Test Day Stress and Anxiety? | Tips, Links, and mp3

I recently wrote a bit on preparing for Test Day in LSAT Test Center Problems | How To Prepare For The Worst, and I've written several other articles with Test Day Tips in the past.

However, reader Wei W. requested some tips on dealing with Test Day stress. The fact that she posted her comment at 3AM Eastern indicates that she might already be losing sleep over this (or just that she lives in another part of the world).

Just in case it's the former, I've decided to grant Wei's wish and do an article on this. I'm not a psychologist, and I'd rather not join the oft-sketchy self-help industry or peddle CDs with the sound of waves crashing, so I've compiled several links on the topic of Test Day stress and anxiety.

The following resources are not LSAT-specific and contain some generic advice. However, since test anxiety is not an LSAT-specific issue, you may find some nuggets of wisdom within the following links.

I hope to feature some LSAT-specific advice about these issues on LSAT Blog in the near future, but in the meantime, I'd love to hear your tips on dealing with test-related stress and anxiety. Please share them!

The LSAT, Meditation, Concentration, and Focus

Test and performance anxiety

Information about Test Anxiety

Test anxiety / relaxation podcasts (mp3s)

Test Anxiety, University of Buffalo

Understanding and Overcoming Test Anxiety

How to Keep Calm During Tests (PDF)

Reducing Test Anxiety (PDF)

***

Also see the free LSAT proctor mp3 for something that can reduce Test Day stress.

Photo by brymo

Creating an LSAT Test Day Playlist | Songs and mp3

One way to reduce Test Day stress is to listen to music that will PUMP. YOU. UP.

Listen to these before taking a practice test, and listen to them on the way to your test center, if you like.

Besides, creating a playlist isn't procrastinating if it helps you do well on the LSAT, right?

If you're too lazy to create your own playlist, or you don't know what an mp3 is, Jock Jams works well. If you're really short on time, I highly recommend the 3-minute Jock Jam Megamix (wiki). I guess you could always just listen to that on repeat, but you'd probably get sick of it before long.

These sites are good if you'd rather just have some white noise:

http://www.rainymood.com/
http://simplynoise.com/

A few weeks ago on the LSAT Blog Fan Page, blog reader Justin suggested the following songs for "getting you pumped before a practice test":

1. CAKE - "The Distance"
2. Survivor - Eye of the Tiger (Rocky 3)
3. Paul Engemann - Push it to the Limit (Scarface) (1983)
4. Europe - The Final Countdown (also see this, Arrested Development fans)

I agree - these are all great choices. I'd like to add anything by Rage Against the Machine, particularly "Wake Up" and "Vietnow," A-Trak's remix of Stronger by Kanye West, I Run This by Birdman, and Planisphere by Justice. I could go on and on, but I'll let you make your own playlist.

Tip - only listen to the songs on your playlist before taking each practice test and on Test Day. You want to train yourself to associate these songs with rocking the LSAT.

I'd love to hear your recommendations. What songs will you include in your LSAT playlist?

Photo by 41636321@N00

Most Strongly Supported Logical Reasoning Questions

Many prep companies make the mistake of failing to distinguish between Most Strongly Supported and Must Be True.


They place "Most Supported" / "Most Strongly Supported" Logical Reasoning questions under the category of "Must Be True" questions. This is incorrect.

It's understandable.

After all, the answer to a Most Strongly Supported question is sometimes something that Must Be True. After all, something that Must Be True based upon the stimulus can certainly be said to be the Most Strongly Supported of the answer choices. It's 100% supported by the stimulus, and you can't support something more than 100%.

For this reason, you can sometimes treat Most Strongly Supported questions like Must Be True / Inference questions.

However, keep in mind that the test-writers have some wiggle-room with Most Supported questions. The question is not asking for what Must Be True, so our task is not always to find something that Must Be True.

Instead, we must look for what's Most Supported among the choices, and the correct answer choice will not necessarily be supported 100% of the way. While it's certainly easier when the correct answer happens to be something that Must Be True, the correct answer choice does not necessarily have to be true. If you find yourself staring at 5 choices, and none of them appears to be a Must, look for the answer choice that's Most Likely To Be True.

To summarize:

It's incorrect to treat Most Strongly Supported questions as Must Be True questions because the correct answer doesn't necessarily need to be true. It's just the answer choice that's most likely to be true.

Examples:
I've picked two examples from The Next 10 Actual Official LSAT PrepTests, and an example from a recent LSAT PrepTest, to illustrate the difference.

First, a Most Strongly Supported question where the correct answer Must Be True:

PrepTest 36 (December 2001), Section 1, Question 16 (page 258 in Next 10)

The evidence gives examples of countries with viable economies that have populations of fewer than 7 million - everything listed aside from Switzerland and Austria, which leaves Israel, Ireland, Denmark, and Finland.

Therefore, it must be true that economic viability doesn't require having a population of at least 7 million.

***
Now, a Most Strongly Supported question where the correct answer is Most Likely to Be True but is not necessarily something that Must Be True:

PrepTest 33 (December 2000), Section 3, Question 13 (page 171 in Next 10)

To say that the credited response Must Be True would be to commit the post hoc fallacy (a type of correlation/causation fallacy). Yes, the argument in the stimulus states that once ramps, etc., are installed, wheelchair users come there. However, this is only a correlation.

The sudden arrival of wheelchair users could simply be a coincidence, or perhaps there's something else going on - some third variable at play.

For example, maybe the wheelchair users didn't go to those areas in the past for other reasons. Maybe the non-accommodation-providing business areas were managed by jerks, and their jerkitude was the real reason the wheelchair users didn't frequent the area. Maybe the new business area managers happen to be nice people and the wheelchair users like to hang out with them.

However, out of the 5 choices, it is Most Likely To Be True that the wheelchair users didn't come there in the past due to the lack of proper accommodations.

***

I'm also explaining a Most Strongly Supported question in a recent exam where the answer did not necessarily have to be true.

I'm posting this explanation in the comments to avoid corrupting this recent LSAT PrepTest for those of you who intend to take this as a full-length timed exam. If you like, take a quick peek at the bolded portion of the comment to see if it's from an exam you intend to save for later.

***
You can find more information about the difference between Must Be True and Most Strongly Supported on pages 20-22 of LSAC's SuperPrep.

Photo by ms_cwang / CC BY-NC-SA 2.0

LSAT Logic Games Classification List

The following classification covers Logic Games in LSAT PrepTests 39-51 (and June 2007).

(These exams are all available on Amazon.com. In my LSAT study schedules, I recommend saving most of the newer PrepTests for full-length timed practice. In order to avoid "corrupting" those exams, I suggest you avoid looking at this classification for any PrepTest that you plan to take under timed conditions until you've completed that test.)

If your study materials refer to PrepTests by their month and year, rather than by PrepTest number, please see LSAT PrepTests and Dates Administered.

In this blog post, I first group each Logic Game by its classification. At the end of all that, I also classify all Logic Games but place them in order by PrepTest # and date.

(You can also find LSAT Logic Games categorizations for LSAT PrepTests 19-38 and and LSAT PrepTests 52-present.)

I've placed an asterisk (*) next to some games that are especially difficult. I've placed a plus (+) next to some that are especially easy. Of course, difficulty is subjective, so please leave comments!

Logic Games by Classification:

Pure Sequencing
PrepTest 43, Game 2
PrepTest 48, Game 2
PrepTest 50, Game 4 *
PrepTest 51, Game 2
PrepTest 51, Game 4


Basic Linear
PrepTest 40, Game 1
PrepTest 41, Game 1 +
PrepTest 42, Game 2 +
PrepTest 43, Game 1
PrepTest 44, Game 1 +
PrepTest 45, Game 1
PrepTest 46, Game 1 +
PrepTest 46, Game 3
PrepTest 47, Game 1
PrepTest 49, Game 1 *
PrepTest 49, Game 4
PrepTest 50, Game 1
PrepTest 50, Game 3 +
June 2007 LSAT, Game 1
June 2007 LSAT, Game 3

Advanced Linear (aka Combination of Linear and Grouping: Matching)
PrepTest 39, Game 1
PrepTest 39, Game 3
PrepTest 41, Game 2
PrepTest 42, Game 3
PrepTest 43, Game 3

PrepTest 44, Game 3

PrepTest 46, Game 2
PrepTest 47, Game 4
PrepTest 48, Game 4
PrepTest 51, Game 3

Grouping: In-and-Out

PrepTest 39, Game 4
PrepTest 40, Game 4
PrepTest 42, Game 1
PrepTest 45, Game 3
PrepTest 47, Game 2
PrepTest 48, Game 1
PrepTest 49, Game 3
PrepTest 50, Game 2

Grouping: Splitting
PrepTest 41, Game 3


Grouping: Matching
PrepTest 39, Game 2 *
PrepTest 42, Game 4 *
PrepTest 43, Game 4
PrepTest 44, Game 2
PrepTest 44, Game 4 *
PrepTest 45, Game 4
PrepTest 46, Game 4
PrepTest 47, Game 3
PrepTest 48, Game 3
PrepTest 49, Game 2
PrepTest 51, Game 1
June 2007 LSAT, Game 4


Circular Linearity
PrepTest 41, Game 4 *


Grouping: Mapping
PrepTest 40, Game 3 *


Linear / Grouping: In-and-Out
PrepTest 40, Game 2
PrepTest 45, Game 2
June 2007 LSAT, Game 2

***

Logic Games by PrepTest # and Date:

PrepTest 39 (December 2002 LSAT)
Game 1 - Advanced Linear
Game 2 - Grouping: Matching *
Game 3 - Advanced Linear
Game 4 - Grouping: In-and-Out

PrepTest 40 (June 2003 LSAT)
Game 1 - Basic Linear -
Game 2 - Linear / Grouping: In-and-Out
Game 3 - Grouping: Mapping *
Game 4 - Grouping: In-and-Out

PrepTest 41 (October 2003 LSAT)
Game 1 - Basic Linear +
Game 2 - Advanced Linear
Game 3 - Grouping: Splitting
Game 4 - Circular Linearity *

PrepTest 42 (December 2003 LSAT)
Game 1 - Grouping: In-and-Out
Game 2 - Basic Linear +
Game 3 - Advanced Linear
Game 4 - Grouping: Matching *

PrepTest 43 (June 2004 LSAT)
Game 1 - Basic Linear
Game 2 - Pure Sequencing
Game 3 - Advanced Linear
Game 4 - Grouping: Matching

PrepTest 44 (October 2004 LSAT)
Game 1 - Basic Linear +
Game 2 - Grouping: Matching
Game 3 - Advanced Linear
Game 4 - Grouping: Matching *

PrepTest 45 (December 2004 LSAT)
Game 1 - Basic Linear
Game 2 - Linear / Grouping: In-and-Out
Game 3 - Grouping: In-and-Out
Game 4 - Grouping: Matching

PrepTest 46 (June 2005 LSAT)
Game 1 - Basic Linear +
Game 2 - Advanced Linear
Game 3 - Basic Linear
Game 4 - Grouping: Matching

PrepTest 47 (October 2005 LSAT)
Game 1 - Basic Linear
Game 2 - Grouping: In-and-Out
Game 3 - Grouping: Matching
Game 4 - Advanced Linear

PrepTest 48 (December 2005 LSAT)
Game 1 - Grouping: In-and-Out
Game 2 - Pure Sequencing
Game 3 - Grouping: Matching
Game 4 - Advanced Linear

PrepTest 49 (June 2006 LSAT)
Game 1 - Basic Linear *
Game 2 - Grouping: Matching
Game 3 - Grouping: In-and-Out
Game 4 - Basic Linear

PrepTest 50 (September 2006 LSAT)
Game 1 - Basic Linear
Game 2 - Grouping: In-and-Out
Game 3 - Basic Linear +
Game 4 - Pure Sequencing *

PrepTest 51 (December 2006 LSAT)
Game 1 - Grouping: Matching
Game 2 - Pure Sequencing
Game 3 - Advanced Linear
Game 4 - Pure Sequencing

June 2007 LSAT (unnumbered - free LSAT PrepTest - PDF)
Game 1 - Basic Linear
Game 2 - Linear / Grouping: In-and-Out
Game 3 - Basic Linear
Game 4 - Grouping: Matching

Photo by chiotsrun

LSAT Logic Games Practice | 7 Games To Practice Before Test Day

Pretend you were taken hostage while studying in the library and could only do 7 Logic Games before Test Day. You can squeeze in one each day while your captors watch their daytime soap operas.

Which 7 Logic Games would you pick? Which are the most important?

This blog post lists what I consider to be 7 foundational Logic Games (all are purposely drawn from The Next 10 Actual Official LSAT PrepTests).

If you did nothing but these 7 games, you'd be exposed to the pure (non-combination/non-hybrid) games of each common type of Logic Game. Even if you're not taken hostage, make sure you fully understand each of these 7 games before Test Day.

1. PrepTest 38 (Oct 2002), Game 1 - Pure Sequencing - Circus car with clowns - page 330

2. PrepTest 30 (Dec 1999), Game 4 - Basic Linear - Toy-truck models - page 53

3.PrepTest 36 (Dec 2001), Game 2 - Advanced Linear - Radio talk show host - page 279

4.PrepTest 33 (Dec 2000), Game 2 - Grouping: In-and-Out - Birds in the forest - page 177

5. PrepTest 33 (Dec 2000), Game 3 - Grouping: In-and-Out (Numerical Distribution) - Rubies, sapphires, and topazes - page 178

6. PrepTest 29 (Oct 1999), Game 1 - Grouping: Splitting - Accountant and 7 bills - page 32

7. PrepTest 38 (Oct 2002), Game 3 - Grouping: Matching (Templates) - Job applicants and management, production, sales - page 332


Definitions of Major Common Types of Logic Games:

Pure Sequencing = place variables in order with rules relating them to each other

Basic Linear = place variables in order with rules relating them to specific slots and (possibly) to each other

Advanced Linear = place variables in order with rules relating them to specifics slots (and possibly to each other) and relate variables of one type to variables of another type

Grouping: In-and-Out = choose some variables but not others.

Grouping: Splitting = divide variables into two different groups.

Grouping: Matching = associate variables of one type with variables of another type or with more than two groups.


Techniques:

Numerical Distribution = Create various combinations of *numbers* of variables to select from each category. Benefit - gives you a birds-eye view of the game without requiring you to draw every specific scenario. Useful in games with subcategories. More on this in Logic Game | Grouping: Selection Defined Diagram | Explanation.

Templates = Draw a few main diagrams instead of only one. Each main diagram you draw represents a different potential placement of the variables. Benefit - gives you a birds-eye view of every possible scenario. Useful in games with only a few major possibilities. More on this in Logic Game | Grouping: Matching Templates Diagram | Explanation.

Also see LSAT Logic Games Categorized by Type and 7 LSAT Logic Games Repeated on Future PrepTests.

Photo by poppalina / CC BY-NC 2.0

2-Month LSAT Study Schedule

Also see the 2-Month LSAT Study Schedule: Premium Day-By-Day Version.

2 months is a bit on the short side, but several of you requested a 2-month LSAT study schedule schedule, so here goes.

I've reviewed all books and PrepTests below in my best LSAT prep books post.

The following schedule is intense, but 2 months is less time than I'd recommend. If work/school/life obligations making anything resembling this schedule too difficult to follow, you'll probably achieve your highest potential score by allowing more than 2 months to study and taking the LSAT at a later date.

For the first 5 weeks of this schedule, I recommend working out of at least 6 PrepTests to build a strong foundation. These PrepTests should be anything prior to the June 2007 LSAT, since I've allocated that exam and the ones after it for full-length practice. They can be any 6 recent LSAT PrepTests. Ambitious test-takers with clear schedules may want to use more than 6 in the first 5 weeks of this schedule.

Month 1:

Review my relevant articles on Logic Games and complete this list of Logic Games from PrepTests 52-61 ordered by difficulty during the first 2 weeks.

Note: You may want to use different exams than the ones from 52-61 if you can. Feel free to use games from at least 6 PrepTests prior to the June 2007 LSAT (untimed) after completing the relevant section. You can use my list of Logic Games categorized by type (also see this list) to identify them. Review all games that give you difficulty.

Week 1: Complete Pure Sequencing, Basic Linear, and Advanced Linear games. Review each game that gives you trouble.

Week 2: Complete Grouping: In-Out / Selection, Grouping: Splitting, and Grouping: Matching games. Review each game that gives you trouble. Complete Combination games. Review each game that gives you trouble. Then complete a few timed sections of Logic Games.

Week 3: Review my articles on Logical Reasoning before completing LSAT questions of each type in PrepTests 52-61 using the LSAT Logical Reasoning spreadsheet (untimed). Review all questions that give you difficulty, whether or not you answer them incorrectly. Also complete a few timed sections of Logic Games.

Week 4: Continue work from previous week with additional Logical Reasoning question-types. When finished, complete a few timed sections of Logical Reasoning and a few timed sections of Logic Games.


Month 2:
Week 5: Read my articles on Reading Comprehension and complete several sections of Reading Comp (untimed). Complete a few timed sections of Reading Comprehension, as well as a few timed sections of Logic Games and Logical Reasoning.

For the remaining weeks, use these free Logic Games Explanations, these video explanations, and these other LSAT explanations after completing the relevant exam.

Week 6: Complete 3 recent LSAT PrepTests (timed). Splice in sections from another to simulate experimental sections. Review each exam on alternating days.

Week 7: Complete another 3 recent LSAT PrepTests (timed). Splice in sections from another to simulate experimental sections. Consider using one section to create a 6-section exam for extra practice. Review each exam on alternating days.

Week 8: Complete another 3 recent LSAT PrepTests (timed). Splice in sections from another to simulate experimental sections. (Again, consider using one section to create a 6-section exam). More thoughts on how to simulate the experimental section in this this article.

Finally, rock the LSAT on Test Day.

***

Also check out my other sample LSAT study schedules and plans.

December 2009 LSAT | Questions and Answers

The December 2009 LSAT is rapidly approaching - only 7 weeks remaining. What would you like to see on the blog between now and then?

Please leave your questions for me (and for each other) in the comments, I'll do my best to answer as many of your questions as possible in future blog posts between now and December 5th.

Quick request: please leave a name rather than posting as "Anonymous." It makes it easier for everyone to respond to specific comments. Thanks!

***

Also see: February 2010 LSAT | Questions and Answers.

Photo by lwr / CC BY-NC-SA 2.0

Words Indicating Sufficient / Necessary Conditions, and Time

In conditional statements (if-then) statements, the sufficient condition is the one that goes before the arrow, and the necessary condition is the one that goes after the arrow.

Sufficient ---> Necessary

X ---> Y

is equivalent to:

if X, then Y.

X is the sufficient condition, and Y is the necessary condition.

Logic Games and Logical Reasoning contain conditional statements most prominently, but you can also find them in Reading Comp.

First, some words that indicate each type of condition.

Sufficient (before the arrow):
All, any, every, if, in order to, the only, to be, when, whenever


Necessary (after the arrow):
depends upon, must, only, only if, only when, requires, then


I like to think of the relationship between sufficient and necessary conditions in the following 2 ways:

Way #1: the sufficient condition activates the necessary condition, indicating that it will happen.

Way #2: the sufficient condition is enough to guarantee that the necessary condition happened already.


If the sufficient condition occurs, then the necessary condition must also occur (Way #1), or it must have also occurred at some point (Way #2). Yes, that's right, in Way #2, the necessary condition might occur before the sufficient condition.

I can hear some of you saying, "How could such a thing happen? If the necessary condition appears after the sufficient condition in a sentence, it must occur after the sufficient condition in real life too!"

Not so. But first, let's deal with the easier way (Way #1):

---

The sufficient condition can occur before the necessary condition (Way #1):

If A occurs, then B must occur afterwards.

For example, if I slam my head into a brick wall, then my head will hurt.
This could also be phrased, "Whenever I slam my head into a brick wall, my head hurts."

(A = slam head, B=head hurting)

If we take the contrapositive of this statement, we can say:

If my head doesn't hurt (NOT B), then I must not have slammed it into a brick wall (NOT A).


---

However, the sufficient condition can also occur after the necessary condition (Way #2):

If C occurs, then D must have already occurred.

For example, if I seduce an LSAC employee to get an advance copy of the LSAT, I must have traveled to LSAC's headquarters in Newtown, Pennsylvania.

(C= Seducing LSAT's test-writers, D=traveled to LSAC HQ in Newtown, PA)

This means that if you see me in NYC, I must not be seducing an LSAC employee at the moment.

(I know I'm going to get some emails requesting an advance copy of the LSAT, so I'll tell you right now - that sentence was a joke.)

***
Also see LSAT Logic | Necessary vs Sufficient Conditions.

Photo by alltheaces / CC BY-NC-ND 2.0

Logical Reasoning | Sufficient Assumption (Justify) Questions

Many of you dislike formal logic Logical Reasoning questions, particularly Sufficient Assumption (aka Justify) questions. In this blog post, I'll demonstrating my technique on a few of these questions.

Unfortunately, the folks at LSAC are very strict about their intellectual property and wouldn't allow me to post their LSAT questions online, so I'm only posting my explanations for the questions.

Not to worry, though.

In this blog post, I reference specific PrepTests, sections, and question numbers so you can follow along, as well as their page numbers in the books containing 10 PrepTests each (listed in Best LSAT Prep Books).

First, a quick drill:

Suppose you had an argument containing:

Evidence: A ---> B
Conclusion: C ---> B

One sufficient assumption that closes the gap would be: C ---> A

Why?

Because if all C's are A's, and all A's are B's, then all C's must be B's (C ---> A ---> B).


Another sufficient assumption would be NOT B ---> NOT C

If the contrapositive of the conclusion is true, then the conclusion itself must be true as well.

***
Side note:
Some students ask, why doesn't A ---> C work?

Well, suppose we knew A ---> C were true. What would our premises (pieces of evidence) be?

We'd now have:

A ---> B (from original evidence)
A ---> C (from new information - students' proposed answer)

This doesn't provide us with a conditional relationship between B and C. (Rather, it would simply allow us to infer that "Some Bs are Cs" and vice-versa, of course.)

It's like saying:

Apples (A) ---> Fruit (B) = If it's an apple, then it's a fruit.

Apples (A) ---> Food (C) = If it's an apple, then it's food.

Does this tell us that all food (C) is fruit (B)?

Of course not.

***

Because there are multiple ways to justify the conclusion, we can say any particular sufficient assumption does not necessarily need to be true to justify the conclusion. However, a sufficient assumption will be enough to justify the conclusion. It might involve the evidence, but it also might not. As you complete more sufficient assumption questions, you'll get a sense of which type of sufficient assumption they're looking for.


***
PrepTest 38 (October 2002 LSAT), Section 4, Question 16 - page 346 in Next 10
(the question discusses: people, distrust, confident, abilities, challenge)

Question Stem: "The conclusion above follows logically if which one of the following is assumed?"

Evidence group: People who do not believe that others distrust them
Conclusion group: People who tend to trust others


After identifying each piece of the stimulus, we can arrange them like this:

Evidence: Not Believe Others Distrust ---> Confident ---> Difficult Task as Challenge
Conclusion: Tend to Trust Others ---> Confident ---> Difficult Task as Challenge

We could diagram this as:

Evidence: NOT BOD ---> C ---> DTC
Conclusion: TTO ---> DTC

The necessary condition (regarding/thinking about each difficult task as a challenge rather than as a threat) is the same for both. Why? Because the final clause ("since this is precisely how...") supports the part of the conclusion that states "think of a difficult task as a challenge..." Since we know that "Difficult Task as Challenge" is a necessary result of "Confidence," we can put DTC after C in the evidence.

The cleanest way to close the gap is to say everyone in the conclusion's group of people ("people who tend to trust others" = "TTO" ) falls within the evidence's group of people ("people who did not believe that others distrust them" = "NOT BOD").

Choice C says this word for word.

The key is in noticing the evidence group and conclusion group are really discussing two different groups of people, and we don't know anything about how they relate to each other.

As always, try not to get overly involved with (or scared by) the topic of the argument. Instead, focus on its structure. This is especially true for the following question I explain.


***
PrepTest 35 (October 2001 LSAT), Section 1, Question 22 - page 226 of Next 10
(the question discusses: chordates, tracheophytes, Pteropsida, Hominidae)

Question Stem: "The conclusion drawn above follows logically if which one of the following is assumed?"


Explanation:

Evidence #1: No Cs are Ts = C ---> NOT T

Contrapositive: T ---> NOT C


Evidence #2: All members of P are T = P ---> T



If we connect these, we get:

Evidence #1's contrapositive and Evidence #2, combined: P ---> T ---> NOT C

Contrapositive of that combination: C ---> NOT T ---> NOT P = C ---> NOT P


Conclusion:

P ---> NOT H

Contrapositive of conclusion: H ---> NOT P


Evidence: C ---> NOT T ---> NOT P
Conclusion: H ---> NOT P


The goal of all this is to make the necessary conditions the same.

The drill at the start of this blog post already had "B" as the necessary condition of both evidence and conclusion, so there was no need to manipulate anything by taking the contrapositive.

However, this question is more difficult than the drill. We need to do some extra work by taking the contrapositive of what they gave us to get to the point where the evidence and conclusion both have "NOT P"

Now, to close the gap, I want to take the conclusion group's sufficient condition (H) and say it always falls within the evidence group's sufficient condition (C).

If all Hs are Cs, and we already know all Cs are NOT Ps, then all Hs must be NOT Ps as well, because:

H ---> C ---> NOT P

Very nice, clean, mechanical, and formulaic. No need to engage in any real thinking about the topic itself - just the pieces.


***
PrepTest 24 (December 1997 LSAT), Section 3, Question 19 - page 207 of 10 More
(the question discusses: students, school, home, lunch, part-time jobs, walk)

Question stem: "The conclusion of the argument follows logically if which one of the following is assumed?"

Explanation:

Evidence: walk to school ---> go home for lunch.
Conclusion: Some with part-time jobs don't walk to school.

E: WS ---> GHL
C: Some PTJ ---> NOT WS

I want to make evidence and conclusion have the same necessary conditions, so I'll take the contrapositive of the evidence:

Evidence: NOT GHL ---> NOT WS
Conclusion: Some PTJ ---> NOT WS


To close the gap, I want to say some students with PTJ don't go home for lunch.

I look for this, and I don't see it.

No need to go WTF, though, because we only need some overlap between the groups.

(Example: If some candy bars are delicious, then at least some delicious things are candy bars. The word "some" always allows for reversibility because the word "some" is vague.)

D indicates overlap between the groups, so it's our answer.


***

Note: this is a different "format" (logical structure) from the above questions.


PrepTest 9 (October 1993 LSAT), Section 2, Question 23 - page 64 in 10 Actual
(the question discusses: poor farmer, rich farmers, honest, dishonest)


Question stem: "The farmer's conclusion is properly drawn if the argument assumes that"

Explanation:

The sentence of the stimulus stating you're either rich or poor and either honest or dishonest is *crucial*.

This tells us the negation of rich is poor (and vice-versa) and the negation of honest is dishonest (and vice-versa).

Evidence: "All poor farmers are honest." = If Poor ---> Honest
Conclusion: "All rich farmers are dishonest." = If Rich ---> Dishonest

Evidence: P ---> H
Conclusion: R ---> DH


Contrapositive of Conclusion: NOT Dishonest ---> NOT Rich = Honest ---> Poor

Which is exactly what choice A says.

If the contrapositive of the conclusion is true (Choice A), then the conclusion itself is true also.

(As a side note, if choice A is not true, the argument is simply exhibiting a mistaken reversal, which is invalid.)


***

Also see Sufficient Assumption Questions | Tips and Categorization for more.

Photo by don-piefcone / CC BY-NC-SA 2.0

LSAT Test Center Problems | How To Prepare For The Worst

Tip: Take practice LSATs at your LSAT test center.

How? Well, LSAT test centers are often within your local college, university, or law school. This means that they're often fairly easy to walk right inside, so many of you will be able to go there and take practice tests before your exam. I'd recommend doing this for at least a few Saturday mornings leading up to your test date, if you can.

Ideally, you'll be able to take it in the very room where you'll take the real thing. If not, at least try to get a look at the room so that you'll be able to take your practice tests in a similar environment.

Now going to the effort to take it in the same room seems like a lot of work (and a little weird).

Why would you want to go to all that effort?

Because rooms often have little quirks of their own. You'll hear noises in some when the heating turns on/off (especially for December / February test-takers living in parts of the world with seasons). Think about all the noises that boilers and pipes make (hissing, etc.). Unfortunately, there's no guarantee that you'll get extra time just because there's a disruption.

So do June and September test-takers have an advantage? Are you better off taking the LSAT in one of those months instead?

No, they don't get a free pass either. Some rooms might be over-air-conditioned and feel like walk-in refrigerators. Others might have no AC at all, feeling like an NYC subway platform in the summertime (trust me - it's like a furnace).

One test-taker recently wrote to me with the following:

I live in Cairo, Egypt, and I took the LSAT here in June...A woman randomly walked into the room while the exam was being administered and just started chatting with the proctor. They were whispering, but it was still audible and very distracting. Also, the electricity in the building went off for around the length of a section, so we resumed taking the exam in the dark with no AC (in Cairo in June...). Needless to say, I canceled my score on the spot.

Of course, electricity can go out anywhere, and the best you can hope for is a free retake a few months later with the original test removed from your record entirely. However, there's a very good chance that LSAC might give you nothing at all for your trouble.

Unfortunately, an uncomfortable room isn't the only obstacle you might face.

The Most Common LSAT Test Center Problems:

Time
-proctors not giving enough time per section or for the break (proctors giving too much time is not a common complaint, although it happens from time to time)
-proctors failing to give a 5-minute warning

Noise
-proctors talking to each other or talking on their phones
-proctors' cell phones ringing or beeping
-other test-takers passing out or leaving in the middle
-other test-takers making too much noise while writing
-room being too noisy
-noise from the hallway or outside

Room
-room being too hot or cold
-desks being too small

Miscellaneous
-other test-takers talking about how much they studied before the test or during the break
-proctors forcing you to eat a live spider before the start of each section

Kidding about that last one - this isn't Fear Factor.


Why I am telling you all this? Do I get a kick out of scaring already-nervous test-takers?

Nah, I'll leave that to LSAC.

I just want you to be prepared ahead of time in case any of the above happen to you on Test Day.

What's the cautious test-taker to do?

Prepare for the worst. Just about anyone would retake if the lights went out, a tornado hit, or a terrorist took everyone hostage, so I'm not going to recommend that anyone take a practice test under those conditions.


How To Prepare For The Worst

Time
-Confirm with the proctor beforehand that you'll get 35 minutes per section, a 5-minute warning before the end of each section, and a 15-minute break between the 3rd and 4th sections.

(Be very polite about this. Proctors are the police / dictators of the room. Their word is law, so respect their authority. However, this doesn't mean you can't say something if they're cutting you short on time.)

Anecdotal evidence (reports from students and blog readers) indicates that LSAC generally does nothing for people shorted on time or not given a 5-minute warning. Of course, most test-takers probably don't experience this problem, but if it happens to you, it'll be a big deal.

Noise
-Do at least one or two practice tests in somewhat noisy environments. A coffee shop or library is good for this.

Room
-Practice at least once or twice on a small desk.
-Bring layers in case the room is too hot or cold.
-Practice in rooms where the temperature is slightly uncomfortable.
-Again, try to take a few practice tests in the very room where you'll take the real thing.

Miscellaneous
-Don't talk to anyone during the break - unless you want to.

***

Check out all LSAT Test Day Tips.

***

Anything I didn't cover? Those of you who've taken the LSAT already, did any of the above happen to you? What are your tips on preparing for Test Day, and what do you wish you'd done differently?

Free Law School Personal Statement Help

*Update: Michelle is not accepting any more personal statements for review.*

However, be sure to check out these Law School Admissions | Book Recommendations.

Photo by tadsonbussey

Logic Game | Basic and Advanced Linear | Limited Options

Limited Options, Templates, Possibilities, whatever you call them, they're ridiculously useful in several Logic Games.

This blog post covers one common, yet simple, technique for listing all the options/templates/possibilities in Basic Linear and Advanced Linear games.

Let's say we're doing an 7-slot / variable Linear game in which only one variable can go in each slot. This means we're placing the game's 7 variables (ABCDEFG) in some kind of order.

Just to keep this short and sweet, let's pretend all the other rules, inferences, and limitations have filled up (determined the placement of variables into) slots (spaces) 1, 2, 6, and 7, giving us:

D_ E_______F_G
1__2_3_4_5-_6_7

We have 3 empty slots, and we have three variables (A, B, C) we haven't placed yet.

Let's also pretend we have a rule telling us A is before B. We can diagram this as:

A-B

Because we have 3 variables remaining, 3 slots remaining, and we know 1 of these 3 (A) is before another of these 3 (B), we know there are only 3 main possibilities for the game.

How do we find these? Limited Options.

We place A and B first because we know the most about them. We don't know anything about C. C is a wild card variable.

We can place A and B into the diagram in the following 3 ways:

D E A B _ F G

D E _ A B F G

D E A _ B F G

These are the only 3 possibilities for the placement of A and B.

We can now place C into the empty slots, giving us:


D E A B C F G

D E C A B F G

D E A C B F G

I would just stack those three bolded possibilities into the diagram like this:



(I wouldn't actually number them, of course.)

LSAT Logic Games give you scenarios where this technique applies more often than you'd think. There have even been cases where it applies to the main diagram for Advanced Linear Logic Games (example: PrepTest 37, Game 2 - page 305 in Next 10). However, it more frequently comes up as something you can do for specific scenarios / hypotheticals in both Basic Linear and Advanced Linear games.

So, just keep this in mind: when there are 3 slots remaining, 3 variables remaining, and 1 of those variables most go before another, there are only 3 possibilities, and they're worth drawing out, whether it's for a main diagram or a specific scenario.

Photo by 10458725@N02 / CC BY-NC 2.0