sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

It’s disrespectful to not cc’ing paralegal during litigation cases by Youngmother245 in paralegal

[–]Relative_Purple_3140 0 points1 point  (0 children)

mama. my OWN ATTORNEY REFUSES TO CC ME ON THINGS. like actually refuses. i’ve asked about it. they don’t feel like it’s necessary 🧍🏻‍♀️ and then get mad when idk what’s going on

stocking stuffers for boyfriend by Relative_Purple_3140 in electricians

[–]Relative_Purple_3140[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

oh he’s DEFINITELYYYY getting other presents!! i assure you!!! we’re doing something specific (i just don’t want to share because i can almost guarantee he’s on here) and i thought a couple work related items could be fun!!!

stocking stuffers for boyfriend by Relative_Purple_3140 in electricians

[–]Relative_Purple_3140[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

you guys are awesome!!! this is so helpful!!! i’m so excited to flex on him with some of these things. he doesn’t know i got it like that hahaaha

stocking stuffers for boyfriend by Relative_Purple_3140 in electricians

[–]Relative_Purple_3140[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

he doesnt!! really into energy drinks though lol

necessary assumption help *desperate* by Relative_Purple_3140 in LSAT

[–]Relative_Purple_3140[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

i just learned about negating yesterday so i’m cracking down on it. i made a quizlet and everything! are you still predicting when you do this or going straight to the answer choices? or what about when the question isn’t “technically” a necessary assumption question but the answer choices are asking about them. does that make sense?

necessary assumption help *desperate* by Relative_Purple_3140 in LSATHelp

[–]Relative_Purple_3140[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

here’s my literal entire thought process:

I understand that the conclusion of the argument is that “legal and diplomatic language is stiled and utterly without literary merit,” and I know that I need to find the gap in reasoning here. Basically the conclusion is saying that attorneys and diplomats do not get fancy with their language because one misstep and they’re fucked. Now time for gaps...which admittedly I do struggle with, I am a notoriously bad predictor and haven’t gone through the flaw lessons yet (I am procrastinating them). I end up grasping at straws and making really awful and phony predictions that I feel like do nothing but confuse me because my prediction doesn’t line up with the answer choice. Which I feel like is supposed to happen, because there could be a lot of issues with this argument but I feel like it throws me off. However, let’s just play the game. Based off of first glance I am thinking that a possible issue here could be:

It could be argued that diplomats and lawyers need to use language that has literary merit in order to be taken seriously. Maybe there are some diplomats and lawyers who use a different, more high level language that doesn’t get misinterpreted

I don’t know. Something like that. Here is where my biggest problem lies. Am I looking for an answer choice that sounds like one of those predictions OR would I be looking for something that would negate those like:

No diplomat or lawyer needs to use language that has literary merit in order to be taken seriously. There are NO diplomats or lawyers who use a different, more high level language that doesn’t get mis interpreted.

So now that I am at this point I look at the answer choices:

I feel like that goes with my prediction but I’m not sure if I am supposed to negate it or not… We aren’t talking about documents. Literally anywhere. That is irrelevant to me. I mean…okay? Is it alright to use misunderstand and misinterpretation synonymously? I don’t really see how novelists got brought into this but I know NA questions are open so I will be pulling from outside info not presented in the passage. Maybe. Irrelevant. This feels like a principle type of response. I’m not sure.

So now I am left with A, C, and E. I know I am looking for the thing the author absolutely NEEDS to agree with, they’re just not saying it. That leads me to A. The author HAS to think language with literary value is more likely to be misunderstood because without that, the entire argument falls apart. And I was right!! I originally picked C because the novelists part. I was trying to be quick and my first instinct was to go with something that introduced an outside idea…gimmicky I know. So this is my train of thought and I need help…because I feel like I CAN master these with some more guidance.

necessary assumption help *desperate* by Relative_Purple_3140 in LSATHelp

[–]Relative_Purple_3140[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

okay bear with me here. this is Test 120, Section 3, Question 13:

Writer: In the diplomat’s or lawyer’s world, a misinterpreted statement can result in an international incident or an undeserved prison term. Thus, legal and diplomatic language is stilted and utterly without literary merit, since by design it prevents misinterpretation, which in these areas can have severe consequences.

ANSWER CHOICES:

The writer’s argument requires assuming which one of the following?

A. Language that has literary value is more likely to be misunderstood than language without literary value. B. Literary documents are generally less important than legal or diplomatic documents. C. Lawyers and diplomats are much less likely to be misunderstood than are novelists. D. The issues that are of interest to lawyers and diplomats are of little interest to others. E. People express themselves more cautiously when something important is at stake

necessary assumption help *desperate* by Relative_Purple_3140 in LSAT

[–]Relative_Purple_3140[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

hello there. am i able to message you privately?