Frey wrote: что Т2 совсем не подходит к BigLaw утверждение довольно таки спорное. Примеры тому есть, и не мало.
Кто говорил о BigLaw? Я сам считаю, что BigLaw - waste of time. Не в этом дело. Я совсем о другом говорю. Better school - better education you'll get. Вот и все.
Frey wrote: что Т2 совсем не подходит к BigLaw утверждение довольно таки спорное. Примеры тому есть, и не мало.
Кто говорил о BigLaw? Я сам считаю, что BigLaw - waste of time. Не в этом дело. Я совсем о другом говорю. Better school - better education you'll get. Вот и все.
Само образование, на мой взгляд, одниковое и в Гарварде и в Тier 2 школе. Основная разница, уровень самих студентов и возможности по трудоустройству после окончания. Из Tier 2 трудно получить не только Big Law работу, они и почти все остальные desirable jobs.
Tatarin wrote:Две недели осталось почти до теста а у меня средний балл около 155. Писец полный. Эх видать не судьба мне быть в IP law. Буду просто инжинером.
Не надо расстраиваться. Во первых, вы можете его сдавать несколько раз. Во вторых, чтобы быть в IP law можно учиться и не в самом престижном месте. В третих, инженером тоже не плохо быть.
Tatarin, а вы давно уже к тесту готовитесь? какие у вас кроме логических игр проблемы? Для улучшения результата по Logic Reasoning могу посоветовать Kaplan's LSAT Mastery Practice или Kaplan's Big Orange Book of Real LSATs (в дополнение к LR Bible, конечно). Мне нравится, что там задания сгруппированы по типам вопросов. У меня, например, были проблемы с assumption questions. Но после того, как я прорешала подряд 100 assumption questions из LSAT Mastery Practice, что-то в моих мозгах кликнуло и я стала гораздо меньше ошибок делать в этих вопросах. Если бы у вас было больше времени до теста, я бы посоветовала сделать перерыв в подготовке. Иногда пара недель безмятежной жизни творят чудеся. Мой самый высокий результат при подготовке как раз был после того, как я забросила LSAT на две недели.
Татарин, во-первых бояться точно не надо! Хуже не будет:)
Во-вторых, вы инженер - у вас преимущество большее. Тех кто может сдать patent bar, очень ценят! На OCI в плохой экономике у нас (по-моему я учусь в law school там где вы в undergrad:) набирали в Biglaw top 25%, НО на patent law positions попали мои закомые которые были в low 50%. Так что если вы хотите продолжать быть в области связанной с работой инженера- даже и T2 пригодится (хотя не факт что вы не попадете в лучшее заведение, надо в себя верить- у нас в школе -T20- учатся люди с лсат 160), особенно если есть patent bar и опыт работы! А сам patent law даже мне- гуманитарю- кажется очень любопытным. Даже жалею, что я не инженер:)
Company president: Our consultants report that, in general, the most efficient managers have excellent time management skills. Thus, to improve productivity I recommend that we make available to our middle-level managers a seminar to train them in techniques of time management.
Each of the following, if true, would weaken the support for the company president's recommendation EXCEPT:
A) The consultants use the same criteria to evaluate managers' efficiency as they do to evaluate their time management skills. B) Successful time management is more dependent on motivation than on good technique. C) Most managers at other companies who have attended time management seminars are still unproductive. D) Most managers who are already efficient do not need to improve their productivity. E) Most managers who are efficient have never attended a time management seminar.
I don't see how D weakens the recommendation. The argument reads: "to improve productivity I recommend that we make available to our middle-level managers (not so efficient guys?) a seminar to train them in techniques of time management." D states "Most managers who are already efficient do not need to improve their productivity." Looks like D addresses a different group of guys than the company president had in mind when he made his recommendation. So, I would choose D as a correct answer. I am not sure what exactly is wrong with A. Looks like something is not right with the techniques used to produce the report. Tricky question . I am so glad I am done with LSAT.
Sonika wrote:I don't see how D weakens the recommendation. The argument reads: "to improve productivity I recommend that we make available to our middle-level managers (not so efficient guys?) a seminar to train them in techniques of time management." D states "Most managers who are already efficient do not need to improve their productivity." Looks like D addresses a different group of guys than the company president had in mind when he made his recommendation. So, I would choose D as a correct answer. I am not sure what exactly is wrong with A. Looks like something is not right with the techniques used to produce the report. Tricky question . I am so glad I am done with LSAT.
Middle-managers can be efficient or inefficient. If we accept as TRUE that "Most managers who are already efficient do not need to improve their productivity," that means that it is possible that some middle-level managers do not need to improve their productivity. Thus, it weakens the support for the recommendation to make training available to middle-level management.
(A) basically, means that the consultant's report is valid. Thus, it strengthens the argument for additional training.
посмотрела еще раз "не левым глазом"- да, D) - потому что он как раз не weaken, потому что "managers do not need" к поставленной консультантом задаче отношения не имеет. речь не о том.
A) если задуматься действительно weakens- if they use the same evaluation criteria, it may not be the case that by improving efficiency, time management skills will automatically be improved. The correlation between time management and efficiency might merely depend on the comparative technology used (same criteria). Hence, there is no real "natural" correlation, and the proposal fails.
да я тоже рада что сдала ЛСАТ и благополучно забыла как это делается
Sonika wrote:I don't see how D weakens the recommendation. The argument reads: "to improve productivity I recommend that we make available to our middle-level managers (not so efficient guys?) a seminar to train them in techniques of time management." D states "Most managers who are already efficient do not need to improve their productivity." Looks like D addresses a different group of guys than the company president had in mind when he made his recommendation. So, I would choose D as a correct answer. I am not sure what exactly is wrong with A. Looks like something is not right with the techniques used to produce the report. Tricky question . I am so glad I am done with LSAT.
Middle-managers can be efficient or inefficient. If we accept as TRUE that "Most managers who are already efficient do not need to improve their productivity," that means that it is possible that some middle-level managers do not need to improve their productivity. Thus, it weakens the support for the recommendation to make training available to middle-level management.
(A) basically, means that the consultant's report is valid. Thus, it strengthens the argument for additional training.
I picked "D" for different reason. It is completety irrelevant answer choice It neither weakens, nor strengthens the main argument. No one cares what those managers need or want. Pure conclusion that has nothing to do with actual question.
I like LSAT. It is fair.
P.S. Reading federal statutes and trying to understand what the hell Congress is saying ...... that's really hard! When you have a two-page clause with 10 "excepts," few "unlesses," and several "otherwises" ..... That's what really drives me nuts.
The argument reads: "to improve productivity I recommend that we make available to our middle-level managers (not so efficient guys?) a seminar to train them in techniques of time management." D states "Most managers who are already efficient do not need to improve their productivity." Looks like D addresses a different group of guys than the company president had in mind when he made his recommendation. So, I would choose D as a correct answer.
. I am so glad I am done with LSAT. 
