"The fox knows many things, but the hedgehog knows one big thing."

                --Archilochus

Glenn Reynolds:
"Heh."

Barack Obama:
"Impossible to transcend."

Albert A. Gore, Jr.:
"An incontinent brute."

Rev. Jeremiah Wright:
"God damn the Gentleman Farmer."

Friends of GF's Sons:
"Is that really your dad?"

Kickball Girl:
"Keeping 'em alive until 7:45."

Hired Hand:
"I think . . . we forgot the pheasant."




I'm an
Alcoholic Yeti
in the
TTLB Ecosystem



Monday, May 15, 2006

In Which I Fail Brilliantly, Part 4 in an Apparently Very Occasional Series

I took my second "diagnostic" LSAT practice exam yesterday morning, coinciding with my complete and utter failure to remember I was supposed to wake up and buy Radiohead tickets for their Berkeley show (I ended up getting them on eBay for a ridiculously inflated price). Anyway, GREAT NEWS! I bumped up my score by 7 points. That's huge. Had I failed to make some really stupid mistakes, I would have gotten my coveted 170.

After the first diagnostic, your trusty correspondent became despondent (hey, that rhymed!) about his chances at ever being able to do logic games. On logic games the first time around, I correctly answered 10 out of 24 questions - yes, that WOULD be 2 right answers for every 3 wrong ones.

This time, I got a FAR more serviceable 15 out of 22 correct, improving my right-to-wrong ratio to 2:1. Outstanding. Uplifting. Glorious.

On Logical Reasoning (the section that asks questions like, "The above argument would be most weakened by which of the following, if true?"), I improved from 82% to 88% correct, and on Reading Comprehension, my score fell from 96% to 93%. I am apparently less able to read than I was on April 17th. Fair enough.

Now how about a little challenge for the kiddies (FYI, the incorrect answer I gave to this question was used by 45% of all test-takers. Only 23% chose the correct answer):
The answer will be revealed in due time.

Comments on "In Which I Fail Brilliantly, Part 4 in an Apparently Very Occasional Series"

 

Anonymous william of occam said ... (7:58 PM) : 

Wouldn't it be easier just to look at Sarah's damned dog, and then see if it even looks like a frikkin' dachshund? And I thought they were bred to hunt badgers (which would make sense, since "dachshund" means "badger dog"). So what's all this "they hunt poorly" crap. I think these guys know nothing about dogs.

Since Isabella is nearly 40 years old, that answer is pretty alarming.

I'd question their chess v. golf data, too.

 

Blogger Durward Kirby said ... (7:59 PM) : 

Now THAT'S thinking like a lawyer!

 

Anonymous Anonymous said ... (8:50 PM) : 

Darned parallel reasoning. I vote for Sara's dog, but I bet most people voted for Alex and the chess club. Do I get extra points if I'm right on both and a full ride to the institution of my choice?

 

Blogger Selfish Country Music Loving Lady said ... (9:39 AM) : 

This question is just awful. When would you ever, EVER need to be able to do something like this in real life? Let's all just stick to the GRE from now on. It has antonyms!

 

post a comment