I am trying to post the screenshot but I do not know how to do it! I am doing the "copy and paste" here but it is not working!
sorry for wasting your time on that ;(
* if the image is on the web, you can use the "Img" button (above the posting area) and then put in the web address.
* if it's on your computer, post it to an image hosting site (e.g., postimage.org), and then put a link here.
thanks.
Posted: Sun Feb 03, 2008 10:56 pm Both the caribou and the reindeer belong to the species Rangifer tarandus, but after 7,000 years of domestication in Eurasia, reindeer have developed a tendency to circle in tight groups, while caribou tend to spread far and wide. (A) belong to the species Rangifer tarandus, but after 7,000 years of domestication in Eurasia, reindeer have developed a tendency to circle in tight groups, while caribou tend
(B) belong to the same species, Rangifer tarandus, but about 7,000 years of domestication in Eurasia have developed reindeer's tendency to circle in tight groups, which is different from caribou that tend
(C) belong to the species Rangifer tarandus, but being domesticated in Eurasia for about 7,000 years has developed reindeer's tendency to circle in tight groups, and that is different from caribou tending
(D) are the same species, Rangifer tarandus, but about 7,000 years of domestication in Eurasia have developed reindeer's tendency to circle in tight groups, while the tendency is for caribou
(E) are the same species, Rangifer tarandus, but being domesticated in Eurasia for about 7,000 years has developed the reindeer's tendency to circle in tight groups, which differs from caribou tending
OA is A. Could you tell me the structure of A?
Posted: Wed Feb 06, 2008 5:46 am Both the caribou and the reindeer belong to the species Rangifer tarandus, but after 7,000 years of domestication in Eurasia, reindeer have developed a tendency to circle in tight groups, while caribou tend to spread far and wide. (A) belong to the species Rangifer tarandus, but after 7,000 years of domestication in Eurasia, reindeer have developed a tendency to circle in tight groups, while caribou tend
(B) belong to the same species, Rangifer tarandus, but about 7,000 years of domestication in Eurasia have developed reindeer's tendency to circle in tight groups, which is different from caribou that tend
(C) belong to the species Rangifer tarandus, but being domesticated in Eurasia for about 7,000 years has developed reindeer's tendency to circle in tight groups, and that is different from caribou tending
(D) are the same species, Rangifer tarandus, but about 7,000 years of domestication in Eurasia have developed reindeer's tendency to circle in tight groups, while the tendency is for caribou
(E) are the same species, Rangifer tarandus, but being domesticated in Eurasia for about 7,000 years has developed the reindeer's tendency to circle in tight groups, which differs from caribou tending
OA is A. Could you tell me the structure of A?
i'm not sure exactly what you mean by 'the structure of' choice a, but i'll give it a shot. before that discussion, though, i'll tell you a bit about what's wrong with the other answer choices.
ALL of b, c, d, e (wow):
- unacceptable chance of meaning in the wording '7000 years ... have developed reindeer's tendency'. the implication is that the passage of time itself has somehow developed the tendency. choice a retains the proper, sensible meaning: after all that time, reindeer have somehow developed a tendency, although the exact mechanism of development remains unspecified.
choice e:
- ARE the same species isn't acceptable: from the context, the correct expression is that the animals _belong_ to the species. if you're in doubt about this, remember that the gmat is very exacting about using copulative verbs (verbs that say that this IS that), so try to use the non-copulative verbs (such as 'belong to' here) when possible.
- the use of the relative pronoun 'which' is incorrect: relative pronouns modify the noun directly preceding, meaning in this case that 'which' must modify 'tight groups'.
- even if you let 'which' slide, there's bad parallelism between tendency and caribou (faulty comparison).
choice d:
- same issue with ARE vs. 'belong to'
- idiomatic usage problem with 'the tendency is for...': proper usage is 'X has a tendency to VERB'
choice c:
- can't use the pointing word 'that' (or 'this' or 'those' or 'these') by itself. you can only use these words as adjectives (that reason, these people) or as pronouns in constructions like 'that of...'
- faulty parallelism between tendency and caribou
- can't say 'caribou tending...' (you'd need a possessive form like caribou's)
choice b:
- one could say there's a bit of redundancy in the 'same' wording. i wouldn't have noticed that redundancy if this choice showed up in isolation (as a sentence in a student paper, for example), but it's evident upon comparison to choices a and c. (compare the answer choices to each other as much as possible! it's much easier to decide whether x is better than y than to decide whether x is 'good' by itself!)
- same problem as choice e with the relative pronoun 'which'
- faulty comparison between tendency and caribou
- 'caribou that tend...' uses an essential modifier, which means that we're restricting the discussion to only those caribou that have the given tendency. (if there were a comma and a different relative pronoun - caribou, which tend to... - then that construction would refer to all caribou)
--
'structure' of choice a:
- the overall structure is 2 independent clauses (each a perfectly good sentence in its own right) connected by the conjunction 'but':
Both the caribou and the reindeer belong to the species Rangifer tarandus
but
after 7,000 years of domestication in Eurasia, reindeer have developed a tendency to circle in tight groups, while caribou tend to spread far and wide.
- the first clause is concise (it doesn't waste words on the construction 'same species')
- the second clause starts with an adverb phrase (it's a time phrase), which can modify the following clause in its entirety
- parallelism is good: reindeer do that, while caribou do this
- all verbs are in present tense
Posted: Mon Nov 24, 2008 6:31 am In B, D, E have the error with "same".
Both A and B belong to the same C.
"Both ... and ... "
has indicated the meaning "in the same (way, category...etc.)"
so "same" repeates the meaning.
Posted: Wed Dec 03, 2008 6:52 am In B, D, E have the error with "same".
Both A and B belong to the same C.
"Both ... and ... "
has indicated the meaning "in the same (way, category...etc.)"
so "same" repeates the meaning.
thanks man.
so wait, is there a question here?
i don't see one - it looks as though you're just recapping your knowledge - but i want to make sure.
Posted: Tue Jan 13, 2009 9:09 am Ron in the right answer :
but after 7,000 years of domestication in Eurasia, reindeer have developed a tendency to circle in tight groups, while caribou tend to spread far and wide.
the bold face thense is in Present perfect and Simple present.
Do we need in case of parallelinsm all verbs in the same catagory
Posted: Thu Jan 22, 2009 5:46 pm It's a good question. There are cases where you can have the Present Tense and the Present Perfect Tense function as parallel, without a problem. Part of the reason for this is due to the meaning of the verbs in play. For example, you can't express the idea that the reindeer "have developed" something without using the present perfect. (You could change the words that you use entirely. But you can't say "reindeer develop," because that has the wrong meaning.) This development happened in the past, but it's expressed in the present because it is important now. It is okay to then match this to a verb that is in the simple present tense. The present perfect is weird in this respect, but this can be seen on some OG problems as well. Basically, know how to use each of the tenses, but don't stress too much about a seemingly non-parallel construction between the present perfect and the simple present.
Post subject: Re: Both the caribou and the reindeer belong to the species Rang Posted: Sat Nov 28, 2009 7:48 pm could someone pls explain why reindeer and caribou both use "have' and "tend", not "has" and "tends"? is it because they both refer to the species? Both the caribou and the reindeer belong to the species Rangifer tarandus, but after 7,000 years of domestication in Eurasia, reindeer have developed a tendency to circle in tight groups, while caribou tend to spread far and wide.
thanks!
Post subject: Re: Both the caribou and the reindeer belong to the species Rang Posted: Tue Jan 05, 2010 4:57 am could someone pls explain why reindeer and caribou both use "have' and "tend", not "has" and "tends"? is it because they both refer to the species?"reindeer" and "caribou" - like "fish" - can be either singular or plural. in this case, they must be plural, as can be seen from the lack of articles.
i.e., if "reindeer" were singular, it couldn't just be "reindeer" - it would have to be "THE reindeer" or "A reindeer" (or something else, like "north america's reindeer", etc.)
Posted: Wed Jan 06, 2010 11:45 am could someone pls explain why reindeer and caribou both use "have' and "tend", not "has" and "tends"? is it because they both refer to the species?"reindeer" and "caribou" - like "fish" - can be either singular or plural. in this case, they must be plural, as can be seen from the lack of articles.
i.e., if "reindeer" were singular, it couldn't just be "reindeer" - it would have to be "THE reindeer" or "A reindeer" (or something else, like "north america's reindeer", etc.)
1# wait, dose the rule just apply to "reindeer" ,"caribou" , "fish" and the like or it applies to other animal such as frog, lion, and bird? i don't know the differences! Ron, can you explain?
2# 7,000 years of domestication in Eurasia have----is 'plural' have OK?
Ron,you said when subject is X years/times/tons/kilograms, Verb is singlar. what about 3 kilograms of apples or 3 kilograms of water, sigular or plural?
Posted: Sat Jan 16, 2010 10:06 pm 1# wait, dose the rule just apply to "reindeer" ,"caribou" , "fish" and the like or it applies to other animal such as frog, lion, and bird? i don't know the differences! Ron, can you explain?there's no "explanation". unfortunately, this is TOTALLY AND COMPLETELY idiomatic, on a case-by-case basis.
if you are really, really interested (and i mean really interested), there is a fairly complete list here:
http://www.anapsid.org/beastly.html
just look at the first two columns.
idioms suck, i know. sorry.
2# 7,000 years of domestication in Eurasia have----is 'plural' have OK?you are correct; it should be "7000 years HAS". it would only be "have" if we were emphasizing the individual years; we're clearly not doing that.
*** WARNING: THIS IS WAY BEYOND THE SCOPE OF THE EXAM: ***
some units of measure can go either way, depending on what you are trying to emphasize.
* if you are emphasizing the units themselves, one at a time, then you use the plural;
* if you are emphasizing the collective quantity as a single entity, then you use the singular.
e.g.
1000 words is a typical length for a high-school essay. --> singular, since we are emphasizing the length of the paper (the measure of a single entity). we are not emphasizing the individual nature of the words.
1000 different words are in the vocabulary book. --> plural, since we are emphasizing the individually different words.
*** END OF TANGENT ***
i think that the gmat will altogether avoid testing this particular nuance.
we've seen it once, but it was in the non-underlined portion of the sentence. since the gmat tests sentences about quantities, numbers, etc. ALL THE TIME, we'd probably have seen this by now if they were going to test it.)
Posted: Sun Jan 17, 2010 1:33 am there's no "explanation". unfortunately, this is TOTALLY AND COMPLETELY idiomatic, on a case-by-case basis.you are correct; it should be "7000 years HAS". it would only be "have" if we were emphasizing the individual years; we're clearly not doing that.
*** WARNING: THIS IS WAY BEYOND THE SCOPE OF THE EXAM: ***
some units of measure can go either way, depending on what you are trying to emphasize.
* if you are emphasizing the units themselves, one at a time, then you use the plural;
* if you are emphasizing the collective quantity as a single entity, then you use the singular.
e.g.
1000 words is a typical length for a high-school essay. --> singular, since we are emphasizing the length of the paper (the measure of a single entity). we are not emphasizing the individual nature of the words.
1000 different words are in the vocabulary book. --> plural, since we are emphasizing the individually different words.
*** END OF TANGENT ***
Posted: Sun Jul 21, 2013 12:34 am but i think A is not parallel since 'reindeer have developed a tendency to ...,while the caridou tend ...' Posted: Thu Jul 25, 2013 12:44 am but i think A is not parallel since...officially correct answers are correct!
do not question officially correct answers!
far too many students on this forum make the mistake of questioning the correct answers; to do so is to waste your time and effort.
"is this correct?" is never a productive question to ask about one of GMAC's correct answers -- the answer is always yes.
"is this wrong?" / "is this X type of error?" is never a productive question to ask about one of GMAC's correct answers -- the answer is always no.
instead, the questions you should be asking about correct official answers, if you don't understand them, are:
"why is this correct?"
"how does this work?"
"what understanding am i lacking that i need to understand this choice?"
this is a small, but hugely significant, change to your way of thinking.
you will find it much easier to understand the format, style, and conventions of the official problems if you retire the idea that they might be wrong.
--
you've got 2 verbs -- that's good enough to be parallel, as long as each verb makes sense in context. verb || verb.
Posted: Fri May 31, 2013 5:36 am I have been studying the GMAT for a while now, have 2 more months now. am looking for someone who is able to commit at least 6 hours a day to studying and would like to discuss/review difficult problems together via Skype or Google Hangout. My former study partner and I reviewed together every night for the past several week. It was SUPER effective. We both made significant gains during this time. He scored 710 but planning to restart it after november.
If you are SERIOUS about getting a high score and is willing to put in at least 5hours a day, please e-mail me NOW at r_midha@yahoo.in with your current score, time zone, and number of hours dedicated to studying per day. I am sure that we will be able to crack 700 together!
Post subject: Re: online study partner Posted: Tue Jun 04, 2013 2:26 am Hi,I am not a native speaker but with solid fundamental of English language as I attended an American University although I am preparing also IELTS. In addition, I am not stellar in the type of Math covered on the test. In fact, I am currently working on strengthen the area by understanding firstly the concept in my native language.
Any other advise to achieve my target score is more than welcome.
Thanks
Margherita
Post subject: Re: online study partner Posted: Wed Jul 24, 2013 8:59 pm Hi. Are any of you still looking for a partner? I'm interested at aiming to score 700. I am good at quant an just want someone to study with so we can set realistic targets each week and stay on track with our preparation. Let me know. Thanks.
Post subject: Re: online study partner Posted: Thu Jul 25, 2013 3:18 am I'm in the last two months of my prep. I'm targeting 740+ score. My quant is fairly strong but I lag behing in verbal. A study partner seems nice idea. Contact me @ rishabhsangwan1829@gmail.com Thanks
Rishabh
Posted: Sun Aug 14, 2011 6:26 am just as .... so is idiomatic in Cyes.
just memorize this as a 2-piece parallelism signal. unlike most parallelism signals, though, it requires an independent clause after each part (a relatively unusual construction).
i've always hated this construction, because the more concise "just as ... [nothing] ..." - i.e., the same construction, without the "so" - is also idiomatic. therefore, the "so", in my opinion, is pointlessly wordy, unless it relieves the sentence of some ambiguity.
note that (b), which ostensibly uses the more concise construction, is ungrammatical: "an archaeologist who needs a background in art history to evaluate finds of ancient art" is a sentence fragment. it's a subject + modifier, and doesn't have a verb.
[I highlighted "is ungrammatical" above]
Is (B) ungrammatical because it is not logically parallel?
I understand that "an archaeologist who ... ancient art" is a sentence fragment. But I believe the entire sentence ("Just as an archaeologist who ...ancient art, a nautical archaeologist ... understand shipwrecks") as such is a complete sentence and not a fragment. So why is (B) ungrammatical? is it because it is not parallel?
I believe "As" can act as a preposition, in which it is followed by a noun rather than a clause. For example,
- As a child, I thought I could fly. Or
- As your leader, I am in charge.
Can we treat the use of "as" in (B) as preposition mentioned in above examples?
Posted: Thu Aug 25, 2011 4:58 am Is (B) ungrammatical because it is not logically parallel? no.
if "as" is used to make a comparison or to draw an analogy, then it must be followed by a complete clause.
the structure “just as… so…” always draws a comparison/analogy, so a complete clause, with its own subject and verb, will always be required after “just as” in this structure.
I believe "As" can act as a preposition, in which it is followed by a noun rather than a clause. For example,no; those constructions have a fundamentally different meaning. note that they are not comparisons or analogies. (your question "Can we treat the use ..." is a little bit worrisome, because it suggests that you believe that the meaning of the sentence has no importance at all -- i.e., you are suggesting a change in interpretation that will completely change the meaning of the entire sentence, and you don't seem to see why that would be a problem.)
also, you can't use "just" in a construction like that. try it; you'll see that it doesn't work.
Posted: Sat Sep 03, 2011 10:33 pm Got it!Thanks for clarifying it Ron. You rock!
Post subject: Re: Just like the background in art history . . . Posted: Sun Sep 04, 2011 2:07 am One more follow up question -In the SC strategy guide I came across following example:
- As in the previous case, the judge took an early break.
Here 'as' is not followed by a clause. It is followed by the phrase 'in the previous case'. How this is so?
Isn't in this sentence 'as' is used to make a comparison of judge's action between the previous case and the current case?
Posted: Mon Sep 12, 2011 4:49 am One more follow up question -In the SC strategy guide I came across following example:
- As in the previous case, the judge took an early break.
Here 'as' is not followed by a clause. It is followed by the phrase 'in the previous case'. How this is so?
Isn't in this sentence 'as' is used to make a comparison of judge's action between the previous case and the current case?
this is a correct observation. in this kind of situation, “as” may be followed either by a clause or by a prepositional phrase.
if our materials don't mention the possibility of a prepositional phrase, then they definitely should; i will inform the appropriate editors so that they can include that fact in the next editions.
Posted: Tue Jul 16, 2013 6:49 pm Hi,b)Just as an archaeologist who needs a background in art history to evaluate finds of ancient art, a
to
b)Just like an archaeologist who needs a background in art history to evaluate finds of ancient art, a
We are comparing two nouns here after using like..so archaeologist is compared to nautical archaeologist..
Post subject: Re: Just like the background in art history . . . Posted: Wed Jul 24, 2013 11:48 pm Hi,b)Just as an archaeologist who needs a background in art history to evaluate finds of ancient art, a
to
b)Just like an archaeologist who needs a background in art history to evaluate finds of ancient art, a
We are comparing two nouns here after using like..so archaeologist is compared to nautical archaeologist..
nope, still wrong.
if you write "Like A, [modifiers], B must xxxxx", then the meaning is that both A and B must xxxx.
e.g.
Like professional athletes who need extra flexibility, physical-therapy patients often take dance lessons.
--> this sentence implies that professional athletes and PT patients take dance lessons.
thus, your new version is not sensible, because the art person doesn't need to know about ships.
(by the way, this is the exact reason why the more bulky "(Just) as..." construction even exists in the first place -- because "like" can't draw an analogy between two different things. if you could do that with "like", then the "as" construction most likely wouldn't even exist in the language, because there'd be no need for it.)
Posted: Thu Jul 25, 2013 12:48 am Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guestWhy is that their in D can't refer back to Manufacturers?
still doesn't make sense; we're talking about the "production history" of the cars, not the manufacturers.
Posted: Mon Jan 28, 2013 12:24 pm The growth of the railroads led to the abolition of local times, which was determined by when the sun reached the observer’s meridian and differing from city to city, and to the establishment of regional times. (A) which was determined by when the sun reached the observer’s meridian and differing
(B) which was determined by when the sun reached the observer’s meridian and which differed
(C) which were determined by when the sun reached the observer’s meridian and differing
(D) determined by when the sun reached the observer’s meridian and differed
(E) determined by when the sun reached the observer’s meridian and differing
OA: E
Would anyone please to tell me:
The use of the participle determined by won't cause ambiguity because it may be used to modify the whole clause rather than times?
Isn't it true that in the structure of clause+comma+participle, the participle should modify the verb of the cause and its implied subject is the subject of the clause rather than the noun touching it?
The participle can modify the nearest noun only in the structure of clause+participle (without comma); is it true?
Last edited by heathcliffluo on Mon Jan 28, 2013 12:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Post subject: Re: The Use of Modifier-Participle Posted: Mon Jan 28, 2013 12:29 pm Dear Ron, Would please kindly ease me from the confusion?
Many thanks,
Post subject: Re: The growth of the railroads led to the Posted: Tue Jan 29, 2013 11:05 am Thank you Manhantan experts. why is C wrong?
which were
determined
and
differing.
I see that "determined" is parallel with "differing". Why is C wrong?
let me explain myself.
"were" before "determined" has the meaning of passive action
if "were" stands before "differing" , it has the meaning of progressive action
so there are 2 meanings of "were" and so , we can not use ellipsis here. This is the reason why C is wrong.
is my thinking correct?
Post subject: Re: The growth of the railroads led to the Posted: Wed Feb 06, 2013 10:22 pm The growth of the railroads led to the abolition of local times, which was determined by when the sun reached the observer’s meridian and differing from city to city, and to the establishment of regional times. (A) which was determined by when the sun reached the observer’s meridian and differing
(B) which was determined by when the sun reached the observer’s meridian and which differed
(C) which were determined by when the sun reached the observer’s meridian and differing
(D) determined by when the sun reached the observer’s meridian and differed
(E) determined by when the sun reached the observer’s meridian and differing
Can anyone please explain why D is wrong?
Post subject: Re: The growth of the railroads led to the Posted: Tue Feb 19, 2013 7:24 am Can anyone please explain why D is wrong?"determined" is a modifier describing local times; "differed" is a verb. you can't have a modifier in parallel to a verb.
Posted: Tue Apr 23, 2013 5:36 pm Ron: even though I marked this correct as E, in sentence A, B and C, is the usage of Which incorrect? Is my reasoning correct here? or what is wrong with answer choice sentence to start with "Which" here?
Thanks
Nikhil
Posted: Wed Apr 24, 2013 12:04 am "Which" generally modifies the noun just before the comma and in some cases, it can also go a little bit further back and modify the noun + prep phrase. To understand how which works, you can watch the Thursdays with Ron session on which modifiers dated 25th August 2011: http://www.manhattangmat.com/thursdays-with-ron.cfm
"which" should refer to the subject of 1st clause: I.e it illogically refers to growth of rail roads, and the constructions sounds like "The growth of the railroads...which was determined...."No, this is not the case. Which cannot jump across so many things in the middle to modify the subject this way.
The problem with A and C is that within the modifier, parallelism is not maintained:
which was determined.....and....differing...
The problem with A and B is also the verb "was" after the which. If it is referring to the term local times, which is plural. The use of "was" makes the "which" incorrectly refer to the abolition of local times.
Post subject: Re: The growth of the railroads led to the Posted: Mon Apr 29, 2013 10:33 am Ron: even though I marked this correct as E, in sentence A, B and C, is the usage of Which incorrect? not only is this incorrect, but it's never correct. "Which" will absolutely never refer to the subject at the start of a sentence. It refers to the stuff in front of it.
(A) and (B) are wrong because of subject-verb disagreement—"local times was"? Nah. (This is surprisingly blatant; they usually do a better job of hiding subject-verb disagreement than this.)
choice (C), as I described above, has bad parallelism.
Posted: Mon Apr 29, 2013 12:37 pm Thanks Ron... So which refers to time only, its just the SV agreement error in A and B?
Post subject: Re: The growth of the railroads led to the Posted: Thu May 02, 2013 10:28 pm Thanks Ron... So which refers to time only, its just the SV agreement error in A and B?
Yes.
Posted: Sun Jun 02, 2013 9:28 am Can anyone please explain why D is wrong?"determined" is a modifier describing local times; "differed" is a verb. you can't have a modifier in parallel to a verb.
Ron,
Would you please explain why "determined" is a modifier for local times and not "differed"
E.g. Emma is a miracle child, born in Chicago, and raised in London, because she ....
I know the meaning of the sentence above doesn't make much of sense but it looks grammatically correct, and there are two participle modifiers modifying "child".
thanks in advance
Post subject: Re: The growth of the railroads led to the Posted: Fri Jun 14, 2013 4:36 pm Because a subordinate clause is introduced and without something to definitively end that phrase, differed is closest (and made parallel to) reached, a verb in this sentence. Analogy: Mary was born in Chicago, living in the city where she was happy running and buying fancy things. (my analogy also doesn't make much sense, so we're even, I guess)
You COULD say "Mary was born in Chicago, buying fancy things." But since buying is closer to running, you make those things parallel.
Posted: Sun Jul 21, 2013 10:43 am Ron, i still dont understand why determined is participle and differed is verb in (D). Could you please explain. Posted: Thu Jul 25, 2013 12:48 am Ron, i still dont understand why determined is participle and differed is verb in (D). Could you please explain.you have to think about the meaning of the sentence.
the times didn't determine things; they were determined (by whichever people). so, "determined" is a description.
the times did differ, so "differed" is a verb.
--
you should make up some similar examples. as long as you are not creating sentences with farfetched or deliberately ambiguous meanings, it should be 100% clear what is going on in each case.
e.g.
James shouted into the phone... (shouted = verb)
The words shouted into the phone were... (shouted = modifier)
Can we eliminate options B) and C ) on the basis that ensure/ensuring should be followed by that since we need to refer to the idea of "atleast one nurse is assigned for every four patients put through triage ..." and not just the noun nurse.
Thanks
that reasoning works here, but it's not an absolute rule. (for an example that would violate your expectations here, google for a GMAT prep problem involving the words "squirrel" and "chestnut".)
Posted: Fri May 31, 2013 5:36 am I have been studying the GMAT for a while now, have 2 more months now. am looking for someone who is able to commit at least 6 hours a day to studying and would like to discuss/review difficult problems together via Skype or Google Hangout. My former study partner and I reviewed together every night for the past several week. It was SUPER effective. We both made significant gains during this time. He scored 710 but planning to restart it after november.
If you are SERIOUS about getting a high score and is willing to put in at least 5hours a day, please e-mail me NOW at r_midha@yahoo.in with your current score, time zone, and number of hours dedicated to studying per day. I am sure that we will be able to crack 700 together!
Post subject: Re: online study partner Posted: Tue Jun 04, 2013 2:26 am Hi,I am not a native speaker but with solid fundamental of English language as I attended an American University although I am preparing also IELTS. In addition, I am not stellar in the type of Math covered on the test. In fact, I am currently working on strengthen the area by understanding firstly the concept in my native language.
Any other advise to achieve my target score is more than welcome.
Thanks
Margherita
Post subject: Re: online study partner Posted: Wed Jul 24, 2013 8:59 pm Hi. Are any of you still looking for a partner? I'm interested at aiming to score 700. I am good at quant an just want someone to study with so we can set realistic targets each week and stay on track with our preparation. Let me know. Thanks.
Post subject: Re: online study partner Posted: Thu Jul 25, 2013 3:18 am I'm in the last two months of my prep. I'm targeting 740+ score. My quant is fairly strong but I lag behing in verbal. A study partner seems nice idea. Contact me @ rishabhsangwan1829@gmail.com Thanks
Rishabh
Enroll in summer classes and get standout recommendations to balance out a low GPA on law school applications.Welcome to the latest installment of Law Admissions Q-and-A, a monthly feature of Law Admissions Lowdown that provides admissions advice to readers who send in questions and admissions profiles.
If you have a question about law school, please email me for a chance to be featured next month.
This week, I will address questions about how to successfully apply to law school with a GPA significantly lower than your dream school's average.
[Check out the top law schools in pictures.]
Hi Shawn: I'm a rising senior at a liberal arts college interested in applying to law school in the fall. I have a GPA of 3.11 currently and a 170 LSAT score.
As my GPA is quite low for getting into any of the top 14 ranked schools, I'm thinking about taking summer courses to increase it; however, if I take classes, I would not be able to do a summer internship. Will it be more appealing to law schools if I spend the summer taking courses to increase my GPA or get practical internship experience? -Grades vs. Experience
Dear Grades vs. Experience: Thank you for your question. It is one of the most common inquiries I receive when working with my law admissions clients at Stratus Prep.
Many potential law school applicants mistakenly believe that their numbers – GPA and LSAT score – are the sole determinants of their admission to school. While those factors are certainly important, there are myriad facets of your application, such as extracurricular activities, internships, recommendations and essays, which also weigh heavily in law school admissions decisions.
That said, if you have previous internship experiences from prior summers, I recommend taking summer courses with the goal of getting your GPA into the 3.2 to 3.25 range, which would make a significant difference.
I worked with a student who had very similar numbers to yours who increased her GPA to 3.2 over the summer. She also spent this time working with me to put together a stellar application package, and was admitted to a top-five law school. Hopefully, you will have the same good fortune. -Shawn
[Learn what rolling admissions means for prospective law students.]
Dear Shawn: I am entering my final undergraduate year. Although I attend a highly ranked university in Canada, my cumulative GPA is rather weak. I expect to get around 155 on the LSAT, and I'm also starting a research project that will be supervised by one of my professors.
Considering the factors listed above, does it help that I am completing my undergraduate degree at a very competitive university? Will law schools look at that and be more lenient with regard to my grades? -Seeking a Competitive Edge
Dear Seeking a Competitive Edge: It is certainly true that it is more challenging to achieve a high GPA at a competitive, rigorous institution and/or in an especially difficult field, such as engineering. When law schools initially assess your application quantitatively, they do not take into account the rigor of your undergraduate institution, so you will likely be "on the bubble" at many of your top choice schools.
However, when law school admissions committees debate individual candidates, they do recognize the strength of your undergraduate institution and the relative difficulty of your major.
At the same time, admissions readers are undoubtedly also going to have applications from students with very high GPAs who attended similarly rigorous universities and, perhaps, even your university itself. Thus, the academic rigor of your undergraduate institution alone will not erase a low GPA.
[Evaluate professors to find a good law school fit.]
One way to balance out lower numbers is by submitting truly compelling essays and recommendations which force the admissions committee to go beyond the numbers and consider you for admission. This is very possible.
At Stratus Prep, we have had a student with a 159 LSAT admitted to Yale Law School, a student with a 3.0 admitted to Northwestern Law School, and three students with LSATs between 161 and 163 admitted to Harvard Law School. -Shawn
