Cancel, Postpone, or Absence? | June 2011 LSAT

UPDATE:

The below post is now outdated due to an LSAC policy change - please see New Option to Withdraw Your LSAT Registration From LSAC.

***

If you're simply curious about former LSAC policy, see the now-outdated: Cancel LSAT If You Missed The Test Date Change Deadline?

***

This post is meant for anyone who registered for a particular LSAT date, then missed the deadline to postpone (and wishes they hadn't).

I initially wrote this post for June 2009 LSAT-takers, who were the first ones to deal with the earlier-than-usual test-date-change deadline. However, this post also applies to all future LSAT-takers.

As I previously mentioned on the blog, this deadline is earlier than ever before - 3 weeks prior to the test date. (See why LSAC decided to make the test-date-change deadline earlier.)

The early postponement deadline causes admissions-related dilemmas for anyone who wishes to postpone but missed the deadline.

This post will help you figure out what to do now that you've missed the deadline, and it will show you how to avoid any negative marks on your LSDAS report.

(Note: LSDAS is LSAC's Credential Assembly Service --- formerly known as the Law School Data Assembly Service. Like Prince, aka O(+> , they've rebranded. Who said LSAC wasn't hip?)

Here are excerpts from a couple of emails I've received in the past week about missing the postponement deadline:

"Although I've been preparing for a while I am not as far along as I need to be..i.e. I'm still working on the fundamentals- not taking timed tests.
Worse still, due to the "economic crisis" I have to take on a second job starting (you guessed it!) this week.
Having to manage these two jobs over the next two weeks will prevent me from gaining any real ground in my studies. In about a month they should level off and I will return to my 40hour work week.
So, given the new LSAC policies...what should I do? Take the test and cancel my score?
Take the absence?
To me an absence reveals that I am at least intelligent enough to assess myself.
How can an absence be seen as flaky when we now have two weeks for legitimate conflicts to arise? Its not as though I'm waking up the morning of with reservations.
To me a score cancellation reads as a bad performance or an expression of self-doubt.
How do you think admissions will read these two different labels in light of LSAC's new policy?"

"I just spoke to the LSAC people and they inform me that I can't cancel my date, just the score."

What you should do if you've missed the LSAT postponement deadline:
I feel your pain. You've missed the deadline, and LSAC won't let you cancel your "date" beforehand via email or phone.

In the dating world, refusal to take "no" for an answer is considered a sign of an abusive relationship.

However, it's perfectly acceptable in the world of law school admissions. Go figure. (That's just a joke, LSAC. I ♥ you guys.)


You have 4 main options:

Option #1: Just don't show up to the LSAT. Why miss work or school to run a pointless errand when you already told LSAC you weren't going?

Option #2: Show up to the LSAT and cancel without taking the exam.

Option #3: Show up to the LSAT and take the exam to get a sense of what your "real" LSAT test center experience will be like in September (or December). Cancel after the exam.

Option #4: Show up and take the exam even though you don't feel ready. Don't cancel and let the score stay on your record, whatever it may be.


After hearing from a few admission officers, it turns out that Option #1 is fine, despite the fact that you might think it appears irresponsible. When I emailed Dean Edward Tom of UC Berkeley at Boalt Hall about a student who'd been an LSAT absentee, Dean Tom said, "No, it shouldn't prejudice her application. She may wish to provide a short explanation via an addendum."

Option #4 isn't a good idea because you also don't want a low LSAT score on your record. Even if the schools you're considering don't average scores, one high LSAT score still looks better than a low score and a high one. Take it once and get it done right the first time.

Option #2 is fine. You can show up and immediately cancel when the exam starts. Many other students will end up having to do the exact same thing.

However, Option #3 may be even better. You've already paid the full fee. Since you missed the postponement deadline, you won't get any of your money back anyway, and you'll already have a cancellation on your record.

Why not take the opportunity to get used to the test center experience? Just cancel your score at the very end of the exam. Doing this will make September seem much less scary.

However, there's one big reason that you might consider Option #1 over Option #3:

Score cancellations count towards the no-more-than-3-LSATs-per-2-years-rule, while absences don't.

I recently emailed LSAC to double-check this. LSAC replied, "An absentee does not count as one of the three times that you can take the test in the two year period."

If you suspect that you might end up needing all 3 LSATs over a 2-year period, being absent is probably the better choice.

How the earlier LSAT postponement deadline will affect admission officers' views on score cancellations:
As things currently stand, LSAC score reports will not distinguish between:

- Students who show up on test day and cancel their test registration because they couldn't do so after they missed the postponement deadline.
- Students who didn't decide to cancel until during or after the exam.

However, score reports do distinguish between score cancellations and absences.

Due to the earlier LSAT postponement deadline, increasing numbers of applicants will have score cancellations and absences on their records. For this reason, I suspect that score cancellations and absences will have fewer negative connotations than they previously did.

(This creates a silver lining for students who didn't plan to cancel their scores on test day, but then something unexpected occurred. These students will "luck out" due to this ambiguity on the score report.)

I asked Dean Tom to comment on how admissions deans will consider LSAT cancellations in light of the now-earlier postponement deadline:

"Things will become more relaxed. They will at Berkeley. I think it's always a good idea to provide an explanatory addendum, regardless of the reason. "

After I published this blog post on Thursday afternoon, Anna Ivey, former Dean of Admissions at University of Chicago Law School (and independent law school admission consultant) wrote:

I agree 100% with your advice. It may sound counter-intuitive, but a cancellation actually looks better than a no-show. I always tell applicants that one cancellation is not the end of the world -- everyone can have a bad day, and admissions officers know that. I don't think they look askance at one cancellation (or at least I never did when I was an admissions officer). More than one cancellation does start to make you look flaky, though, so if you cancel the June test, you've basically used up your one non-flaky-looking cancellation. Please don't wake up with the flu in September, and if you do, then that's a good reason to write an addendum (canceling more than once).

So if you need to physically show up at the test anyway just to be able to cancel it (and avoid a no-show on your record), why not stick around and get the upside of a practice LSAT in a real testing environment? Don't keep the score though. There's no point in having a score from a day when you aren't feeling in peak form. With the LSAT, it's best to take one bite at the apple. Do it once, and do it right.

Also be sure to see Anna Ivey's more recent thoughts at the end of this blog post.


Dean Sarah Zearfoss of the University of Michigan Law School emailed me on Friday afternoon:

Having a single "absence" show on a report is absolutely nothing from an admissions officer's perspective--unlike a cancellation, an absence means that you were never exposed to the test, and so it doesn't look like you got one free run-through before getting a score. (And to be clear, having a single cancellation doesn't look weird, either--although a pattern may.) Of course, having multiple absences does start looking a little flaky, so it is true that a candidate needs to be very careful to clear his/her calendar for October or December and be sure to show up for the test--or, at least, to postpone the test in accordance with LSAC's timeline.

I note that originally, it seemed a little unfair to me that someone would have an absence b/c it seemed wrong to treat someone who tried to alert LSAC to the forthcoming absence three weeks in advance with a candidate who, say, just didn't show up. But upon further reflection, I changed my mind, concluding that there's just no good way to make a distinction between "people who are behaving as responsibly as possible but who missed the applicable deadline" and "people who simply were blase and didn't show up." At least--I can think of a million hypotheticals where whatever distinction you make ends up being the wrong one (which may simply be the result of my law school training). After all, it is true that however excusably (for example, one candidate we've heard from is a paralegal who now has a trial scheduled for the week of the LSAT), the candidate hasn't satisfied the timeline posted and explained by LSAC. It's not a big deal at all, but a notation of absence seems to me to accurately reflect the situation.

UPDATE (December 4, 2009):

I've left some additional thoughts on the decision of whether to cancel or be absent in the comments on this blog post here.


UPDATE (February 2, 2010):

I received the following email from Anna Ivey (who is also quoted above):

I've been fielding some questions about what I said in this blog post. On reflection I'm thinking that applicants SHOULD go with a no-show rather than a cancellation after all if it's too late to reschedule the test. I talked to a number of admissions officers about this, and while there is some split in opinion, the no-show camp ended up persuading me.

Continue Reading...»

Test Day Tips for the June 2009 LSAT

Taking the LSAT soon? Make sure to read my big list of LSAT Test Day Tips as well as LSAC's Test Day Rules.

I suspect that most of the Possible Test Center Violations in LSAC's rules are actually definite test center violations. Example:

6. Bringing a weapon or firearm into the test center.

Please save everyone at your test center a lot of trouble and don't bring your weapons and firearms. You can stop off at home after the test before going on that long-awaited hunting trip.

Also, under Items Prohibited at the Test Center (emphasis added):

IMPORTANT: Electronic devices, including cell phones, are not permitted in the test center, and the use of any electronic device is strictly prohibited. Any test taker discovered using or having in his or her possession an electronic device, including but not limited to cell phones, pay phones, pagers, iPods™ or other media players, or personal computers will be dismissed from the test...

Why did they add "pay phones" to the list? I'm just venturing a guess here, but back when people actually used pay phones, some not-too bright LSAT-taker must have ripped a pay phone out of the ground and brought it to a test center. I'm not sure that pay phones need a separate mention anyway, though, because I've never seen a pay phone that would fit inside a one-gallon "ziplock bag."

However, rules are rules. Don't bring phones of any kind, whether they're cell phones or pay phones.

***

This week, the webcomic XKCD demonstrates a practical application of Logic Games:



Photo by dwallick
(I believe that sign appears at Hard Rock Cafes around the world.)

Continue Reading...»

Newer Logic Games: Conditional Sequencing | PrepTest 51

See explanations for other recent LSAT Logic Games.

This post is the first of a three-part series on sequencing rules in newer Logic Games.

Starting with PrepTest 51 (December 2006), LSAC threw a twist into sequencing games (a basic type of Logic Game). It added "conditional sequencing" rules. Conditional means "If...then."

This post will explain what I consider the easiest rule of this type.

Preptest 51, Game 2
Let's look at the 4th rule of the 2nd game in PrepTest 51. The game starts off, "Six hotel suites..."

4th rule of the game:
"F is more expensive than G, or else F is more expensive than H, but not both."

(Keep in mind one of the game's other limitations, which is that no two variables can occur simultaneously - they must all occur at different times.)

Although this doesn't appear to be a conditional rule at first, it actually is. If one of the two happens, the other one can't happen because the rule says "but not both."

It's difficult to hold a rule like this in your head, especially when there are other complex rules in the game.

Since there are only two possibilities, it makes sense to write them out. It's faster to look at the possibilities than to repeatedly translate what the rules actually mean.

Our letters in this rule are F, G, and H. Note that the game requires that no two variables (hotel suites) are the same price.


1st possibility:
Let's look at the first half (clause) of the rule: "F is more expensive than G."

Since the game ranks the hotel suites from most expensive to least expensive, we'll say that this means:

F - G

If F is more expensive than G, F can't also be more expensive than H (because it said "but not both").

This means H will have to be more expensive than F.

Therefore:

H - F - G

(H is more expensive than F, and F is more expensive than G)


2nd possibility:
Let's now look at the second half (clause) of the rule: "F is more expensive than H."

This means:

F - H

When F is more expensive than H, F can't also be more expensive than G (because it said "but not both"). This means G will have to be more expensive than F.

Therefore:

G - F - H

(G is more expensive than F, and F is more expensive than H)


The game will include either:
1. H - F - G

2. G - F - H

Write these at the bottom of the page.

Each valid scenario (ordering of the variables) will feature one of these possibilities or the other.

***
Read on for Part 2: Newer Logic Games: Before, After, But Not Both | PrepTest 52

Photo by aussiegall / CC BY 2.0

Continue Reading...»

Newer Logic Games: Before, After, But Not Both | PrepTest 52

This post is the second of a three-part series on conditional sequencing rules in newer Logic Games. The first part of this series covers an easier version of the conditional sequencing rule.

This post will explain a more difficult rule of this type in the 4th game of PrepTest 52 (September 2007).

PrepTest 52, Game 4
Let's look at the 4th rule of the 4th game in PrepTest 52. The game starts, "A bread truck makes exactly one delivery..."

4th rule of the game:
"Either Malpighi's delivery is earlier than Harris's or it is later than Kanzaki's, but not both."

This means that either both variables come before M, or both come after M.

(Keep in mind one of the game's other limitations, which is that no two variables can occur simultaneously - they must all occur at different times.)

1st possibility:
M's delivery comes earlier than H's.

If M's delivery earlier than H's, then M's delivery is not later than K's.

This means that if M's delivery is earlier than H's, then M's delivery is also earlier than K's.

Therefore, M is before both H and K:









2nd possibility:
M's delivery is later than K's.

If M's delivery is later than K's, then K's delivery is before M's.

If K's delivery is before M's, then H's delivery must also be before M's.

Therefore, H and K are both before M:









***

These are the only two possibilities, so just write them along with your other rules:









Each valid scenario (ordering of the variables) will feature one of these possibilities or the other.


***
Read on for Part 3: Newer Logic Games: Before, After, But Not Both | PrepTest 53.

Photo by compujeramey / CC BY 2.0

Continue Reading...»

Newer Logic Games: Before, After, But Not Both | PrepTest 53

This post is the third of a three-part series on conditional sequencing rules in newer Logic Games. The first part of this series covers an easier version of the conditional sequencing rule.

This post will explain the "before, after, but not both" rules of the 2nd game in PrepTest 53 (December 2007).

PrepTest 53, Game 2

The game starts off, "A competition is being held to select a design for Yancy College's new student union building..."

The rules I'm about to describe are exactly like the rule I described in the second post of this series.

However, because this type of rule confuses many students the first time around, I'm going to explain these rules anyway.

If you feel comfortable with the rule, that's great! Attempt the rules in this game yourself, then check them against my explanations below.

2nd rule of the game:

"Green's design is presented either at some time before Jackson's or at some time after Liu's, but not both."

This means that either both variables come before G, or both come after G.

(Keep in mind one of the game's other limitations, which is that no two variables can occur simultaneously - they must all occur at different times.)


1st possibility:
If G is before J, then G is not after L.

If G is not after L, G is before L.

Therefore, G is before both J and L.











2nd possibility:

If G is after L, then G is not before J.

If G is not before J, G is after J.

Therefore, G is after both L and J.











Our possibilities are:


















Each valid scenario (ordering of the variables) will feature one of these possibilities or the other.


3rd rule of the game:

"Valdez's design is presented either at some time before Green's or at some time after Peete's, but not both."

This means that either both variables come before V, or both come after V.


1st possibility:
If V is before G, then V is not after P.

If V is not after P, V is before P.

Therefore, V is before both G and P.









2nd possibility:
If V is after P, then V is not before G.

If V is not before G, V is after G.

Therefore, V is after both G and P.









Our possibilities are:

















Each valid scenario (ordering of the variables) will feature one of these possibilities or the other.

***

The two possibilities in each of the two rules above can be combined into 4 different possibilities:












On the top-left, we have G before both J and L - combined with V before both P and G.

On the top-right, we have G before both J and L - combined with V after both P and G.

On the bottom-left, we have G after both J and L - combined with V after both P and G.

On the bottom-right, we have G after both J and L - combined with V after both P and G.

***

The rules described in this series haven't come up in the most recent exams, but that doesn't necessarily mean they won't come up in the near future.

After reading this series, you'll be ready for any "before, after, but not both rule" they throw at you.

Photo by winton / CC BY 2.0
(I included the Scrabble photo because Scrabble is a game and because that particular board has the word "logic" in it.)

Continue Reading...»

Preparing for the June 2011 LSAT Experimental Section

In my LSAT study schedules, I recommend that you include extra sections in your practice exams. Why would I recommend such a cruel and difficult task?

Because LSAC uses test-takers as lab rats (like many organizations that administer standardized exams - think back to the SAT). LSAC includes an unscored experimental section on the LSAT and doesn't tell you which one it is. If you knew which one it was, you'd probably take a nap to recuperate between the sections you care about - the scored ones.

To LSAC's credit, this practice increases the validity of the scored sections of future LSATs. The experimental section allows LSAC to pre-test questions with several thousand applicants, helping LSAC determine which questions deserve to make it into future scored sections.

On the other hand, not knowing which section is the experimental can make it difficult to decide whether or not to cancel your score. If you bomb the experimental section, it may affect your performance on the other sections. Additionally, being forced to "donate" 35 minutes of free research for LSAC after paying to take the LSAT hardly seems fair.

Regardless, because you'll see a 5-section exam on test day, rather than the 4 you're used to seeing in your books of PrepTests, it's essential to prepare.

I decided to write this post after blog reader Katie wrote to me this week with the following question:

I have been taking 4 section timed tests for a while now but am starting to take 5 and 6 section timed tests as you suggest. I have two questions:

1. I assume that the type of "extra" section(s) I include should vary from test to test. For example, on one day, I would add a logic games section and the next day either a reading comprehension or a logical reasoning section. Is this what you would recommend?

2. What is the best way to score these tests? Which section do I omit? I took a test last night and did an extra logical reasoning section. The scoring for the test I took the extra section from was very different from the full test I was taking - does this make sense? I want to make sure I'm getting an accurate read of my performance.

Varying extra sections
There are two main approaches I'd recommend:

-You can rotate the type of "extra" section(s) that you use.
-You can make the extra section(s) the one that you like the least.

For most people, a combination of the two is probably ideal. Figure out which type of section you dread the most, and include it more often than the others.


Which section to omit
This makes perfect sense, Katie. To get the most accurate score reading, omit the section(s) that are not from the original exam. Different exams have different scales.


Some more tips on preparing for the experimental section:

Where to place the unscored section.
Place at least one of the experimental sections in the first 3 sections out of the 5 (or 6) in your practice exams. That's where the experimental has traditionally fallen on test day. To my knowledge, it's always been one of the first 3 sections.

It's unfortunate that you have to take the unscored section when you're less fatigued, but just remember everyone else is affected in the same way.


Mix up sections.
As I said earlier, on test day, you won't know which section is the experimental. For this reason, you may want to lay out the sections from each PrepTest beforehand. Take two from the "scored" exam and one "unscored" experimental, and mix them together.

This way, you won't know which ones are scored and which ones aren't, and you'll be forced to put the same effort into each.

Photo by happysteve

Continue Reading...»

LSAT Diaries: The 20-Something Grad Student

Danielle is a 25-year-old grad student in Washington DC, and she's taking the September 2009 LSAT.

I'm including Danielle's LSAT Diary below, followed by a few quick comments.

Danielle's LSAT Diary:

1) The way the LSAT Makers pose their questions, the way they present the stimuli, and the way they set up the answer choices is all highly contingent upon some structure that the test taker is supposed to adhere to. How does one adhere to something they know nothing about? My point, exactly.

Thus my schedule:

-7am: get up to drink a glass of water (I drink at least 9 glasses a day)
-7:30am-8am: Ab workout or some quick 30min workout.
-8am-9am: Look for some breakfast. Something light but filling. I need it to get focused on my work day. I eat 4 to 5 times a day to keep energy up, but no carbs after 9!
-9am-12pm: As a technical research analyst, I get to look at 1000s of lines a SAS code and output per day and write about the quality of the data my firm receives. Sounds boring but I love it. It requires extreme attention to detail and organization. (I one snack within this 3 hour period)
-12pm-1pm: 1hour cardio workout and strength training. Helps me relax and relieve the stresses of writing and analyzing code all day.
-1:pm-1:15pm: fix lunch and get back to work
-1:15pm-5pm: work
-5pm-6pm: break to watch the Golden Girls, check on my LSAT TEAM, update twitter, make contacts, check on loved ones. etc.
-6pm-10:00pm: LSAT Prep--I want to sit in front of this material for at least as long as I will have to on the official test day!
-10pm-12am: Jot down meals, adhoc tasks, and watch syndicated TV shows until I fall asleep.

The weekend mirrors closely what I do during the week, except I study longer for the LSAT, rest more, and most importantly, I regain my social status :0). With family and friends all living somewhat far away, and a mom who's undergoing chemo, the stresses of regular life can easily manifest themselves into utter disruption of my structural environment, so I try my best to get my have-to's out of the way in order to have ample time to tend to my need/want-to's.

When I've failed at the LSAT, I never successfully established this environment, and I'm afraid if I don't do it now, I'll never get over this obstacle, and what's worse, despite my success thus far in most every other aspect of my life, whatever it is I'm standing on may start to crumble under me. I can't have that. Just that simple. I have to meet the expectation!



5/19/2009
-----------
2) Tonight, I focused in on the LR section: implication questions (MBT, MBF, Inferences). Though I am pretty familiar with the every aspect of the test, I approached my preparation very differently this time around. Ever since I realized my biggest weakness: lack of consistent ability to properly identify WHY wrong answers are wrong, I wanted to take time, while I have time on my side, to slow down and get through the easier LSAT questions to see where I was getting tripped up in my deductions.

It actually helped quite a bit. I noticed that the questions that I got wrong were precisely the ones where I failed to explain what was wrong with the answer choice. Either that or I didn't read the answer choice carefully enough. I don't know any other way to resolve this latter problem but to entrench myself in this material. Of course, I'm planning to do just that.

It's amazing to me how simple my mistakes are and how easily these little mistakes can manifest themselves into 3 years of under performance. I'm a 25 year old graduate student attending a top tier institution, and I still get tripped up by reading short paragraphs. lol. Wow, how unfortunate. I pride myself on paying attention to detail, yet I miss many of the most telling clues in the English language of an important inference.

I'm not discouraged. I make very good arguments, otherwise. I just don't have enough practice breaking a part the arguments of those who are paid to make "holey" arguments. lol. But this is a true lesson in being a sharper individual.

I sit in some of my graduate classes and get frustrated as I try to keep up with some of the seemingly irrelevant topics of dispute many of my classmates develop, but I'm starting to realize that I do that because I tune out when an argument doesn't make sense instead of focusing on just what doesn't make sense. Who knew that it would come in handy one day!

September 26th, I've got my future set on you :0) You've been warned.



05/20/09
----------
3) Something I learned today: Logical Opposites
a) must be true (MBT) = cannot be false <--logical opposites--> not necessarily true = could be false

b) must be false (MBF) = cannot be true <--logical opposites -> not necessarily false = could be true

Now, while I typically thought that "could be false" and "could be true" are analogous concepts since something that could be true can ALSO be false, in terms of the LSAT, this isn't really the case. Here's why:

When a question asks us, which of the following "could be false", this means that only 1 answer choice "could be false," while the other 4 choices will be the logical opposite of "could be false." This means that the 4 WRONG answer choices "cannot be false = MBT."

This suggests that "could be false" and "could be true" are not really the same concepts on the LSAT because if the question had INSTEAD asked, which of the following "could be true," then this means that only 1 answer choice "could be true" while the 4 WRONG answer choices "cannot be true = MBF."

It's pretty interesting how they are trying to trip us up like that. After all these years of carefully choosing my words to express myself, apparently according to the LSAT, I still haven't gotten it right!

This is a clear example of why we can't use our "outside" logic on the LSAT. Damn...that's too bad, too. Just when I was getting used to feeling like a goddess of written expression, I've got to learn how to express myself all over again. For the next 19 weeks, It's LSAT Logic Only!



5/21/2009
-----------
4) One thing I read a lot about in these LSAT prep books is attitude. Though the author's attitude is particularly important in reading LSAT stimuli, what's equally important, if not more, is how we, the test takers approach the material. That's the one thing I've never been able to understand. I remember the first official test I sat for: I was SOOO confident. The next time, for that reason, I was not so confident. But this last time, confident!! Despite those yearly 2 point increases, my enthusiasm toward the material, and the confidence I felt, my score just isn't creeping up like I think it should. I don't quite understand it. And maybe that's it: I don't understand it.

There must be something I'm missing, and I haven't a clue how to fix it. I'm breaking into this test inside-out nowadays. I'm not taking any shortcuts! Not that I did before, but I know I didn't push myself to the limit. How do I exhaust the possibilities in such a short period of time?

Practice. Practice brings insights. And from insights come better instincts. Logical instincts. lol. Oxymoron. Despite what these tests say, I still believe in my abilities. I believe that I'm among the intellectual giants. No one has realized it yet, not even me, because I haven't put it into practice! See!! I can reason! Flawless argument right there! The key there is that just because I believe something doesn't make it true...at least not LSAT world.

In my otherwise, sensible world, if I can think of such a thing; it is. Thanks Descartes!

I believe it! I believe in me, and I'll do what it takes to bring those beliefs to fruition.

Goodnight!



05/22/2009
-------------

5) I'm weighed down today. I did make some progress, but not as much as I anticipated. I got tripped up on Quasars today. I hate that problem, but I will learn to love it. My hope is that it's one of the more difficult problems, but somehow I doubt it. Answer (C) is the choice I wanted.

[Ed. Danielle is referring to PrepTest 29, Section 4, Question 23 - p. 42 of The Next 10 Actual, Official LSAT PrepTests.

My explanation of the question: Quasars' light takes 500 million years to reach Earth, but anything that burns at that rate can't last more than 100 million years. As such, any quasar light you see is from quasars that no longer exist - they've already burned themselves into nonexistence. -Steve]

I was skeptical from the beginning because it closely mirrored what was said in the stimulus.

What was the difference? Sadly, it took me more than 35 minutes to figure it out. As I mentioned, I was suspect because MBT question is in the implication family; it is a deduction that must be made precisely because it isn't stated in the stimulus. So something that sounds exactly the same is most likely to be wrong. Nevertheless, there is a key distinction: location.

"anything that far away to appear [...] the way quasars..." vs. "anything that appears as bright as quasars..."

Anything that appears as bright as quasars may, in fact, be closer or further away than where quasars are actually located. There is nothing in the answer choice that suggests the location of this "anything," but it's explicitly stated in the stimuli as "that far away..." which is a reference to 500million years. It would take at least this long to appear as bright from Earth ONLY IF it was truly THAT far away, but the WRONG answer choice wants to trick us into believing that the location of this "anything" is irrelevant as long as its appearance from Earth is the same. What if it's a tiny little star that's relatively closer? What if? What if?

I made up my own what if, but the fact that I could consider another alternative, solidified the right answer choice for me, despite how long it took.

Real tough work is a thankless job, I'm learning, at least in the beginning stages. One thing I need to prepare myself for is that there will be no parade at the finish line. I'm after a personal triumph here. This is one of them.



5/23/2009
------------

6) Today, I focused on basic linear, and general, I don't have problems with it, as long as the rules lead to a healthy dose of deductions. Towards the end, I was spending more and more time and getting a few more wrong because I was spending too much time trying to figure out why I couldn't find a deduction. It gets particularly gruesome in unbalanced linear games, where you have to figure out which variables can be paired up and which ones can't, if it even matters. I feel like it's gotta be better just to start attacking the problems, if there are no obvious deductions, because it's too time consuming to look for universal deductions when things don't "line up" like the one-tier games. I'm looking to average 6 minutes per game, and I don't want too waste more than 2 to 3 minutes on diagramming the rules.

I've also noticed that these games tend to have many scenario/MBT questions. If we're supposed to focus on the individual scenario, then those MBTs will become a little more detailed than in the general diagram, so it makes sense to not focus too much on coming up with our own scenarios to make more deductions before we even approach the questions.

I've also been focusing on could be true/could be false questions in the LGs because I've been trying to deduce what category the 4 other answer choices will fall under. These are particularly useful when there isn't a scenario attached to it, because, for example, if the question asks, which of the following could be true (w/ no scenario attached), then that means that the 4 WRONG answer choices must be false; so, if we're really quick about it, we can build on our original diagram from these MBF statements as we proceed through the rest of the questions. I've noticed that a few questions build off others, so it can't hurt. I'll look for more opportunities to do this tomorrow.

Goodnight!



5/25/2009
------------

7) "I Think; Therefore, I am...Dangerous"

That's a powerful statement that I'm beginning to understand, especially with regard to the LSAT. I'm learning that it's not just about figuring out what's being said in the stimulus; thinking particularly hard (and fast) on what their asking is the key!

It's my belief that the odds of me sitting and pondering (for roughly 1 min on 100 questions each) what exactly each argument maker is saying is next to none. I don't have that kind of time, and I'm generally uninterested in what people who try purposefully to sound confusing have to say (Yes, that means you, LSAT makers). That's one of my major mistakes on this test: thinking too much on the stimulus to grab something useful, instead of approaching the question with equally as much if not more focus than that which was given to the stimulus.

The question uncovers what's critically important about the stimulus, particularly from the perspective of the LSAT Makers. It gives us insight into a potentially confusing set of words, and it, thus, allows us to look at the stimulus in a more revealing way.

I know... I know. This is a dangerous claim; I'm not about to make the argument that reading the question stem first is the ideal way to go for all test takers. But it is more help than hurt for me. Without that question stem, I'm lost more often than not because my focus isn't on breaking down argument after argument without prompt. It's already bad enough that for at least half the test, we have less than a minute to get through and move from 1 generally uninteresting topic to another 48 to 52 times in under 70 minutes. I've sat this way for 3 times already, and I'm not going to do it again. Not without at least trying something different for once.

In general, I know that people don't ask us questions and THEN tell us to analyze what they're about to say based on those questions. Lawyers don't do this. And if we find that the only way to deconstruct someone's argument is to be prompted with a question first, then we're probably in bad shape. I respect this as true, but it is my belief that each new situation we encounter begs of us some type readjustment; we cannot go through life attacking things the same way all the time. If this were true, where would be today? Here's a better question: would we even BE?

All this to say, that for the purposes of this test, I'm placing more than average attention on the questions going forward, and while some may think it's risky, for the purposes of my prep this summer, it's making my thinking thing MUCH sharper, MUCH more ACCURATE, and MUCH less confused and bogged down. So I'm going with it, unless it begins to pose problems.

Hey there's a conditional statement! If it does not begin to pose a problem, THEN I'm going with it :-)

Peace Out, LSAT Fam!!

P.S.

* Got Twitter? Follow me.
* Read about my journey to 180 and to a T14.
* Check out the progress of The Official 2009 Summer LSAT Team.

***
Steve's comments

You're on track to beat this exam into the ground, Danielle!

1. Your daily LSAT schedule is excellent. I'm glad to see you're exercising regularly and finding time to relax with the Golden Girls while keeping a rigorous LSAT schedule.

2. I'm also happy that you've started to notice inferences and fallacies in everyday life.

3. As you study, it is important to puzzle over the nuances of questions like the quasar Logical Reasoning question. Detailed reviews require patience and discipline, but the payoff is that you'll be less likely to get similar questions wrong in the future.

Good luck, and keep up your excellent schedule!

***

Want to read more LSAT Diaries?

Continue Reading...»

LSAT's Predictive Ability | Interview

Michelle Fabio, the About.com Law School Guide, recently interviewed me about the LSAT's predictive ability, among other things.

Our discussion follows.

1. When should potential law school students take the LSAT? That is, how long before they want to apply to law school should they sign up for the test?

For students who are still in college, take the LSAT in October or February of your junior year if possible. This allows you to do the bulk of your studying over the summer or winter break at a more leisurely pace. You want to ensure that studying for the LSAT will not detract from your junior-year grades.

Too many students wait to take the LSAT until the October or December of their senior year. However, since law school applications are reviewed and decided upon soon after they're submitted, early applicants face less competition. By taking the LSAT earlier, you avoid the scrutiny those taking it in the 11th hour will face.

Whether or not you're in college, try to take the LSAT by June of the year you intend to apply. This way, you can apply to law schools on the day they begin accepting applications. Try to take the LSAT no later than September/October of the year you intend to apply.

Sign up for the exam as early as possible. Contrary to popular belief, there's no limit to how early you can register. However, the best and most convenient LSAT test centers fill up quickly, so registering is not something to leave for the last minute.

2. How long before the test should they start LSAT prep--and when should they stop?

Far too many students fail to allow enough time to adequately prepare. 1-2 months is not adequate for the vast majority of students, especially when they have to balance LSAT prep with school or work.

Students who shoot for high scores (as well as those who shoot for mid-level scores) need time to fully understand the various sections, to develop strategies for attacking them, and to work on pacing and endurance strategies. I recommend students devote a minimum of 3 months of preparation and that they study on a regular basis during this period of time.

Take the day before the LSAT off and just relax. Do anything low-key and fun to get your mind off the exam. Last-minute cramming won't help because this isn't a memorization exam.

3. How important is the writing portion of the LSAT, and how much time should LSAT takers spend on preparing for it?

The writing sample is unscored, so it's not a big deal compared with the rest of the exam. However, law school admission officers are able to see it, and some choose to do so.

Fortunately, it only takes 5 minutes to learn everything you need to know for the writing sample. I wrote a blog post a while ago called "How to Prepare for the LSAT Writing Sample" that covers this info.

4. Even if they don’t do anything else to prepare for the exam, what is the single most important LSAT takers can do to be ready?

Review recent LSAT PrepTests. Familiarity with the question-types is crucial. However, reviewing PrepTests is necessary but not sufficient (too much time with the LSAT leads me to structure my sentences this way more often than I'd like).

5. You seem to believe the LSAT can be learned. If this is true, what does this suggest about the test's validity? Will a high LSAT score lead to high 1L grades?

People who ace the LSAT and ace law school tend to fall into the same categories:

1. They're geniuses and just "get it" the first time around.
2. They study around the clock. As a result, they walk around bleary-eyed, drink lots of coffee, sleep very little, and buy pencils in bulk.

If someone is able to learn the LSAT, this suggests they're more likely to do well in law school than someone who was not able to learn the LSAT.

Standardized exams get a lot of criticism, and much of it is deserved. However, I believe the LSAT is a good independent predictor of law school performance. People born with the "LSAT mindset" are likely to do well on the LSAT and in law school. People who intensively prepare for the LSAT and eventually acquire the LSAT mindset are likely to intensively study in law school and eventually get the law school mindset.

For more information on its predictive validity for 1L GPA, I highly recommend checking out a study conducted by Marjorie Schultz and Sheldon Zedeck. They're the two professors behind the Looking Beyond the LSAT project.

In reviewing past studies, they report LSAT and undergraduate GPA are both good predictors of 1L GPA, with LSAT being a better predictor than undergraduate GPA. The LSAT alone has a correlation of .35, undergraduate GPA alone has a correlation of .28. Together, they have a correlation of .49 with 1L GPA. See page 61 of their study, "Identification, Development, and Validation of Predictors for Successful Lawyering" (PDF).

An excellent point Schultz and Zedeck make, however, is that 1L GPA should not be the only variable measured. For instance, we should also concern ourselves with students' law school GPAs as a whole and students' future success in the field of law. This is what Looking Beyond the LSAT's proposed test would attempt to do by adding a personality component. However, just as the LSAT mentality can be learned, students can learn to display desired personality traits, even if only for the purposes of an additional exam.

6. Finally, on a personal level, what inspired you to become an LSAT tutor?

You might think I'm crazy for saying this, but I actually enjoy the LSAT. It's a better exam than most despite the fact that it, like most exams, is "learnable." It's rewarding to see students feel themselves "getting smarter" as they learn the LSAT mindset.

Photo by garryknight

Continue Reading...»

LSAT Logic at LSAC | Secret PrepTests

This post is Part 6 of the "Secret PrepTests" series. The series starts with "The Case of the Secret LSAT PrepTests."

In this post, I discuss the Law School Admission Council's (LSAC's) response to LSAT Blog reader Polina's email. I find LSAC guilty of an LSAT-style logical fallacy. Hilarity ensues.

Polina wrote (abridged and slightly-edited below):

I am sending this email in regards to the fact there have been no recent books of 10 PrepTests. It is a common conception that LSAC is doing this to create scarcity and to benefit the prep companies rather than the students studying for the exams. If LSAC "is a nonprofit corporation whose goal is to provide the highest quality admission-related services for legal education institutions and their applicants throughout the world," why have some of the recent tests NECESSARY for study become either unavailable or significantly more expensive? There is an obvious demand for these tests, considering for example, LSAT 39 has already become unavailable from Amazon."

An LSAC "Candidate Communication Analyst" responded:

We are planning a new book of ten PrepTests to be published in 2011, when we expect to have ten PrepTests with Comparative Reading items in them for inclusion in the new book.

We remove some from the list each year because very few people are interested in buying the older individual tests. With all of the products we offer, there are nearly 50 PrepTests available, providing an abundance of practice opportunities. We will sell individual copies of unlisted PrepTests upon request.

If this email is correct, I'm certainly glad to hear about the upcoming book of 10 exams.

However, the response to Polina contradicts the same analyst's email to me on 4/24/09:

There are no current plans to publish a new book of ten LSATs.

Either his 4/24 email to me was incorrect, his recent email to Polina was incorrect, or LSAC changed its policy sometime between then and now.

It also contradicts what an LSAC representative told me over the phone:

They [LSAC's Publications Department] have no plans to publish a follow-up book of 10 actual LSAT exams. It hasn't been discussed...They [PrepTests 39-42] were selling fine.

At the beginning of this blog post, I promised to demonstrate a logical fallacy in the LSAC analyst's argument. Did you find it? Scroll back up to his email and look again.

***

Ready? Okay. Here it is:

The LSAC analyst writes: "We remove some [PrepTests] from the list each year because very few people are interested in buying the older individual tests."

This is a logical fallacy worthy of inclusion in a future LSAT Logical Reasoning question. Since it's unlikely LSAC would ever write a question that points out a flaw in its own policies, I'll write the question stem and correct answer.

If the above quote from the email were the stimulus of the question, here's a potential question stem:

"The LSAC representative's argument is most vulnerable to criticism on which one of the following grounds?"

Correct answer: "It fails to consider the possibility that the high cost of older individually-sold PrepTests is the primary cause of the decrease in sales of these exams."

It's unlikely there's actually a lack of demand or interest in these exams, despite the analyst's suggestion. PrepTests 39-42 are certainly more relevant to LSAT preparation than the 3 books of 10 exams LSAC currently sells. Newer exams are more relevant because the exam changes over time.

So then why might PrepTests 39-42 sell less than the older books of 10? The decrease in sales is probably due to their higher cost. The analyst neglects to consider that the cost of the exams affects students' purchasing patterns.

Many students find the cost of purchasing all PrepTests from 39-56 @ $8/exam prohibitive. Instead of buying all 18 exams at $8/exam, they prioritize and choose not to buy the older exams out of the $8 ones.

If these exams were bundled into a book containing PrepTests 39-48 (or even 39-51 - do there always have to be 10 per book?), students would buy them.

If LSAC wants the books to only contain 10 exams each, it could pick 2 from 39-51 to make available for free download.

LSAC could then publish a book containing exams 52-61. The June 2007 LSAT, which comes between 51 and 52, is already a free download (PDF), so it wouldn't make sense to include it in the book of 10.

Question for LSAC: "Why should newer exams fade into obscurity and become difficult to obtain while LSAC continues to publish older (less relevant) exams?"

Furthermore, the analyst writes to Polina, "We will sell individual copies of unlisted PrepTests upon request."

LSAC's website contains no suggestion that exams 39-42 are available upon request. When I emailed to ask the analyst how students could obtain these exams, he simply stated that they were no longer being published. He did not say that it's still possible to purchase them.

Bottom line: While the analyst's email, if true, is certainly welcome news, it doesn't address the majority of concerns I raised in this series of posts.

Unless LSAC has conducted some survey of which I am unaware, many students preparing for the LSAT are interested in these exams. Either LSAC doesn't know you're interested, or it just doesn't care.

Whichever it is, let LSAC know that you want these exams to be easily available to the public.

You can email LSAC at LSACInfo[at]LSAC[dot]org or call them at 215-968-1001 (then press 0).

As I said before, please be firm but polite. The people answering the emails and phones aren't evil, and they're not the ones making the decisions. Just ask the representatives to pass your feedback along to those who do make the decisions.

If LSAC contacts me with anything substantive, I'll publish it on the blog.

Photo by cesarastudilo

Continue Reading...»

How to Speed Up on Timed Practice LSAT Exams

In the final month of your LSAT preparation, you should take full, timed, practice exams.

Some of you have difficulty transitioning from untimed sections to timed ones. With the added pressure of timed 35-minute sections, sometimes you lose track of the fundamentals. This post will help you stick to them.

Once you already have a strong foundation in the various sections of the LSAT, most of your mistakes will be careless.

This means you missed the key words in the stimulus or answer choices.

That one word you skip or neglect can totally change the meaning.

Of course, it all comes down to being careful, but sometimes that isn't enough.

Taking PrepTest sections untimed is kind of like riding a bike with training wheels. It may look similar to riding a two-wheeler bike, but it's a very different experience from the real thing..

Finding your center of gravity was a gradual process with a patient parent or older sibling slowly letting go.

Leading us to...

2 tips for students scoring below 165

1. Adjust to the 35-minute limit
Adjusting to timed sections may be difficult, so gradually cut down the time you allow yourself per section. There are only 2 1/2 weeks until June 8th, so you'll have to start this now.

If you've only been doing untimed sections, consider giving yourself 40 minutes/section in your next practice exam, then decrease 1 minute/section on each of your next exams: 39, 38, 37, etc...down to 34 or 33. You want to have a small cushion to review anything of which you were unsure. Don't forget to leave time to grid your answers!

2. Consider not answering every question
If you're struggling to make it into the 150s, it may not be realistic for you to answer every question.

If this describes you, and if you're okay with admitting that you may not get in the 160s or 170s on Test Day, consider the following tips:

On Logical Reasoning, consider taking more time for the easier questions (the earlier ones in each Logical Reasoning section).

On Logic Games, consider skipping the hardest Logic Game. (It could be any of the games, but generally not the 1st. It also varies from person to person and from exam to exam).

On Reading Comprehension, consider skipping the passage's topic you dislike the most. Topics typically include: Humanities, Law, Natural Science, and Social Science. (Although, as I've always said, the topic shouldn't matter!) Alternatively, you might consider skipping the Comparative Reading passage.


A tip for students scoring around or above 165
Even if you're not expecting to get 165+, this tip may help you, but use it at your own risk.

-Answer the first 10 Logical Reasoning questions in 10 minutes.
Another trick many students use is to complete the first 10 Logical Reasoning questions in 10 minutes.

The benefit: the first 10 LR questions tend to be the easiest in the section. Getting through them quickly gives you more time for the more difficult questions towards the end.


Along those lines...

Remember that the average time per game or passage is not your actual limit.
Remember 8 mins and 45 secs (35 mins divided by 4 games or passages) is just the average amount of time you have for each Logic Game and Reading Comprehension passage. You'll find some LG and RC easier than others. Believe it or not, some games and passages are solvable in less than 6 minutes. For this reason, don't force yourself to complete each in the average allotted time. You can use the time you save on the easier ones for the harder ones.

Reviewing the fundamentals
However, you might still find timed sections unbearably frustrating even after you've already eased yourself into doing them. If this describes you, it may simply be that you lack a strong foundation in certain question types. Take a few days to slowly analyze your approach to the question types that give you difficulty. Don't be afraid to spend even 5-10 minutes looking at a question that you answered incorrectly or were unsure about.

As you begin to acquire the LSAT mindset, you'll adjust to the timing aspect of the exam.

If I haven't yet answered your pressing question, leave a comment!

Photo by thatguyfromcchs08

Continue Reading...»

5 Signs of LSAT Burnout, and How to Recover From It

As the LSAT approaches, you've probably started clutching your PrepTests for protection. Your friends have started to compare you to Linus from the Peanuts comic, who carries his blanket wherever he goes.

However, if you've been studying for a while, you might be sick of the LSAT by now. Your body might start to reject the LSAT like an organ transplant gone wrong.

So how do you continue to prepare when you feel like you just can't take it anymore, but the LSAT's still a couple of weeks away?

More importantly, how do you know whether your aversion to the LSAT is due to burnout or laziness? Believe it or not, people sometimes mistake one for the other.

Here are some tips to help you determine whether it's burnout or laziness, and, if it's the former, how to deal with it.

Burnout vs. Laziness

1. Average PrepTest scores drop
If your PrepTest scores have recently dropped below your average PrepTest score, it's probably burnout.

If your score was never high to begin with, it's probably laziness.


2. Careless mistakes
If most of your recent mistakes are due to carelessness, rather than a lack of understanding, it's probably burnout.

If you just make a lot of mistakes in general, it's probably laziness.


3. Studying but feel like it's going nowhere
If you've done several practice exams recently and feel like it's going nowhere, it's probably burnout.

If you haven't done anything recently and feel like you're studying's going nowhere, it's probably laziness.


4. Feel guilty for taking short breaks
If you took a break from studying for an hour and felt guilty, it's probably burnout.

If you took a break from studying for a month and felt guilty, it's probably laziness.


5. Studying 10 hours per day
If you study for 10 hours per day, it's probably burnout.

If you think about the LSAT for several hours every day, and you count those hours as actual studying, it's probably laziness. (Note: lawyers often bill for this kind of "work" too, so you'll be in good company after graduating from law school)


If you've identified your problem as laziness, read 5 Reasons to Stay Motivated During LSAT Prep.

If your problem is burnout, read on.

How to recover from LSAT burnout
You may just need a break to recharge your batteries.

The burned-out student might say, "But I can't stop studying now! The test is 2 1/2 weeks away, and I still have another 30 PrepTests to finish before then."

You may not have any brain cells remaining if you try to do that many PrepTests in such a short period of time.

The LSAT's like riding a bike. Memorization's not involved, so cramming won't work. Sure, there are some things you need to remember. However, if taking a day or two off makes you forget them, you probably didn't understand them in the first place. The LSAT is about skills and a particular mindset, not facts.

So take a day or two off and exercise, watch a TV show or two, whatever you like to do to unwind.

Then rebuild your confidence by redoing your favorite Logic Games, Logical Reasoning questions, or Reading Comprehension passages. This will help you get back in the groove and gear you up to get back on schedule (see Daily LSAT Schedule Recommendations).

Photo by apelad / CC BY-NC-ND 2.0

Continue Reading...»

Why NOT to use Adderall and NoDoz to Study for the LSAT

Students often take Adderall and NoDoz in a misguided attempt to study the LSAT 10 hours a day, which is just too much. You don't want to end up like Jessie Spano from Saved by the Bell, a classic burnout case.

I'm not a healthcare expert, so I certainly advise you to do your own research. If you actually have the condition for which Adderall and similar medications are prescribed, this post does not apply to you. This post is written for those who do not have ADD or ADHD but seek out these drugs for a "boost." Since it's a common misconception that study drugs are uniformly helpful on the LSAT, I'd like to offer some evidence to the contrary.

Negative in the long-term
Needless to say, caffeine or Adderall may give you a short-term boost, but both can lead to psychological dependence - in short, they're addictive. Using Adderall without a prescription is illegal. Besides, if you "need" pills for the LSAT, will you also "need" them throughout law school, studying for the bar, and throughout your career?

Stimulants can hurt more than they help
Adderall and other stimulants may actually hurt your LSAT performance more than they help. Additionally, they can cause sleep deprivation.

The intense concentration these stimulants allow may actually prevent the creative "thinking-outside-the-box" mindset that some Logical Reasoning questions require. The drugs can also bog you down in the details of Reading Comprehension passages, where reading for structure is more important.

Since I'm not a psychiatrist or neuroscientist, I'd like to refer you to a recent article in the New Yorker, "Brain Gain: The underground world of “neuroenhancing” drugs."


A few excerpts from the New Yorker article
This excerpt supports the idea that Adderall may harm your ability to do Logical Reasoning and Reading Comp:

That afternoon, he went to the library, where he spent “too much time researching a paper rather than actually writing it—a problem, I can assure you, that is common to all intellectually curious students on stimulants.”

So does this one:

“It only works as a cognitive enhancer insofar as you are dedicated to accomplishing the task at hand,” he said. “The number of times I’ve taken Adderall late at night and decided that, rather than starting my paper, hey, I’ll organize my entire music library! I’ve seen people obsessively cleaning their rooms on it.”

This one discusses addiction and side effects:

Drugs such as Adderall can cause nervousness, headaches, sleeplessness, and decreased appetite, among other side effects. An F.D.A. warning on Adderall’s label notes that “amphetamines have a high potential for abuse” and can lead to dependence. (The label also mentions that adults using Adderall have reported serious cardiac problems, though the role of the drug in those cases is unknown.)

Bottom line on study drugs: They may hurt more than they help. It's much healthier and safer to exercise. Regular exercise will help your sleep patterns. Eating a healthy diet (which includes breakfast!) with plenty of protein will keep your mind sharp.

Photo by alexdoddphotography / CC BY-NC-ND 2.0

Continue Reading...»

LSAT Logical Reasoning: Asteroids, Dinosaurs, and Volcanoes

A list of Common LSAT Logical Reasoning Topics I wrote back in March contained "Dinosaur extinction, ice ages, volcanoes, and asteroids."

If you've done a couple of LSAT Logical Reasoning sections, you've probably seen a question or two on this topic. If you didn't believe that scientists actually make logical fallacies like the ones you've seen on the LSAT, prepare to be blown away.

An LSAT student of mine, Nick, (he also found an article I used in "LSAT Logic In The Economist"), pointed me to a National Science Foundation press release entitled, "New blow for dinosaur-killing asteroid theory."

Unfortunately for the National Science Foundation, the "blow" was not the exposure of a logical fallacy underlying the dinosaur-killing asteroid theory.

Instead, the press release actually commits a few logical fallacies.

Take a look at the press release and see if you can spot them. I'll dissect relevant portions of the press release below.

***

Flaw #1

At one site at El Penon, the researchers found 52 species present in sediments below the impact spherule layer, and counted all 52 still present in layers above the spherules..."We found that not a single species went extinct as a result of the Chicxulub impact," says Keller."

There might have been species other than those 52 prior to impact that simply were not found in that layer. Those species could have died off after impact, and we simply have no record of them ever existing, period.


Flaw #2

This conclusion should not come as too great a surprise, she says. None of the other great mass extinctions are associated with an impact, and no other large craters are known to have caused a significant extinction event.

She's saying it's not a surprise because they haven't found other asteroids to cause extinctions. Maybe previous studies have made flaws similar to the first one I note above. She's taking a lack of evidence found thus far as confirmation that there is no evidence.


Flaw #3

"We found that not a single species went extinct as a result of the Chicxulub impact," says Keller...Keller suggests that the massive volcanic eruptions at the Deccan Traps in India may be responsible for the extinction, releasing huge amounts of dust and gases that could have blocked out sunlight and brought about a significant greenhouse effect.

The asteroid's effect on the extinction could have been indirect and delayed. The asteroid's impact could have caused the volcanic eruptions that potentially led to the extinction.

Note: This post meshes incredibly well with PrepTest 10, Section 1, Question 15.

(You can find PrepTest 10 in 10 Actual Official LSAT PrepTests, which I've reviewed in the Best LSAT Prep Books post.)

Photo by somebodysmom / CC BY-NC-ND 2.0

(Didn't see a Creative Commons photo that included Asteroids, Dinosaurs, and Volcanoes all in one photo.) Continue Reading...»

Cornell Law Admissions Dean | Rankings Article

Back in April, I interviewed Cornell Law admissions dean Richard Geiger.

He wrote a great article for the New York Law Journal this week on law school rankings. Among other things, he discusses admissions committees' overemphasis on LSAT and GPA as a result of the rankings. Check it out!

Photo by haarald / CC BY-SA 2.0 Continue Reading...»

The Case of the Secret LSAT PrepTests

This week's posts consist of a 5-part series on "The Case of the Secret LSAT PrepTests."

The Case of the Secret LSAT PrepTests - Part 1
If you've looking into getting recent LSAT PrepTests (past LSAT exams - the best material for studying), you've probably been annoyed that the only way to purchase the exams after PrepTest 38 is to pay $8/exam. ($6/exam if you buy in multiples of 4 on Amazon. They're all linked in Best LSAT Prep Books.)

You've probably wondered why the Law School Admission Council (LSAC) hasn't published another book of 10 exams containing PrepTests 39-48 and called it something like "The Next 10 After the Next 10 Actual, Official, LSAT PrepTests" or "Even 10 More Actual, Official, LSAT PrepTests." That would've been the next logical step, given the trend thus far. After all, I figured one purpose of publishing books of 10 exams was to lower the barrier to affordable preparation by allowing students to pay $2/exam.

This mythical book of 10 should have come out after December 2005 (when PrepTest 48 was administered).

I recently called LSAC at 215-968-1001, pressed 0, and spoke with Pat, a sweet woman who didn't have many answers for me. The below excerpts of our conversation are not word-for-word, but they're pretty close.

Steve: When does LSAC plan to publish another book of 10 exams?

Pat: They have no plans to publish a follow-up book of 10 actual LSAT exams. It hasn't been discussed.

I'd also learned through LSAC's website (click on "The Official LSAT PrepTests") that it was no longer selling PrepTests 39, 40, 41, and 42. This meant that not only has LSAC failed to publish another book of 10 exams, forcing students to pay $8/exam, and not only is its shipping incredibly slow, but now it's made PrepTests 39-42 difficult to obtain.

Me: Were these exams not selling well?

Pat: They were selling fine. They [the Publications Department] just decided to stop publishing them because new exams were coming out. Next year, they'll probably stop publishing PrepTests 43 and 44 as new exams are released.

If students want the exams, and if a drop in demand for these exams is unlikely to happen anytime soon, LSAC shouldn't stop publishing them. Given that students need several recent LSAT PrepTests in order to adequately prepare, there's no reason to impose scarcity. PrepTest 39 is already out of stock on Amazon. The same will eventually happen to the others.

Me: If LSAC isn't going to sell these exams, why not release them for free download?

Pat: They haven't made that decision. I don't know why.

If LSAC isn't going to sell them, and distribution cost is virtually zero, why not?

I'm sure LSAC cares about:

-increasing diversity in the legal profession
-closing the achievement gap
-reducing the barriers for low-income future law students

However, its actions (lucrative licensing agreements with prep companies) speak louder than its words (DiscoverLaw.org and the Pipeline Diversity Directory).

What licensing agreements? LSAC gives prep companies the right to reprint LSAT PrepTests, but for the right to reprint these exams, LSAC charges the companies quite a bit. With 61 released PrepTests, 60 of which are available for licensing (supposedly - several companies print the 61st exam, the February 1997 PrepTest, anyway), those numbers add up.

I emailed LSAC at LSACInfo[at]LSAC[dot]org to ask about this (under a pseudonym). Emails below are edited for brevity.

Steve: A few questions for the publications department:

1. Does LSAC allow prep companies to reprint exams 1-6, 8, 17, and 39-42 for their students? [Ed: PrepTests 1-6, 8, and 17 also aren't directly available to students.]

2. How much do prep companies pay LSAC for the right to reprint them?

3. If members of the public can only acquire these exams through a prep course, this appears fairly discriminatory to those who cannot afford to take a prep course. How do you respond?

Publications Dept. Representative: Attached is a copy of our test-question licensing policy for your review. It should answer most of the questions you have. [Ed: See Part 4 for details.]

The rep was apparently so excited to see someone interested in the licensing process that she forgot to read my 3rd question. I continued emailing the conversation to see what else I could learn.

Steve: Is it possible to license PrepTests 47-56?
Publications Rep: Yes. All PT are available to be licensed.

Why You Should Care About the Secret PrepTests

PrepTests 1-6, 8, and 17 were administered in the early 1990s, so they're less relevant than newer ones. The main reason to do them is if your goal is to complete every LSAT PrepTest (admirable, but certainly not necessary). So why else should you care? It's the principle of the thing.

However, PrepTests 39-42 are recent (2002-2003), so they're relevant (and, in my opinion, required) prep material.

To paraphrase an old saying, "When PrepTests 39-42 are outlawed, only outlaws will have PrepTests 39-42."

I hope the irony isn't lost on LSAC. Many students will break the law (by downloading PDFs of these "secret PrepTests") in order to become lawyers.

Differences in the Cost of PrepTests
I did some calculations using LSAC's licensing policy and additional emails from Felicia.

If you're a prep company, you can get 60 exams for a total of $194. If you're a student, you can only get 49 exams, but you have to pay $208. (See Part 3 for my calculations.)

Students pay LSAC more than prep companies but get less in return. Is it just me, or this is backwards?

***
Read on for Part 2, "Official LSAT PrepTest February 1997."

Photo by mwichary / CC BY 2.0

Continue Reading...»

Official LSAT PrepTest February 1997

This post is Part 2 of the "Secret PrepTests" series. The series starts with "The Case of the Secret LSAT PrepTests."

In this post, I find LSAT prep companies claim to provide students with the February 1997 LSAT. However, LSAC claims that it's not available for licensing. I go on to discuss a few possible explanations for these differences and reflect on their importance.

What Prep Companies Say:
The LSAT prep companies take advantage of their unique access to PrepTests. Here's what several large prep companies say. All emphasis is added.

1. "We license all of the available LSAT tests, so you will have access to all of the LSAT questions since 1991...We have every single released LSAT since the June 1991 LSAT...including the February LSAT administrations from 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1999, and 2000..."

2. "Our Full-Length course includes every currently licensable LSAT question...practice exams included in the Weekend Course materials are....Feb97..."

3. "We do provide students with every released question, through our practice exams and the questions we use in our course materials..."

4. "[W]e have every released LSAT on file...That includes the tests that you mentioned [February 1997 and SuperPrep]..."

5. "[E]very question ever released from LSAT (sic) is included in our materials...We do offer the Feb. 1997 test...If it's been released by LSAC, you're going to have it in your hands..."

The difference between released and licensable is the February 1997 LSAT.

Released means the exam was available at some point in time.

Licensable means LSAC currently grants the right to reprint it.


What LSAC Says:

The LSAC publications dept. representative, said via email, "We haven’t included [the] Feb 1997 [LSAT] in the licensing program."

Why wouldn't LSAC want prep companies to use it?

I suspect LSAC prefers that students pay $18 for LSAC's ItemWise, the online version of the February 1997 LSAT. LSAC originally sold it as the "Official LSAT PrepTest with Explanations," which is now out of print.

However, as you saw above, prep companies claim to provide students with, or give them access to, the February 1997 LSAT.

In an attempt to figure out this puzzle, I've looked over the coursebooks from a couple of these prep companies. In doing so, I found specific copies of questions from the February 1997 LSAT, so at least some of the companies that claim to provide it aren't lying.

In the spirit of the LSAT, I will treat this as a Logical Reasoning "Resolve the Paradox" question. A few potential explanations come to mind:

1. The prep companies reprint these questions without LSAC's knowledge and pay no licensing fees for them at all.

2. The prep companies reprint these questions with LSAC's knowledge, but LSAC doesn't care. Perhaps LSAC makes enough from other licensing fees to look the other way.

3. Both LSAC's representative and the licensing policy are incorrect, and the Feb 1997 LSAT is, or has been, available for licensing by prep companies.


Prep Companies Pay:
$0 = if LSAC doesn't license these exams, which seems to be the case.

or

$3 = I'm guesstimating, but this is the cost to license each of the SuperPrep exams (as I learn in Part 4), which are from the same time period.


Students Pay:
$18 for online-access only (impossible to print or resell), but it includes LSAC explanations.


Why You Should Care
The exam is fairly old, so like PrepTests 1-6, 8, and 17, it's certainly not necessary. However, the cost is unreasonably and inexplicably high. At the very least, the cost should be lower, and the exam should be printable. Again, it's the principle of the thing.

***
Read on for Part 3, "Cost of LSAT PrepTests | Prep Course vs. Self-Study."

Continue Reading...»