windmills,'s shoutbox - Help.com

Thank you windmills.

I know I’m a day late but happy birthday, hope it was great! :)

You’re so welcome, I’m glad I could help. Good luck! :)

Hmm I’m sorry about that. I think it probably mostly is that he’s a fallible and probably vain professor with the support of a seeable side. There are lots of people like that, it might be a good idea to get used to logical professors being illogical now. I guess I’ll go put back the response I was going to make before just in case it could be helpful or something.

Hey thanks for inviting me to your post, I wrote out an answer, but it sort of looked too much like “give up” so I had to get rid of it lol. Good luck with your case, I hope this professor listens to reason.
:)

If you’re using an actual case make sure you argue the elements, not the facts. The facts are fact. You can’t argue them. Think of them as the lines on a sports field, they’re your boundaries so work within them even if you don’t like them. Huge mistake people make is to argue the facts. The trick is to make the facts work for you.

Well the US is the only “first world” nation on earth to still employ it. They’re in the company of totalitarian nations and the third world. Go and read Clarence Darrow’s closing argument for Leopold and Loeb (it was an incredible 12 hour closing plee). Quote him if necessary. Make sure you argue the points and don’t attack strawmen.

Focus on systematic bias (look at Texas executing blacks, Hispanics and even disabled people). One innocent execution is too many (this has happened). On that point look at wrongful conviction of cases across the country which didn’t involve capital punishment to illustrate it. People have been sentenced to death ultimately because they couldn’t afford good counsel. Statistics show the death penalty isn’t an effective deterrent against crime.

Cite cases correctly. A good trick to refute opposition case law is to look for errors in their citation. If they cite a judgement or decision from the Court of Appeal, and you have a contradiction from the Supreme Court - you’ve just killed their point. Another mistake people make, which is one you should avoid and capitalise on, is when people cite descenting orbiter (obiter dicta are side notes from judges). Sometimes a judge will say something in orbiter which contradicts the final judgement, because they feel the law should be changed - but they ultimately act on the law. Students especially make the mistake of reading these comments and citing them as case law.

It’s generally a good idea to attack anything they say with no legal authority. If statute or case law doesn’t support it, it’s a worthless opinion. People quoting orbiter or counsel in trial records are quoting opinion. A later or higher court judgement will always supersede the earlier/lower one.

If they’re constructing an argument make sure both you and they follow logic. Logic is important. Absurd or improper leaps from one conclusion to another can be challenged and all logical fallacies apply. I could go on forever but they’re some of the common pitfalls I know of. Aside from Darrow, look up other cases (especially Supreme Court) disputing the death penalty and gain insight into the approach taken - also try to understand what caused them to fail.

at the same time no sane soldier is just going to put himself in that situation. The gun may in fact not be loaded and he may have a hidden loaded gun on him. Food for thought

Take the gun aim it at the prisoners. Ask the soldier what is to stop me from turning the gun around and shooting him. Depending on his answer I might turn around and shoot him. The person who is not my Lover, Family, Race, Friend, Woman or Child will most likely be shot. This is just speculation though. When/If this happens in a real world situation I will let you know exactly who’s life I will extinguish.

Ah, that’s very convenient and time-saving. I wish I could do something like that in America. I still have another year to complete my undergrad studies than then 3 years of law school. So I’m looking at least another 4 years before I’ll be able to hopefully practice law. But it should be well worth it in the end!

They’re used in cross all the time if you can sneak them in under the radar.

Law is studied at undergraduate in England. They don’t require you to complete a bachelors in another discipline first. You can go right into law from school. I have a postgraduate JD as part of an exchange programme my university had with an American law school so I completed both in 4 years (as you take modules that match the requirements of both programmes and complete both assessments).

Nothing special I just used to pull those questions out on my friends when I was in college as I came across them too.

Was that false dilemma on your LSAT prep work? I see through it my friend!

Just looks like another either scam or plea for money. His school would have inundated him with careers advice, not to mention events firms take part in at colleges to recruit students. He probably has a better idea of his options than I do.

No problem. Yeah you can spend too much time working on things like this and that is only detrimental. Just keep practising it, but don’t over do it. Over time you’ll get so used to solving these problems that when the time comes to do it for real it’ll be natural.

The next time you get stuck on one sleep on it and try it again the next day. If you still can’t solve it ask me again or your professor but I bet you’ll find that you’ll see the answer pretty quickly and clearly.

No worries. I’ve been reading that thread myself as it is rather interesting.

I don’t know how I was not able to see that. I now see how B is clearly the answer. I must have been so mentally exhausted from the previous problems that I couldn’t properly concentrate. That’s my excuse anyway.

Thanks for the help. I owe you.

Sorry I’ve been debating some pregnancy issue in a thread which has been distracting.

I think this one is B.

Solve the problem and I got: V, W, T, L, N, M.

A = Clearly not false.
C = False because you can interchange L and N.
D = Not true because T only depends on M.
E = Clearly not true.

If I got this wrong it’ll be a hit to the ego for sure but I’m pretty sure it’s B. There is no way L can be next to W without being within 2 spaces of V which is prohibited.

Sure send it over.

I ruled out C because with that rule H can legitimately be the first photo the the sequence, which means it isn’t between the first and sixth.

H, M, G, K, I, L, K

This is what I mean when I say be careful not to let the original rule linger in the back of your mind. We both made this mistake because we came down to two options that could work, but didn’t consider that the condition that “H” cannot be first is part of the original rule which is now discarded. If you find yourself in that position, just make sure you’re not holding onto the original rule in your reasoning.

It’s funny because I looked at the question again as soon as you sent that and that was the first problem that sprung out at me. I think I made the mistake of keeping H’s original rule lingering in my mind somewhere which meant I didn’t consider that G could come before it. Be careful of doing that.

Ahhh I came down to D and B but I overlooked that it’s possible to put G before H. Oh well, I don’t envy you. I hope I helped you in the methodology anyway.

To be honest it doesn’t. It’s all BS. This is more relevant to being the ultimate detective, not a lawyer. But law degrees can be very academic and there is a lot of logic involved in some modules (like jurisprudence).

In fact thinking like a Vulcan can be a bad thing for a lawyer. The best litigators in the world aren’t where they are because of their logical aptitude. They’re there because of their charisma, creativity and abstract thinking. Logic is important in the reasoning behind arguments, but this is mostly academic, not practical.

I think these types of questions, which are called ‘logic games’ I believe, are going to give me the most trouble. I can normally work out each problem, but it’s taking me too long. I need to get quicker at working out these problems.

So how exactly do these problems pertain to the law?

Spock*!

Well regardless that’s how you do it. Don’t let the language intimidate you and it becomes a process of elimination. The master of logic, Spoke himself said: “Once you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.” :)

If you were trying to jumble those names around in your mind to figure this out you’ll give yourself a headache. Just reduce it to its simplest form and write it down so you can look at it visually. Much easier.

Do you have the actual answer by the way or that’s not going to help my insomnia?

Ok! Now I’ll warn you that I’ve been on the single malt. That’s my disclaimer!

Right the first thing they’re doing to you here is trying to confuse you with useless BS. This BS is in the form of the painting names. You do not want to be solving this problem using the terminology they’ve given you there. So reduce it to first letters and you have.

H, G, F, I, L, K & M.

Then apply their individual conditions.

F - 1st or 7th
G - 1B4 K
H - B4 K
I + L
M - 1st 3
K - none

Then solve the problem by applying the functions. M must be first because it must be in the first three, but there are two other letters that demand them to be after M.

M, H, G,

K comes next because it has no rules. L and I can follow next to each other and that leaves F to finish.

M, H, G, K, L, I, F

So what condition change satisfies ALL EXISTING rules?

You can rule out E immediately quite clearly.

You can rule out C because that opens up several possible arrangements.

You can rule out A because H is only dependant on K which can move around.

So the problem comes down to B and D.

I can rule D out because you could arrange it M, G, K…

Which leaves B.

I could be wrong, it’s been a few years since I did this but that’s what I’d go for.

Ha I bet you’re wondering what any of this s*** has to do with the law. Give me a minute and I’ll break it down for you and give you some tips to solving this sort of problem.

Yeah go ahead I’m listening to Jazz and George Carlin at 3 in the morning so I may as well do something productive.

Yes it’s quite infuriating isn’t it? I’m sorry I don’t have much help here, you’ve just got to work at it.

You were right that the answers on the LSAT were impossibly similar. I don’t believe I’ve ever encountered such questions and answers before. And the time constraints only made matters worse. I’m definitely going to need to invest an extensive amount of time and energy into studying and preparing for the LSAT. I can only hope the actual LSAT isn’t as overwhelming to me as the practice exam.

Yes I’m in Britain at the moment. Good luck with with the LSAT.

I’m actually British but I have both the British and American qualifying law degrees (my university had an exchange program with Colombia), and I subsequently got to practise in NY for a few years through my firm. In Britain the top rung of the legal profession is divided in two; Solicitors and Barristers. I’m a Barrister. Solicitors are to Barristers as Doctors are to Surgeons.

Anyway I tell you this because I had to take the LNAT which is different to the LSAT (just the requirement in the UK). I can only describe it as 42 trick multiple choice questions with impossibly similar answers. An infuriating exam to take.

I started out in Criminal because it was reasonably easy to get cases and had plenty of opportunity for advocacy experience; but there are a lot of problems with the Criminal bar that other fields don’t have to deal with. The main one is the pay. Not only are clients unreliable but you are not paid well in general. World-class Criminal defence lawyers (like Reid Weingarten as an example) are part of a very exclusive club which is incredibly difficult to break into, but they do earn a lot. The majority of them struggle to make a living to justify the education however.

Comparatively, corporate lawyers earn a lot of money from entry level. An entry level associate with an Ivy League degree is looking at $120,000+ and Partners easily earn in the millions. An entry level Criminal associate even from the Ivy League would be lucky to get half that.

The other issue with Criminal work is that the majority of the time you’re dealing with somebody who probably did it; and it’s your job to keep them out of jail anyway. It can wear on your conscience after a while and I was even attacked by a client once. It is excellent experience to start out with, but I wouldn’t want to make a career out of it personally.

It was difficult but I found it fulfilling. I always knew I wanted to be a litigator and one of the best parts of that job is that you can move between fields somewhat easily. I started with criminal work and moved into family and civil cases, and am now moving into more corporate. I have even collected a few private clients on the side (basically being the personal representative and advisor for somebody with too much money for their own good to help them plan their estate, trusts, will and taxes).

It certainly didn’t diminish my enjoyment for reading but at the time, I don’t think I ever read for pleasure. It would have just been too much. Your experience will depend a lot on the school you go to, so if you decide to go make sure you visit your options and research them thoroughly. Talk to current students if you can as well to get an idea of the atmosphere.

The work hours can be outrageous particularly in the corporate firms. The associates in the skyscraper firms are worked to the bone. But at the same time you can open an independent practice in a small town and work as much as you want. It is a very flexible career and depends entirely on what you want to achieve.

Hello Windmills, you wrote to me some 8 months ago looking for some insight into Law School. I apologise that it has taken me so long to get back to you as I have been inactive on this site for a while, my life got quite busy.

Law School is difficult, and you will spend an inordinate amount of time reading texts, articles, cases and what have you. I cannot overstate the amount of reading you will have to do, so if you do not enjoy reading I would not recommend going to Law School.

It is also not a subject you can coast through on natural intelligence such as English (as an example) where there are no right or wrong answers. If you do not know or understand the material, your professors will soon realise it and you will not last. If you decide to go you need to be dedicated to the work.

I just wanted to get that out of the way first. If it really is what you want to do, you will find it a remarkable fulfilling experience. One of the great things about Law as an academic discipline is that it’s so diverse. If you’re a technical person, you can go into Revenue Law or even Property; which are highly technical fields. If you’re more interpretive, you will find Criminal or Torts more interesting. Some of these are mandatory, but there are many electives you can explore to suit your particular interests.

I can’t tell you everything about what being a Lawyer itself is like, as different types of Lawyers have completely different professional lives. I can give you more insight if you have a specific area of practice you’re interested in though. It is important that you go to a reputable Law School and achieve a high grade degree when you graduate. Corporate law firms in particular will not even consider new associates from average schools or with average degrees.

If there is anything else you’re interested in knowing, feel free to let me know.

Haha thank you too! Your words often have a nice calming effect. Anyways, I think this semester will be good for me and I wish you the best with yours, though I doubt you’ll need it :)

Well congrats on getting yours out of the way, I’m sure you’ll rise to the challenge of your new courses gracefully :)
The moot court sounds like fun.
Lol I think it’s completely normal that they’re unclear, people have a lot of fun fighting over what they should be.
Yep, I’m still undecided. I really have another year before I have to decide, but I think I’ll choose pretty soon. My dad kind of wants me to major in philosophy, and I kind of love it, but I’m not so sure. I think I’ll go with something more likely to land me a job.

Philosophy of the mind sounds cool to me lol. I started reading this book called the Mind’s I over break, and it seemed to deal with a lot of that. Boring and confusing certainly is a combination to be avoided though :)

This semester Roman Religion, history of western science and technology, plagues, and a random writing course. They all fulfill gen ed requirements, which I’ve happily almost completely taken care of. How is your study of law going? Is philosophy of law interesting or dry? I bet figuring out natural rights would be fun for a little while.

Moral philosophy sounds like something I’d like to take. I was pretty disappointed by my first philosophy course, but I guess a course to introduce you to the heaviest, vague discipline there is has to be frustratingly general. I was used to just reading it and thinking about it on my own, so it was kind of odd to be directed through the material and told exactly what I was supposed to take from it. I was told the courses get better when they focus more narrowly though, and that makes sense to me. :)

Hopefully this semester is exciting and productive all around. :)

That’s good, are your classes interesting? I’m taking a couple neat seeming ones, like the ecology of plague.

Yeah, I get a really long winter break and a really short spring break, so it evens out. My first semester was okay, not very exciting. I think this semester will be better though now that I know what’s up :)

Hey Mills :)
I’m so well, thanks. Going back to college in a few days, just finishing up my break. It’s been nice, just relaxing, learning, and being thankful. How are you?

nah, i quit that bitch, im in south florida, down near miami, chillin workin some, but mostly chillin

hows detective mills doing lately?
still working for scdot?

Sometimes I talk about my problems when I’m not sure if I should. Or last night I got really drunk with my friends even though I’m on anti-depressants. Not sure if that would be considered carefree though. I don’t know maybe I don’t actually do much without thinking about the consequences. But sometimes I’ll go ahead with doing something that might seem like a bad idea. Usually because I feel like doing it. I’m not really too sure how bad it is either because generally I feel good about doing these things, like drinking last night. I had a good time.

Yeah holding things together does have a certain respectability to it, I agree. I just don’t always have the will to hold it all in. It seems that if I let it out, maybe I can allow the rest of the world to help me find a solution. Though sometimes it’s a problem I need to solve I guess. Sometimes, I’m a bit carefree though. I just act without really thinking of the consequences, because to me, it seems like the right thing to do. Definitely something I should learn not to do. Maybe sometimes it pays off though :)

Well, it’s been kind, but hard. I live in a home with three other people who have similar issues as I do, with mental illness. It get’s stressful at times but we manage. Mostly it’s been relaxing being able to have the day to myself for so long. Recently I had become very interested in meditation and began developing my spiritual side. I’m in some turmoil these days trying to decide where beliefs lie. I’ve also felt some powerful urges to find someone to be with and love. However, I haven’t found the right one yet. Also, so often, I feel weak. And it’s driving me mad. But other than that, I’m doing well! :D

Ahck, windmills! How could I forget you! Such an awesome power of wit and will you have. I’m just a very forgetful person. It’s been so long! 3 years since that post. Things have changed for me windmills. I’m a very different person now. Still got plenty of problems though, lol. Anyways hopefully we can get up to some wonderful conversations about the complex world we live in, once more!

Thanks windmills, it’s very good to be back. I didn’t even realize how much I was missing out on until I returned the other day. I’m having a lot of fun here. I was really feeling like I needed to talk to people and here they are. I’m sorry to say I don’t remember you though, could you refresh my memory?

Actually, no. My math class was quite fascinating. This is the class “cultural diversity.”

i didn’t saw you long time where are you friend ? :)

_ dyal