Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
The Inaugural David Sklansky LSAT Open Invitational The Inaugural David Sklansky LSAT Open Invitational

06-30-2017 , 01:07 PM
1. My comments about flawed questions on reading comp come mostly from practice, as I did a lot more of those than the real thing. I have no idea if these practice tests were real tests that were released or just ones that someone wrote up to simulate the real LSAT. All I was trying to say is that this comes up occasionally on reading comp, but essentially never on the other stuff.

2. I think tutoring probably helps everyone that's not already at the far end of the curve (either end). I essentially took it on a prop bet and maybe after a couple of days of doing practice tests on my own, I'd get 180 most of the time. I don't thing tutoring would have helped me at all. Similarly I think it's quite unlikely anyone is going to get tutored up to a 180. People who can do that would have been able to accomplish that by practicing a little on their own and people who can't will not get there by going to a Kaplan course.
07-02-2017 , 01:39 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skunsky
Uke_Master You keep saying math PHD phsycis PHD you are oh so smart Rachel Maddow smart and dedicated get a PHD. But You Uke_Master you have a math PHD and you play MICROSTAKES 25NL and cannot win for 9 years? You are a joke and show respect to David. You Play bad poker and math PHD? kkkkkk 9 years cant beat poker game and talk down to David? Get $ back from school cant beat soft poker PHD
Hi Sklansky's parrot.
07-02-2017 , 05:41 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by LFS
I would like to challenge Mat Sklansky to a $20 game of Connect Four, is this the thread for that?
I'll challenge anyone on 2p2 to a 7x6 Connect Four series with an even number of games. But everything would have to be on camera.
08-28-2017 , 01:33 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by uke_master
Lol. I absolutely did NOT say that. I had to search again, because I'd forgotten the two year old thread, but this is false.

Let's recall the facts. You made the ridiculous claim that Maddow could not - if her life depended on it - get a PhD in physics. Why would this clearly smart, clearly dedicated person have a PhD be so fundamentally incapable? She made a minor logic error. Since I, and my entire friend group at the time were all math and physics PhDs I corrected you on your ridiculous claim.

The quote that I think you must be (incorrectly) referring to, is this: " I'd suggest your series of basic errors here is much more disqualifying of you from being able to do a math phd as Maddow is from her error." The point, of course, wasn't that you were more or less likely to get a PhD in math than her, but that claiming someone absolutely couldn't based on occasional every day probability error is terrible.

So....uh....kinda hilarious that your misinterpretation of my response to your hilariously terrible claim - that maddow couldn't get a phd in physics if her life depended on it - is what caused you to write me off.
Sick bump, ldo.

You're a very smart poster, no doubt. But Rachel Maddow the anchor could not get a PhD to save her life imhe.

Spoiler:
because she's a moron, and yes moron PhD's do exist

Last edited by leavesofliberty; 08-28-2017 at 01:42 AM.

      
m