Daily LSAT Schedule | Recommendations For Each Day

Question: How much should I study each day for the LSAT?

Answer: As much as you can without burning out. If your exam is in the next few months, try to average 2-3 hours per day.

Question: That's impossible! How can I fit in those hours?

Answer: Here's one possible daily schedule:

1 hour before work/school
1 hour during lunch OR 1 hour at your office desk during "downtime"
1 hour after work/school

Wake up at the crack of dawn to study if you have to. Learn to love the LSAT. If you do, it's a heckuva lot easier to drag yourself out of bed.

Same goes for evenings. Do you think the 170-scorers are watching Netflix after work? Nope. They're hitting the LSAT books. Wait for your TV shows to come out on DVD or watch them on streaming after the exam (if you must).

If you ask a swim coach, "How much should I swim in order to be the next Michael Phelps?", the coach will laugh and shove you into the pool.

The answer is, "If you have to ask, you don't want this badly enough. Swim every free moment you've got and during the moments you don't have, too."

How do you get more free moments?

Don't schedule studying around your other obligations/distractions. Schedule your other obligations/distractions around studying. Postpone your other obligations whenever possible.

Studying for the LSAT diligently is a part-time job at a minimum. Unless you have a lot of free time, now's not the time to begin training for a marathon (although moderate exercise is excellent for your brain). Your friends (and the marathon) will still be there after the LSAT.

Hardest LSAT: Feb, June, Oct, or Dec?

Which LSAT is the hardest? Rumor has it the February LSAT is the toughest exam each year. This rumor probably originated because February's exam is traditionally undisclosed, leading to an air of mystery arond it.

Believe me, if the LSAT-writers are smart enough to write this exam, they're smart enough to realize people are going to analyze it for patterns of difficulty between months. If one month's exam were consistently tougher than another's, you would have heard about it by now, and the test-makers would have corrected this huge mistake.

Sure, the Logic Games on one exam may be "easier" than those on another. While there's some agreement about particular Logic Games being harder than others, one person may find a game to be easy while another finds it difficult. Everyone has different strengths and weaknesses.

However, one test-taker will not automatically get a higher score if his/her games are easier and he/she answers more questions correctly as a result. After all, this is a "standardized" test. Your LSAT score is determined by taking the number of questions you answer correctly (your raw score) and converting into a score from 120 to 180 based upon the performance of previous test-takers, who took those sections as their "experimental section."

Bottom line: When it comes to question difficulty, no particular month's LSAT is consistently easier or harder than another's. Even if it were the case, it wouldn't matter. Take the LSAT when you're ready.

5 Reasons I Secretly Enjoy Logic Games

Some of you email me to say how much you hate the LSAT. I already wrote a series on why I love the LSAT, but some of you still aren't convinced. I'm not giving up.

Here are the top 5 reasons I enjoy Logic Games:

1. They're like sudoku.

2. It's satisfying to make a solid diagram and then quickly answer the questions.

3. Although the topic never matters, it's fun to make fun of the games' goofy topics.

4. After jumping from one question type to another in Logical Reasoning, it's nice to finally have a bunch of related questions.

5. It's the easiest section to learn. Really.

LSAC's Official Guide to Law Schools

Want more law school data than you'll ever need?

LSAC's site can be difficult to navigate, but it's full of useful information. One especially useful section is its "Official Guide to Law Schools."

You can search it by clicking on All Law Schools. Then, use the top navigation bar to sort law schools according to a variety of different factors and get more information on each.

LSAC's Rules for Changing Your LSAT Test Date

Update: See Cancel, Postpone, or Absent?

I would like to point you all to two recent posts on Anna Ivey's blog. Also, see my interview with Anna Ivey on LSAT Blog if you haven't already.

The two posts are:

1. New Rule for Changing Your LSAT Test Date

2. A Law School Professor's Advice to an Applicant

Along the lines of the first post linked above, here's some last-minute news about LSAT registration fee waivers:

Current Fee Waiver Forms Extended Until April 25, 2009

If you are seeking a fee waiver for the June 2009 LSAT, you may use the current fee waiver form, even though it states that it should not be used after March 1. Apply for this fee waiver using 2007 tax forms. LSAC will continue to accept the current fee waiver form until April 25. If your fee waiver is approved, you will still have time to register for the June 2009 LSAT administration.

Cornell Law School Admissions Dean | Interview

This is the 4th post in the "Better Know a Law School" series. Richard Geiger is Cornell Law School’s Associate Dean for Enrollment and Communications. He received his law degree from Boston University and after clerking for a federal district court judge, practiced at law firms in Washington, D.C. and Boston. From 2003-2005, he served as Chairman of the Board of the Law School Admission Council. Cornell ranked 12th among law schools in US News and World Report this year.

1. What's special about Cornell's international law program? What can someone specializing in international law do during their time at Cornell and beyond?

International law has been a signature program at Cornell for a very long time. What makes it special at this point is that it covers not just the curricular elements you would expect from a top law school, but the programmatic and institutional elements as well. For example, even though we’re a relatively small law school, we have formal study abroad relationships with 15 different law schools around the world; we offer summer institutes in Paris and Suzhou, China; and our degree possibilities include two different U.S./French law degrees, a U.S./German law degree, a three-year J.D./ LL.M. in international and comparative law, and a J.D. with a specialization in international legal affairs. We’re also part of a truly wonderful university that has a wide range of international area studies and other programs that are available to our students for course credit, or just for enrichment. All of this means that our students end up with excellent career options in both private and public international law.


2. The FAQ section of your website emphasizes that all applications are read thoroughly. Would you please describe the typical application review process and how much time is devoted to each part of the application?

Our process is aimed at getting to know the answers to two basic questions: (1) is the person likely to thrive academically at our school; and (2) will he or she be the kind of person who will actively engage not only the classroom environment, but everything else that goes on here. To assess these things, we rely on every part of the application. There is no real formula to it because everyone is different. In fact, we shy away from numerical cut-offs and mechanical approaches precisely because we don’t want to miss people for whom the numbers simply aren’t good predictors of success. Remember, we’re a small school and we can’t hide admissions mistakes. This gives us a strong incentive to get it right.


3. Your website makes it seem like professors are accessible to students 24/7. While I'm exaggerating here, are they really that down-to-earth and open to student contact? How do they have the time? Shouldn't they spend their time writing in journals and taking cases to court?

Great question. How is it that our faculty can consistently be rated as top scholars and top teachers, and still have time to engage with our students personally? The short answer is that the faculty/student culture really encourages and supports full engagement. Our faculty are consumed not just with their scholarly activities, but with having a real impact on our students. Plus, don’t forget that many of our students are already very accomplished people who faculty enjoy getting to know as individuals. The long answer will require a visit to our school. Spend a day here while we’re in session and all will be made clear! I promise.


4. Anything else?

Just a couple of things: First, city people are often worried about what it will be like in Ithaca for three years. My response to that is to remember that we’re part of a very large university (19,000 or so) and that Ithaca is a very lively place. But more importantly, remember that the law is essentially an urban profession. The common denominator for most of our graduates is that they end up in a major urban area. So, for most of our students, their time in Ithaca may literally be the only time they’ll be able to experience the wonderful lifestyle that a place like Ithaca offers. Second, most people tell me that once they start to get to know more about Cornell they are amazed at the wide range of possibilities we are able to offer our students even though we’re relatively small and not located in a big city. Of course, once again, a visit is the best way to discover the surprises that Cornell and Ithaca offer.

Conditional Reasoning: Contrapositive, Mistaken Reversal, Mistaken Negation

What is the contrapositive? What do mistaken reversal (converse) and mistaken negation (converse) look like on the LSAT?

While each bite-sized Logical Reasoning argument and each Logic Games rule may seem impossible to understand, they're pretty manageable once you've got a grip on the basics.

In this article, I'll share the basics of conditional reasoning with you.

Original statement:
If I tutor the LSAT in Manhattan, then I tutor the LSAT in New York City.

Symbolized:
Manhattan -> NYC


Mistaken reversal / converse (invalid):
If I tutor the LSAT in New York City, then I tutor the LSAT in Manhattan.

Symbolized:
NYC -> Manhattan

False because this statement implies that I tutor in a different part of NYC (Brooklyn, Queens, Staten Island, or the Bronx).


Mistaken negation / inverse (invalid):
If I do not tutor the LSAT in Manhattan, then I do not tutor the LSAT in New York City.

Symbolized:
Manhattan -> NYC

Again, this statement is false because I could be in another borough of NYC.


Contrapositive (valid):
If I do not tutor the LSAT in New York City, then I do not tutor the LSAT in Manhattan.

Symbolized:
NYC -> Manhattan

This is true. It's impossible for me to tutor the LSAT in Manhattan if don't tutor the LSAT in NYC because Manhattan is in NYC.


It's worth noting the mistaken reversal and mistaken negation are the contrapositives OF EACH OTHER. They are logically equivalent. Why? Because they're flawed for the same reason - they confuse necessary and sufficient conditions.

The sufficient condition:
-appears to the left of the arrow in the "symbolized" sections above
-is often indicated by the words "if" and "when"
-is enough to cause the necessary condition to follow, but it's not necessarily required for the necessary condition to occur
-serves as the evidence

The necessary condition:
-appears to the right of the arrow in the "symbolized" sections above
-is often indicated by the words "then" and "must"
-often appears after a comma
-is required by the sufficient condition
-serves as the conclusion

Why this is important:
Breaking down which parts of the argument are sufficient and necessary allows you to determine the evidence and conclusion. This helps you figure out potential flaws and opportunities to strengthen/weaken the argument.

Further reading:
Wikipedia's article on the contrapositive is solid.

5 Steps to Solving Weaken Logical Reasoning Questions

What do you do when you see a Weaken Logical Reasoning question, aside from hiding under your bed?

Weaken questions don't have to be tough, although they can seem that way at first. Unless you frequently engage in structured debates, you're probably used to fixing things and making them better - not breaking them and exposing their flaws. Here's a step-by-step approach to help you solve every Weaken question.

1. Recognize that it's a Weaken question.
Some weaken question stems:
"Which one of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?"

"Which one of the following, if true, is evidence that the explanation given above is only a partial one?"

"Which one of the following, if true, most calls into question the argument..."

2. Look for the main flaw (if present).
It will make some unwarranted (and unstated) assumption - the missing (and weakest) link between premises/evidence and conclusion.

3. Attack the assumption and scan for answer choice that exposes the flaw.
Expose the gap between the evidence and conclusion. The correct answer may expose the argument to the flaw by:

-promoting an alternative possibility
-denying the evidence's relevance to the conclusion
-attacking the evidence's validity (for example, saying a supporting survey or study was not properly conducted)
-providing evidence to attack the conclusion

4. Remember that the answer choices can contain information not mentioned in the stimulus.
Why? Because the question stem says "if true" or "if...assumed."

5. Remember that in "Weaken EXCEPT" questions, 4 will weaken the argument, and 1 will not.
The 1 that doesn't weaken will either strengthen or have no effect. In logic, the opposite of weaken is "not weaken."

Law School Admissions Index: LSAT vs. GPA Ranking

How exactly do admissions officers weigh your LSAT score and GPA? Well, it's complicated.

Law School Admissions Index: LSAT vs. GPA

LSAC's website will help you calculate your chances at various law schools. It uses each law school's "admissions index" (a formula unique to each school weighing LSAT and GPA) and contains data from the Fall 2007 admissions cycle.

Enter your undergraduate GPA and (presumed) LSAT score. Sort the results by likelihood in descending order to see at which schools you have the highest likelihood of success.

Enjoy!

Yale Law Journal Editor-in-Chief | Interview

I recently interviewed Ben Taibleson, current Editor-in-Chief of the Yale Law Journal (on Wikipedia), via email. Our discussion follows.

1. How did you become Editor-in-Chief of the Yale Law Journal?

The Yale Law Journal Editor-in-Chief is elected by the full membership of the Journal. The EIC candidates first submitted written materials outlining why we wanted the position and how we felt about a set of Journal policy questions. We then gave a short speech and answered questions at a pre-election forum. Each Journal member then ranked the EIC candidates, and the rankings were used to determine the winner.


2. Would you please explain how a typical volume of the journal is put together?

The Yale Law Journal is composed of lengthy faculty-written articles, shorter, often solicited, faculty-written work and very high-quality Yale Law student pieces. The Journal receives thousands of submissions for each volume, so a great deal of work goes into selecting our content. We also put a lot of time and energy into our multi-stage editing process. Each volume's scholarship is then divided into a number of issues and distributed electronically and in print.


3. How do you manage to balance your YLJ responsibilities and all your reading?

I am heavily involved in just about everything the Journal does, so my YLJ responsibilities are proving to be very substantial. My predecessor has given me a ton of great advice on how to strike a healthy balance, though, and my colleagues are so talented and hardworking that my job won't be as tough as it otherwise might . The quantity of work borders on the absurd, but it's a lot of fun, and I am incredibly lucky to have the privilege to do it. I doubt that many people with real jobs, kids, etc. would shed too many tears for my entirely voluntary workload.


Ben Taibleson was born outside Chicago and grew up in Milwaukee. He studied Economics and Political Science at the University of Wisconsin, where he was elected to Phi Beta Kappa, and spent a year traveling and working in Africa and Asia before starting at Yale Law. His father is an attorney and his mother a high school dance teacher in Milwaukee; he has two exceedingly talented younger brothers whom he loves very much.

Formal vs. Informal Logic in LSAT Logical Reasoning

As we saw in my interview with Dr. Deborah Bennett (author of Logic Made Easy) a few weeks ago, both formal and informal logic are necessary in everyday life. Here are some examples of both formal and informal logic for those of you who haven't had a chance to get your hands on a copy of Logic Made Easy yet.

Formal logic
Formal arguments tend to be simple, straightforward, and extreme.

Example:

Everyone in Manhattan lives in NYC. Everyone in NYC lives in New York State. Therefore, everyone in Manhattan lives in New York State.

There are no assumptions here - it's mathematical, and the evidence fully justifies the conclusion.

Represented in symbols, we can therefore say:
Manhattan -> NYC. NYC -> NYS. Therefore, Manhattan -> NYS.

Change the topic to something about climate change or morality, and you've got one of the few formal logic questions in Logical Reasoning. (See my post a few weeks back on 15 Common Logical Reasoning Topics for more on that). Most formal logic on the LSAT happens in Logic Games.

On the LSAT, of course, it might not be that simple. The argument above could be phrased as follows:

If you live in Manhattan, then according to accurate, yet decades-old, government records, you must live in NYC. However, if you're in New York State, then you may or may not be in NYC. On the other hand, if you're in NYC, then you must live in New York State.

I included the 2nd sentence as filler just to make the argument more difficult to understand. Although it's more casual and wordy than the formal logic version, this doesn't mean it's easier.

The two versions above are identical. It's not necessary to represent it in symbols, but it can sometimes help.


Informal logic
Informal arguments are much more common on the LSAT. They tend to be complex and contain unstated assumptions.

Example:

Some people in New York State aren't famous. However, because I live in NYC, I ride around Manhattan in limos and hang out with celebrities. Therefore, I'm famous by association.

This can't be diagrammed as neatly, the evidence doesn't fully justify the conclusion (by a long shot), and a lot of other things also need to be true in order for the conclusion to logically follow.

5 Steps to Solving Strengthen Logical Reasoning Questions

What do you do when you see a Strengthen Logical Reasoning question?

Remember that Logical Reasoning makes up half the exam, and Strengthen Logical Reasoning questions are common. Here's a step-by-step guide to help you solve them.

1. Recognize that it's a Strengthen question.
Some strengthen question stems:

"Which one of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?"

"Which of the following, if true, would most justify the conclusion?"


2. Look for the main flaw (if present).
It will make some unwarranted (and unstated) assumption - the missing (and weakest) link between premises/evidence and conclusion.


3. Support the assumption and scan for answer choice that helps patch up the argument.
After you find the central flaw of the argument, fix it. Bridge the gap between evidence and conclusion. The correct answer may protect the argument against the flaw by:

-denying an alternative possibility

-promoting the evidence's relevance to the conclusion

-supporting the evidence's validity (such as by saying a survey or study was properly conducted)

-providing additional evidence to support the conclusion


4. Remember that the answer choices can contain information not mentioned in the stimulus.
Why? Because the question stem says "if true," which allows the possibility of new information.


5. Remember that in "Strengthen EXCEPT" questions, 4 will strengthen the argument, and 1 will not.
The 1 that doesn't strengthen will either weaken or have no effect. In logic, the opposite of strengthen is "not strengthen."


***

Contrast with Sufficient Assumption (aka Justify) question stems:

"Which one of the following, if true, allows the conclusion to be properly drawn?"

"The conclusion follows logically if which one of the following is assumed?"

Sufficient Assumption questions do strengthen the argument. In fact, they fully justify it by guaranteeing that the conclusion logically follows.

However, they should be approached differently than Strengthen questions. The major difference is that Sufficient Assumption (Justify) questions often reward a formal-logic approach, while Strengthen questions reward an informal-logic approach.

For more on how to approach Sufficient Assumption questions, check out:

Sufficient Assumption Questions | Tips and Categorization

Logical Reasoning | Sufficient Assumption (Justify) Questions