* Calvin finds Hobbes' criminal defense technique lacking. [Calvin and Hobbes]
* Not offensive: law firm's holiday e-card (♫) contains lengthy legal disclaimer. [Manatt via ABA Journal]
* Offensive: law firm's holiday invitation tries to poke fun at judge who made racial stereotypes, but their jokes come off as racist. Whoops. [Above The Law]
* Judge considers Festivus a holiday in granting inmate's meal request. [OC Register]
* Quiz determines whether your beliefs about God are logically consistent. [Battleground God]
* This woman claims to own the sun & has legal documents to "prove" it. [Gawker]
* Dog Fort is currently my favorite meme. [Eat Skeet]
All actual LSAT content used within this work is used with the permission of Law School Admission Council, Inc., Box 2000, Newtown, PA 18940, the copyright owner. LSAC does not review or endorse specific test preparation materials or services and inclusion of LSAC content within this work does not imply the endorsement of LSAC. LSAT is a registered trademark of LSAC.
LSAT Blog is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to amazon.com.
Steve, I came across your blog a mere 2 weeks before writing the December LSAT. I love your straightforward posts and find your insightful, yet relaxed approach to the LSAT and studying for it thoroughly entertaining. I get the sense that you read Reddit--upboat for you sir. Well played!
ReplyDeleteTook the God quiz, which through a series of true/false questions was designed to test to logical consistency of my beliefs (sort of). I found numerous inconsistencies in the game, however, which given its intent seemed ironic. Here's an example:
ReplyDelete"Earlier you said that it is justifiable to base one's beliefs about the external world on a firm, inner conviction, regardless of the external evidence, or lack of it, for the truth or falsity of this conviction. But now you do not accept that the rapist Peter Sutcliffe was justified in doing just that. The example of the rapist has exposed that you do not in fact agree that any belief is justified just because one is convinced of its truth. So you need to revise your opinion here. The intellectual sniper has scored a bull's-eye!"
Not quite. I agreed that it is justifiable to base your beliefs on firm inner convictions, yet it was morally wrong for Peter Sutcliffe to rape chicks even though he believed God had directed him to (his firm inner belief).
My first statement was affirming that a belief was justifiable, my second that an action was morally wrong.
So apparently what I believe is that you can be justified in an inner conviction that God tells you to rape chicks, yet the act of raping chicks is itself morally wrong.
Or, in LSAT terms, their argument had a missing assumption: "One who believes that a belief is justified always believes that actions carried out in support of that belief are justified." That would actually make a darn good LSAT question!
Thanks for the vent-space, Steve!
Caleb out.
I love them!
ReplyDeletePS Warm wishes*!
Caleb, I took it as well and noticed some serious logical flaws. In fact, most of the time during the test I could see how they were going to try and trap me. Sure enough, eventually they went for the false dilemma. Some good tests of conditional logic understanding in there as well.
ReplyDeleteSteve, I was a huge fan of Calvin and Hobbes when I was younger, thanks for throwing that one in, it took me back!