A word of advice about the Reading Comprehension section.. Forum

[tomhobbes]

Damn. Until now I had a small, faint, hope that you really were an epic douchebag, not just a troll

[FuriousE]

yea, i actually thought it would have been better for this guy to be serious

[chewdak]

One cannot be damed unless she is a Brit.

[scooterj2003]

My friends and I would often go to the Library and print scholarship off of Jstor and then debate the articles..

That doesn't sound very fun

[seatown12]

LOL Cleareyes is having a field day out there responding to Bing. So far Cleareyes bashed Bing 7-0 and counting...

I think you have the score backwards. This guy Bing is a champ.

[2011hopeful]

He's a champ troll.

[Pankun]

literature is the essence of our profession

NO NO NO. This statement is completely false. Logic games are the essence of our profession. Every court case is essentially a logic game where you have 6 or 7 items to place in a sequence or to place into 2-3 groups. Very complicated court cases (such as those in the Supreme Court) are usually a combination of those two aspects. YOU IDIOT!

[Bing14]

LOL Cleareyes is having a field day out there responding to Bing. So far Cleareyes bashed Bing 7-0 and counting...

I think you have the score backwards. This guy Bing is a champ.

Junior Griffey is correct. I am a champion of literature and scholarship. I've dined with the highest political figures. I come from a family of nobles and scholars who preach the highest substance of education. Those who think I am a "troll": claim as you wish. But I only speak the truth.

[goodolgil]

literature is the essence of our profession

NO NO NO. This statement is completely false. Logic games are the essence of our profession. Every court case is essentially a logic game where you have 6 or 7 items to place in a sequence or to place into 2-3 groups. Very complicated court cases (such as those in the Supreme Court) are usually a combination of those two aspects. YOU IDIOT!

Word. Supreme Court cases always seem to have the same rules in effect though. Always If Scalia -> Thomas, and thus if not Thomas -> not Scalia. Solid bloc of variables right there.

[mallard]

Junior Griffey is correct. I am a champion of literature and scholarship. I've dined with the highest political figures. I come from a family of nobles and scholars who preach the highest substance of education. Those who think I am a "troll": claim as you wish. But I only speak the truth.

Is this your first time running shtick? You can't overplay your hand. You're going too far. You haven't belt up the polishtickal capital to say the sorts of things you're saying. You're jumping the shark.

[atlantalaw]

LOL Cleareyes is having a field day out there responding to Bing. So far Cleareyes bashed Bing 7-0 and counting...

I think you have the score backwards. This guy Bing is a champ.

Junior Griffey is correct. I am a champion of literature and scholarship. I've dined with the highest political figures. I come from a family of nobles and scholars who preach the highest substance of education. Those who think I am a "troll": claim as you wish. But I only speak the truth.

fine, but were you born and bred for success and achievement?

[a male human]

I haven't read much because I passed out of English classes in college from taking the AP literature test in HS. And as an engineering major, most of the reading I did was on the textbooks that didn't contain complex logical arguments. A decent excuse, but I still need to get in shape before June. Do you have any actual advice for RC?

[Fiction]

I take issue with this board's difficulty with the reading comprehension section. Are we not scholars of philosophy, diction, and rhetoric? I can see people having trouble with the logic games, but literature is the essence of our profession. Have the influences of college life damed our abilities to reason while reading short passages? I am very confused and I hope the this board is not representative of what is in the real world. Scholars at my university took pride on being able to read. My friends and I would often go to the Library and print scholarship off of Jstor and then debate the articles. There is a certain etiquette that ought to be possessed by today's lawyer. That substance is certainly lacking. I did not miss a question on the reading comprehension section of the Law School Admissions Test, nor do I expect to on my retake. The fraternity of law ought to consist of the most prominent and most noble people the world of philosophy has to offer--not being able to comprehend complex arguments has led me to believe the standard has been lowered. Of course, I am not asking people to assume the role of philosopher-kings.

P.S. I am not saying we should be philosophy majors--for I certainly am not. I am just suggesting we infuse it into our daily lives.

http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/orwell46.htm

[FuriousE]

LOL Cleareyes is having a field day out there responding to Bing. So far Cleareyes bashed Bing 7-0 and counting...

I think you have the score backwards. This guy Bing is a champ.

Junior Griffey is correct. I am a champion of literature and scholarship. I've dined with the highest political figures. I come from a family of nobles and scholars who preach the highest substance of education. Those who think I am a "troll": claim as you wish. But I only speak the truth.

fine, but were you born and bred for success and achievement?

of course he was you simpleton! thats why he is retaking the lsat

[BradleytheBuyer]

I take issue with this board's difficulty with the reading comprehension section. Are we not scholars of philosophy, diction, and rhetoric? I can see people having trouble with the logic games, but literature is the essence of our profession. Have the influences of college life damed our abilities to reason while reading short passages? I am very confused and I hope the this board is not representative of what is in the real world. Scholars at my university took pride on being able to read. My friends and I would often go to the Library and print scholarship off of Jstor and then debate the articles. There is a certain etiquette that ought to be possessed by today's lawyer. That substance is certainly lacking. I did not miss a question on the reading comprehension section of the Law School Admissions Test, nor do I expect to on my retake. The fraternity of law ought to consist of the most prominent and most noble people the world of philosophy has to offer--not being able to comprehend complex arguments has led me to believe the standard has been lowered. Of course, I am not asking people to assume the role of philosopher-kings.

P.S. I am not saying we should be philosophy majors--for I certainly am not. I am just suggesting we infuse it into our daily lives.

Isn't this one of those situations where it isn't politically incorrect to call someone a "[homophobic language redacted]*got"?