone who's vocabulary isn't has great has yours to be penalized for it? There are a lot of people who come from backgrounds where they are not exposed to such "words" in every day use. So why should they be punished for it? I'm just saying even it out a bit. That's all. I think it would be very magnanimous of the LSAT to do so.

No offense, but if you're seriously considering law school, you should know the difference between has and as. Do yourself some good by increasing your vocabulary (read more dense shit, look up every word you hear that you're unfamiliar with, etc) and get your overall reading/writing skills up to par.

Some of you need to stop being condescending assholes, though.

Dude, I got so wrapped up in this debate that I didn't even trip on me typing "h" before "as." No excuse, I shall go down in shame.

And I never said my reading skills and writing skills are weak. This is why this shit got out of hand. People jumping to conclusions and shit trying to tell somebody they are dumb cause they don't know a 8th grade word. Now all of a sudden I can't read or I have poor writing skills. Child please.

LMAO, he hit him with the good ol' chad ochocinco version of "fuck you" I cannot stay off this post. LOL

"This shit slapping like domestic charges"

[quinnmittens]

I know plenty of people who are "college educated." C's get Degrees.

Yes, and those C's shouldn't be going to law school. Neither should people who struggle with the Law School Admission Test vocabulary.

It's a hard test, and that's a good thing. The vocabulary doesn't detract from it, it adds to it.

Assuming you haven't taken the LSAT yet, I kind of hope you run into a word that you, for one reason or another, haven't seen before or don't quite understand fully, and miss a question because of it. Would be fitting for someone acting as obtuse and elitist as you are. Enough patting yourself on the back because you have the amazing ability to grasp LSAT level vocabulary (or, for that matter, pretending people can't use dictionaries in the real word, making your entire argument asinine), yea?

It's not elitist to think that unqualified people shouldn't go to law school. It's better for them to not go. I would never root for anyone to take on six figures of debt to attend a school that gives them a 5-10-15% chance of getting a decent job.

Now, saying all Cs shouldn't go to law school is a bit much. I know of some C+ undergrad GPAs at my T14, and I even had a few Cs (engineering is a bitch). But we proved ourselves with LSAT scores.

And you are acting elitist bitch. Now I know you know what that means.

[rinkrat19]

It's not elitist to think that unqualified people shouldn't go to law school. It's better for them to not go. I would never root for anyone to take on six figures of debt to attend a school that gives them a 5-10-15% chance of getting a decent job.

Now, saying all Cs shouldn't go to law school is a bit much. I know of some C+ undergrad GPAs at my T14, and I even had a few Cs (engineering is a bitch). But we proved ourselves with LSAT scores.

And you are acting elitist bitch. Now I know you know what that means.

No, honey, you're just being defensive. Unless you really do think it's a good idea for someone to attend a school where most of the students graduate with huge debt and without jobs.

If I were being elitist, I would tell you to go work at a gas station or something. But I think pretty much anyone can improve their vocabulary. If you want to go to law school, do the thing properly.

[defdef]

didn't you ever play final fantasy

[Cobretti]

Why is this thread continuing?

[rinkrat19]

Why is this thread continuing?

More entertaining than reading all those big words in my Contracts casebook.

(but I should really go to bed.)

[guinness1547]

Seriously, not elitist at all. If you're struggling on LSAT vocabulary, it's only going to get more difficult from there on out. Like I said, the vocabulary on the LSAT isn't prohibitive. It shouldn't be stopping you from completing the test well. The GRE vocabulary is much, much more difficult, and the same type of students take that every year. Yes, you can use a dictionary as a law student and a lawyer, but that's not the point. You don't want to be stopping every 2 minutes to look up a new word that you can't understand. It's going to make everything harder.

And rink was right, I was by no means saying that ALL C's shouldn't go to law school, rather I was referring to the original mention of "C's get degrees", which I took to imply people that coasted through school and didn't learn anything. They probably shouldn't go to law school.

Cyanide--I already took the LSAT, didn't do as well as I wanted, but I did understand all the words. Would've been even harder had I not. Good luck on your upcoming LSAT(not sarcasm).

[heebie-jeebies]

I'm with quinnmittens. The appearance of unusual words that nobody is likely know is pandamount to discrimination, and it's just unfair. 30 years ago, people probably argued vehemenly against charges that standardized tests discriminated against minorities, but subsequently the LSAC and others came around to understand that there was a legitimite bases for these charges. So, here we are.... big words that probably confuse a lot of people and a bunch of elitists trying to maintain their priviledge in the status quo.

[Davidbentley]

I'm with quinnmittens. The appearance of unusual words that nobody is likely know is pandamount to discrimination, and it's just unfair. 30 years ago, people probably argued vehemenly against charges that standardized tests discriminated against minorities, but subsequently the LSAC and others came around to understand that there was a legitimite bases for these charges. So, here we are.... big words that probably confuse a lot of people and a bunch of elitists trying to maintain their priviledge in the status quo.

177

[laxbrah420]

I don't think I ever encountered a vocab word I didn't know on an LSAT. I like to think I have a large-ish vocabulary, but it's probably only average among law students (engineering major who took exactly one literature class ever, and it was Shakespeare, in high school).

YMMV

By you saying "your milage may very" highlights my point. You may have an extensive vocabulary, but is it fair to someone who's vocabulary isn't has great has yours to be penalized for it? There are a lot of people who come from backgrounds where they are not exposed to such "words" in every day use. So why should they be punished for it? I'm just saying even it out a bit. That's all. I think it would be very magnanimous of the LSAT to do so.

Opinion
If Rose Tostevin, the wife, had been a surety for the loan, it is settled that the payment would have been a preference under section 60b. Swartz v. Siegel, 117 Fed. 13, 54 C.C.A. 399; Re Lyon, 121 Fed. 723, 58 C.C.A. 143. Before insolvency the surety, by payment of the debt, gets through subrogation the status of a transferee, and that status protects him from loss. After insolvency, while he is, of course, still subrogated, his subrogation will not protect him. He must pay without recourse, and he loses to the extent of the insolvency. A payment to the creditor discharges him, therefore, precisely as though made directly to him. Hence it was inevitable that such a payment should be held a preference, whether made to the innocent creditor or to the surety; the effect was identical, whichever course was chosen.

If we now substitute a pledger of property upon the debt of another in the place of a surety, precisely the same situation arises. The pledgor will be entitled to exoneration against the principal. Robinson v. Gee, 1 Vesey, Sr., 251. If the pledge be sold, he is entitled through subrogation to the status of the principal, and upon insolvency he is certain to suffer a loss, measured by the extent of the insolvency. To the extent of the pledge he is the creditor, as much as though he had already discharged his property and taken an assignment of the claim. A payment to the creditor discharging the pledge is therefore a payment upon a claim upon which the pledgor cannot collect; his loss is equally relieved whether it is made to the pledgee or to him. The analogy is therefore perfect, and the same principle should apply to each case. It has in general been held that such a pledgor has all the rights of a surety. Dibble v. Richardson, 171 N.Y. 131, 63 N.E. 829; Bank of Albion v. Burns, 46 N.Y. 170; Price v. Dime Savings Bank, 124 Ill. 317, 15 N.E. 754, 7 Am.St.Rep. 367; *104 Rowan v. Sharps' Rifle Mfg. Co., 33 Conn. 1, 21-24. If so, he must be subject to his disabilities.

The defendant's point is good, so far as it goes, that the delivery was a bailment; but it does not touch the important features of the situation. It was a bailment, but something more; it gave the bankrupt the right to subject the property to the hazards of his own credit which a bailment does not do. When those hazards turned against the pledgor by the bankrupt's insolvency, she became subject to the limitations of all those who had assumed the chance; i.e., that what remained of his property should be subject to a trust for equal distribution. It made no difference in that aspect that the hazard was of the bankrupt's ability to redeem the pledge rather than to redeem any other of his promises. Only in case he succeeded in performing that promise could the parties resume the relation of simple bailor or bailee. This suit attacks, not the redelivery of the property bailed, which, taken alone, would have been innocent, but the necessary payment out of the bankrupt's own estate, which was a condition upon his power to redeliver. He had no right to prefer any one of all those who had parted with their property upon the equal chance that his projects might miscarry and his performances fail.
Decree reversed, and cause remanded for trial.

That's why.

If you can't read seriously dense shit, you are fucked in law school. There are cases from the 1700s written in bizarre-o English. There are big words and absurd phrasing. Cases from the last, say, 30 years are better, but it's still all dense legalese.

Billings Learned Hand ( /ˈlɜrnɨd/ lurn-id; January 27, 1872 – August 18, 1961) was a United States judge and judicial philosopher.

[09042014]

I'm so stupid I thought Learned Hand was an honorary title Judges got, and I still only got 1 wrong on RC.

[laxbrah420]

B<PL

Learn moar vocab from the 1700s you idiot!

[yaboy23]

Wow. I'm new to the TLS forum. Im in the LSAT prep forum because I am prepping and was reading some stuff on here. But, is this what yall do on here? Argue instead of giving adivce? lol. people are calling people bitches i mean.... it's crazy

[09042014]

Wow. I'm new to the TLS forum. Im in the LSAT prep forum because I am prepping and was reading some stuff on here. But, is this what yall do on here? Argue instead of giving adivce? lol. people are calling people bitches i mean.... it's crazy

You are down the rabbit hole now son.

[laxbrah420]

I also love that she put it in small font

[rinkrat19]

Billings Learned Hand ( /ˈlɜrnɨd/ lurn-id; January 27, 1872 – August 18, 1961) was a United States judge and judicial philosopher.

I didn't say THAT case was from the 1700s.

I also love that she put it in small font

It would've filled the whole screen otherwise!

[yaboy23]

Wow. I'm new to the TLS forum. Im in the LSAT prep forum because I am prepping and was reading some stuff on here. But, is this what yall do on here? Argue instead of giving adivce? lol. people are calling people bitches i mean.... it's crazy

You are down the rabbit hole now son.

Lol.

[guinness1547]

Wow. I'm new to the TLS forum. Im in the LSAT prep forum because I am prepping and was reading some stuff on here. But, is this what yall do on here? Argue instead of giving adivce? lol. people are calling people bitches i mean.... it's crazy

I like to keep the arguing to advice ratio around 4:1.