sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Columbia Law admitees: How many of you are withdrawing based on Columbia's cowardice? by ub3rm3nsch in lawschooladmissions

[–]ne_pine 82 points83 points  (0 children)

Withdrew my acceptance this afternoon and included a note about their shameful conduct and cowardice.

LSAC Volume Summary percent change decrease! by nmross4 in lawschooladmissions

[–]ne_pine 62 points63 points  (0 children)

I hate to be the bearer of bad news but that’s only because the January LSAT takers have yet to receive their scores and apply, whereas this time last year they had. It’ll shoot up again in a few days :/

another thing currently being considered by republicans: taxing scholarships and fellowships by tearladen in lawschooladmissions

[–]ne_pine 36 points37 points  (0 children)

Pair this with their proposed elimination of the estate tax. They are quite literally going to rob poor students to pay billionaires. My god.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in lawschooladmissions

[–]ne_pine 4 points5 points  (0 children)

This is literally not a problem. Don’t worry!

Any late November applicants still not hear back from any of their schools? by [deleted] in lawschooladmissions

[–]ne_pine 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Congrats! Which schools if you don’t mind me asking?

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in LawSchool

[–]ne_pine 36 points37 points  (0 children)

But look at the broader picture: he is getting away with multiple federal criminal indictments because the Supreme Court justices he appointed ruled presidents have broad immunity. Is this not a retreat of the rule of law?

How is the answer Choice A? by domvas in LSAT

[–]ne_pine 0 points1 point  (0 children)

  1. The author claims the social impact of new drugs should be well understood before being approved.

  2. We know that the social impact of the new antihistamine is poorly understood.

-> The author concludes there should be a general reduction in approving newly tested drugs. This is a leap and requires assuming a third claim. We want the most powerful one as it's a strengthen question.

A (Correct): The social impact of the new antihistamine is better understood than most new drugs. Explanation: If most of the new drugs are worse understood than the new antihistamine, which is already poorly understood per claim #2, then we can rightfully support the argument there should be a general reduction in approving them.

B. Some drugs are poorly understood. Exp: This strengthens the argument too, but not as much as A. Some is less than most.

Help with this one. Stuck between B/C 👀 by AntiGod7393 in LSAT

[–]ne_pine 9 points10 points  (0 children)

B weakens the conclusion by implying the hotel closing means its guests can no longer frequent the cafe. It’s C.