[blindlaw] blindlaw Digest, Vol 120, Issue 5

[Michael Nowicki]

Hi Chris,

Thank you for your advice.  Right now I'm hoping to score somewhere in the
150s, though ideally, I would like to get up to 160.

Michal

-----Original Message-----
From: blindlaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Stewart,
Christopher K
Sent: Monday, May 5, 2014 7:20 AM
To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org
Subject: Re: [blindlaw] blindlaw Digest, Vol 120, Issue 5

I certainly hope this is not the truth. It's like saying blind children
should be excluded from learning long division because it's clumsy and
time-consuming in braille. Logic games are hard for everyone. My sighted
friends, many of whom are extremely bright, struggled mightily with logic
games on the LSAT and still didn't do all that well. If there is a lawsuit,
however, I can assure you it will not affect your chances. You'll be
completing a logic section if you wish to go to law school any time soon.
Just buckle down and stay calm. Remember, people who score over 165 on the
LSAT, whether sighted or not,  are the exception. It's not like sighted
people go in and just nail the logic section.

One more thing that I found useful was inductive reasoning. So, take the
answer choices and fit them into the rules. When I would read a problem, I
could always eliminate three pretty readily. So, you're left with two. Run
those options. The test books probably discourage this method, but it worked
for me. If there's anything else I can do, please let me know.

Best,
Chris


On 5/5/14, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org <blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org> wrote:
> Send blindlaw mailing list submissions to
> 	blindlaw at nfbnet.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> 	http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> 	blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> 	blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific 
> than "Re: Contents of blindlaw digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>    1. Exemption of blind people from logic games on the LSAT
>       (Michael Nowicki)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Sun, 04 May 2014 20:29:04 -0500
> From: Michael Nowicki <mnowicki4 at icloud.com>
> To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org
> Subject: [blindlaw] Exemption of blind people from logic games on the
> 	LSAT
> Message-ID: <002a01cf6801$67c54030$374fc090$@icloud.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; CHARSET=US-ASCII
>
> Dear list members,
>
>
>
> I recently heard something about a law suit against LSAC, which, if 
> successful, would exempt blind people from the logic games portion of 
> the LSAT on the grounds that it is not fair for us to be tested on 
> such a visually-oriented concept.  Do any of you happen to know 
> whether or not such a case has in fact reached the courts?  I am 
> particularly interested in this matter because although I have figured 
> out how to conquer most types of games using Excel, setting them up 
> and getting through the questions is very time-consuming.  That is, 
> there are four games in a section, but I am usually able to get 
> through only one within the allotted time (I get 70 minutes).  I've 
> been trying to work faster, but when I speed up, my accuracy suffers 
> tremendously.  This is because when I feel the clock ticking, I often 
> misinterpret one or more of the rules governing a game, which in turn 
> produces a negative chain reaction, since answering the questions 
> requires spotting available major deductions, and making deductions 
> depends on combining rules, something that cannot be done without a 
> solid grasp of each rule.
>
>
>
> That being said, not having to worry about logic games on test day 
> would alleviate much of the stress.  At the same time, though, I know 
> that even if such a law suit has been filed, there is no guarantee 
> that it will be successfully litigated, and even if it is, who knows 
> how long the trial will take.  In short, it is highly unlikely, if not 
> impossible, that the changes in question would take effect before June 
> 9.  Nonetheless, please let me know if you have any information on 
> this topic.  Thank you in advance.
>
>
>
> Michal
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Subject: Digest Footer
>
> _______________________________________________
> blindlaw mailing list
> blindlaw at nfbnet.org
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of blindlaw Digest, Vol 120, Issue 5
> ****************************************
>


--
Chris K. Stewart
University of Kentucky College of Law, J.D. Candidate, 2016 California
Institute of the Arts, B.F.A. 2010
Ph:
(502)457-1757

_______________________________________________
blindlaw mailing list
blindlaw at nfbnet.org
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org
To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
blindlaw:
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/mnowicki4%40icloud.com