LSAT Logic (Of Course) & Bargaining For Deals

Hope everyone celebrating Thanksgiving had a happy one!

With the holiday season coming up, many of you will be shopping for friends and family. In a down economy, it's more important than ever to get the best possible deal.

While sites like Amazon already have huge Black Friday sales, sometimes you'll actually have to get out of your pajamas and bargain with a real, live human (maybe at a boutique or something). They'll resist your efforts, but recognizing the flaws in their reasoning will help you make the best possible argument.


False Analogy












"With the deal you're asking for, you'd be stealing money right out of my pocket."

"With a customer like you, I might as well just flush my money down the toilet."

The salesman treats different situations as if they are similar. Even if the salesman were to lose money on the deal, that's not quite the same as "stealing." Nor is it the same as flushing money down the toilet. Giving a good deal is much less likely to clog one's toilet, and it has the added benefit of creating goodwill (although that doesn't necessarily make it a good business decision).

In LSAT language:

"treats as similar two cases that are different in a critical respect."

Examples of the same flaw in actual LSAT questions:
PrepTest 29 (October 1999 LSAT), S4, Q25 (p43)
PrepTest 31 (June 2000 LSAT), S3, Q5 (p97)
PrepTest 33 (December 2000 LSAT), S3, Q15 (p172)



Ad Hominem Attack (Personal Attack)










"You drove here in a Maserati. Why should I give you the deep discount you want?"

"That's a nice iPad for you to use while claiming that my prices will put you in the poorhouse."


The customer's ownership of the Maserati has nothing to do with the value of the item the customer is purchasing from the salesman.

Perhaps the customer can't afford to pay a lot for the item precisely because he or she bought the iPad.


In LSAT language:
"rejects a claim by attacking the proponents of the claim rather than addressing the claim itself"
"attack employers' motives instead of addressing their arguments"
"criticizing the source of a claim rather than examining the claim itself"

Examples of the same flaw in actual LSAT questions:
PrepTest 19 (June 1996 LSAT), S2, Q14 (p24)
PrepTest 26 (June 1998 LSAT), S4, Q4 (p241) (esp. relevant to Park51)
PrepTest 32 (October 2000 LSAT), S2, Q6 (p139)
PrepTest 34 (June 2001 LSAT), S2, Q1 (p194)


Appeal to Popular Opinion

"This is one of our most popular items. Everyone loves it, so you will too!"

Or check out this portion of a random banner ad:




Or this McDonald's sign:








Just because more people go with Visa (whatever that means) and just because McDonald's has served over 99 billion meals, does that mean going with them is the way to go? Maybe they've just managed to fool all those people, but going with them wasn't necessarily the smartest move.

An example of LSAT language describing this flaw:

"taking evidence that a claim is believed to be true to constitute evidence that the claim is in fact true"

Examples of the same flaw in actual LSAT questions:
PrepTest 28 (June 1999 LSAT), S1, Q9 (p324)
PrepTest 32 (October 2000 LSAT), S4, Q13 (p141)


Part-to-Whole Flaw












This is a flaw that stores actually try to get you to commit. They prominently feature the best deals to draw you into the store, so you'll likely buy more expensive items when the advertised cheap ones have already sold out.

"This store has the best deals - I saw they're selling Call of Duty for only $29.99. Oh, they were sold out at 6AM because only 50 were in stock? Hmm...I'll buy this (overpriced) Microsoft Kinect for $299 instead."

(I don't know about you, but if I'm awake at 5AM, I don't want it to be because I'm waiting outside in the cold at some department store fighting to get the last discounted flatscreen TV at Best Buy.)

In LSAT language:
"improperly draws an inference about the scientific community from a premise about individual scientists"

Examples of the same flaw in actual LSAT questions:
PrepTest 19 (June 1996 LSAT), S4, Q3 (p36)
PrepTest 35 (October 2001 LSAT), S4, S18 (p245)

Harvard Law School Acceptance: Legally Blonde Video

In Legally Blonde, Elle Woods (played by Reese Witherspoon) gets a 179 on the LSAT and is accepted to Harvard Law School.

The 1st person out there in LSAT Nation to leave a comment with the PrepTest # / date of the Logic Game described at 0:31 in this video gets a virtual fist-bump.

Cancel LSAT If You Missed The Test Date Change Deadline?

UPDATE:

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

***

Law school admission consultant (and former UChicago Law admission dean) Anna Ivey recently contacted me regarding last year's cancel vs. absence post (written for those who miss that deadline).

What followed was a lengthy email discussion about the consequences of missing the deadline and how admissions officers will likely view the resulting cancellations and absences.

The following are some excerpts of that email exchange between myself and Anna Ivey, as well as a section from the University of Michigan Law's FAQ on the issue.

Some of you who don't postpone before the deadline will undoubtedly change your minds and wish you had. Or you might not read this post until then.

Either way, this post is for you.

***

Anna: LSAC changed the registration cancellation deadline in the run-up to the June 2009 without much notice or publicity, and that caught a lot of test takers off guard through no fault of their own. Fast-forward to 2011, though, and applicants have had plenty of time to see the current deadline for canceling or postponing registrations, and I would think that admissions officers are going to expect that they plan accordingly. I still don't think one absence is the end of the world, but it does signal that someone couldn't follow directions, and that's a pretty big deficit for someone who wants to be a lawyer. (Lawyers live and die by deadlines.) In contrast, with the June 2009 test, an absence didn't really signal anything about their ability to follow directions, because the directions got changed on them in the middle of the night. Does that distinction make sense?

Steve: My impression from students and blog readers is that, for the most part, test-takers are aware of the deadline, so it's not an issue of irresponsibility. I see it as simply being that 3 weeks beforehand is too early a deadline for them to know whether they'll be ready in time. It forces them to gamble and assume they'll be ready, or it forces them to postpone to a later date when they may not have needed to do so. They may have been ready by the date for which they'd initially registered. Many people just can't predict where their scores will be by Test Day.

Most serious preppers spend that final month taking full-length practice tests and refining techniques. By Test Day, some will experience score increases during the final 3 weeks that signal their readiness to take the exam for which they've registered, others won't. It's hard for test-takers to know which group they'll fall within.

And there are all the people who, in the final 3 weeks, get sick/injured, have life crises, or experience a sudden increase in busyness due to work/school/family issues. In short, something may come up before the exam that prevents test-takers from studying adequately during the final weeks. This often leads them to desire a postponement, but by then it's too late. I hope admissions officers won't punish them for what may be outside their control.


Anna: I guess I'm biased in the other direction, because I hear from a number of applicants who just didn't pay attention to the deadline, and that puts a bee in my bonnet. :) Also -- and I'm really curious what you think on this front -- I see a lot of applicants acting a bit delusional about how much they can improve in that 3-week window.

In any event, I agree with something that was said in the original post, which is that admissions officers now have no way of knowing who is "absent" because life got in the way on test day (woke up with the flu, etc.), and who is "absent" because they couldn't be bothered to follow directions. When LSAC conflates the two and uses the same label for both situations, they remove an important piece of information. If someone had until the test day (or even beyond, as used to be the case) to reschedule, but didn't, then failing to do so actually used to signal something.

Steve: Yes - too many people think miracles regularly happen in the final 3 weeks and on Test Day itself. The extent to which applicants see diminishing marginal returns depends upon the individual (as so much does when it comes to the LSAT) and how much studying they've done up to that point. Those who put in at least 3-4 months total generally see the majority of their increase prior to the 3-week deadline. However, those who put in a total of approx. 2 months have only done a little more than half of their total prep by that time. As such, a lot can happen as they finally bring it all together in the final 3 weeks.

Many do see big increases toward the end as things finally start to click. Others simply devote an increasing amount of time to studying as the impending test date finally kicks them into high gear.

Anna: That all makes sense. I guess the former admissions officer in me still thinks that if someone waited so long to prepare for the LSAT that the last three weeks represent some sizable chunk of their preparation, they really haven't gone about it with the seriousness it deserves. I'm inclined to think absences are OK for those day-of catastrophes (waking up with the flu), but as long as admissions officers don't have insight into why someone was absent, it's all a big question mark, and an absence can't really be held against the applicant.

Regarding cancellations: I do think admissions officers take those into consideration to a small degree when analyzing the subsequent score. No matter why someone cancels (dry run vs. screwed something up on the test in a big way), people who have taken the real thing before are going to have some advantage on the margin over someone who hasn't, and so people who have canceled will be assumed to have the benefit of that dry run (again, whether they did it for that reason or not).

***

University of Michigan Law's FAQ

It's been a while since I quoted Dean Sarah Zearfoss (of UMichigan Law) and Dean Ed Tom (of UC Berkeley at Boalt Hall Law) in my original post on this topic. I contacted them this week to ask whether their positions had changed since some time has passed, but stand by their original quotes.

However, Dean Zearfoss pointed me to the FAQ section of the UMichigan Law Admissions website, which now addresses the issue. I've reprinted this portion below, with her permission:

I registered for an LSAT sitting but then a conflict arose. I tried to change my test date, but missed the deadline for doing so. What should I do?

Beginning with the June 2009 exam, the LSAC instituted a policy requiring people to make test date changes at least three weeks in advance of the test. The reasons for this are sensible; in the past, their very flexible policy (allowing for changes even after the test had occurred!) meant a misallocation of resources–people would not show up for the exam and there would be wasted space at a test center, while meanwhile, other people would have to travel to a second-choice location, sometimes at considerable expense and inconvenience. The new policy allows LSAC to plan much more precisely.

But it also means that people who have very good reasons for postponing can’t do so if they don’t learn of the conflict in the necessary timeframe. What to do?

First, if the conflict is with the date itself–e.g., you’re scheduled for surgery–your only option is not to attend. There will be a notation on a subsequent score report showing that you were absent for the test. A single absence is simply not a big deal at all, and you shouldn’t worry about it. A pattern of absences may be a red flag, however, and so you would be wise to be careful to keep your calendar free for your next test registration date, or to be sure to postpone within the timeframe prescribed by LSAC. If you’re really worried about the notation of an absence, you’re more than welcome to submit a couple of lines in explanation along with your other application materials, but it truly is not necessary.

Second, if your conflict is not with the test date itself but with the necessary preparation (e.g., you’re a paralegal and were unexpectedly asked to participate in a trial for the two weeks prior to the test), you have two choices: (A) take the test and roll the dice with the score, or (B) take the test and cancel the score. (For information about canceled scores, see the prior FAQ.) Only you can know which option makes the most sense for your situation.

Also see why LSAC decided to make the test-date-change deadline earlier back in June 2009.)


Photo by jonathan_bliss

December vs. February LSAT | Admissions Pros and Cons

The short version:

If you haven't had the expected amount of time to study and are feeling that you won't be ready to take it in December, I recommend you bite the bullet, take the LSAT at a later date, and apply next cycle. A higher LSAT score means you'll get into better law schools and/or, potentially, more scholarship money. 1 year could be well worth the wait.

On the other hand, if you are feeling there's a decent chance you'll be ready by December, then take it in December as planned. The February exam's generally too late for it to be a good idea to take it and still apply this cycle.

***

Law schools consider applications on a rolling admissions basis. The earlier you apply in the admissions cycle, the easier it is to gain acceptance. The cycle begins in September.

For top law schools, it's especially important to apply relatively early in the cycle because admission to these schools is particularly competitive.

December, of course, isn't early in the cycle, but it's not too late either. A few points higher than you would've gotten if you'd taken it in June or October will make up for not being early. However, if you're thinking that you won't be ready for December, February's a bit too late for this cycle. Many top law schools (such as Columbia, Harvard, NYU, and Stanford) don't even accept February LSAT scores for that cycle.

(This means you can't take the LSAT in February 2011 and apply to start at those law schools in the fall of 2011. However, you can take the February 2011 LSAT and use that score to apply to start at those law schools in Fall 2012.)

Even some law schools that aren't typically considered "top law schools" have application deadlines that are before February LSAT scores are released. This means, of course, those schools don't take February LSAT scores (for that cycle), either.

Given enough prep time (and the right kind of prep), most people are capable of scoring decently on the LSAT. However, a month or two generally isn't enough time to adequately prepare.

If you're not feeling ready for the LSAT now, you'll likely do better on it if you prep more and wait. Taking it in February, June, or October and applying next cycle will give you enough time to work through some version of my LSAT study schedules. You've probably started working through some of the materials mentioned there for December's exam, but perhaps you haven't gotten past Logic Games - there's still Logical Reasoning, Reading Comprehension, and several recent full-length practice exams that you should complete before taking the exam. It simply can't all be done in a couple of weeks.

One thing you don't want to do is take it when you're not ready and have multiple scores on your record if you can avoid it.

Some top law schools (such as Columbia and NYU) consider the average of multiple scores, rather than only the highest. Fordham does not disclose whether it takes the average of multiple scores.

Even if the law schools you're considering explicitly state that they take the highest LSAT score (and most do only take the highest when computing your LSAT and GPA), they'll still see your other scores. Ideally, you'll only take the LSAT once and get it right the first time. Try not to take the LSAT until you're as certain as possible that you're fully prepared.

If you're only shooting for less competitive schools, it won't matter as much if you take the LSAT in February and still apply this cycle. However, there's some debate as to whether it's worth going to less competitive (i.e. 4th-tier) law schools at all. See Anna Ivey vs. Ann Levine on this issue.
Photo by lifeontheedge

Law School Application Resume Tips

Aside from dealing with the LSAT and law school personal statements, you'll also have to put together a law school application resume.

For this reason, I've compiled the best links I found containing law school application resume tips.

Law School Application Resume Sample and Advice

Sample resumes from Anna Ivey's The Ivey Guide to Law School Admissions (PDF) (full disclosure: I'm featured in her book)

Résumé Writing for Law School Applications


For more guidance on putting together your law school application personal statement and resume, check out my Law School Admissions Guide and Law School Admissions Cheat Sheet.


Photo by oliviercharavel

LSAT Logical Reasoning Grouped by Type Book (More)

For those of you who intend to complete every LSAT Logical Reasoning question ever published, there's a book for you. It's called:

More Grouped by Question Type: LSAT Logical Reasoning: The Complete Collection of Actual, Official Logic Reasoning Questions from PrepTests 21-40

This book is incredibly useful for two major reasons (which the title makes obvious):

Reason #1: More Grouped by Question Type compiles all the games from PrepTests 21-40 in one book. This allows you to avoid getting 10 More Actual Official LSAT PrepTests (exams 19-28), Next 10 Actual, Official LSAT PrepTests (exams 29-38), and PrepTests 39 and 40 if you would've wanted any of those books/exams only for their Logical Reasoning questions.

Reason #2: More Grouped by Question Type organizes Logical Reasoning questions by type, rather than by PrepTest (as the traditional books of PrepTests from LSAC do). It divides them into different "chapters" based upon the type of Logical Reasoning question. Because these are not from the newest exams (they're from December 1996 - June 2003), you may want to complete those exams in pieces anyway, rather than as full timed exams.

While this book is a great concept, it may not be for you simply because you'll probably want to complete all of the Logic Games and Reading Comprehension sections in 29-38 anyway, or because you may want to use some of these exams for full timed sections.

Although this would save you some flipping around in the books of PrepTests, we already have a few categorizations of Logical Reasoning questions by type on the blog.

***

I'm listing the chapters of the book below so you can see the types of categories the book uses. While it doesn't perfectly follow the above-linked categorizations of Logical Reasoning questions, and it sometimes uses different terms, it's fairly close. Don't worry too much about the differences in terminology, though, because the book's brief introduction explains how the Logical Reasoning questions are categorized.

Chapters:
1. Introduction

2. Arguments
-Method of Reasoning
-Main Conclusion
-Matching Patterns of Reasoning

3. Flaws in Arguments
Argument Flaw
Matching Argument Flaw

4. What Can Be Concluded From The Information Provided
-Must Be True
-Must Be False
-Most Strongly Supported
-Point At Issue

5. Understanding The Impact of Additional Information
-Weaken
-Strengthen
-Evaluate the Argument

6. Assumptions
-Sufficient Assumption
-Necessary Assumption

7. Principle

8. Resolve

9. Index and Answer Key

***

Who should use this book:

Most test-takers won't find this book necessary. However, anyone who intends to focus specifically on LSAT Logical Reasoning questions by type in exams 21-40 without doing those exams' Logic Games/Reading Comprehension questions (or just wants less to carry around!) will find this book worthwhile and convenient.

***

Also see:

Grouped by Question Type Book
Grouped by Reading Passage Type Book
Grouped by Game Type Book.

LSAT PrepTest 61 Logic Game Explanation #1

The October 2010 LSAT (PrepTest 61) Logic Games section seems to have given people enough trouble that it makes sense for me to publish complete explanations for each of the 4 Logic Games in the section.

Don't look at these explanations until you've taken PrepTest 61 as a full-length timed exam.

At the moment, I'm publishing these explanations primarily for those who want to review the exam they just took.

This LSAT Blog post covers the first Logic Game of the October 2010 LSAT.

Also see:

PrepTest 61 (October 2010 LSAT), Game 2 Explanation
PrepTest 61 (October 2010 LSAT), Game 3 Explanation
PrepTest 61 (October 2010 LSAT), Game 4 Explanation

Explanations for Recent LSAT Logic Games

***

The workers here are Faith, Gus, Hannah, Juan, Kenneth, and Lisa, and they must be assigned to either car 1 or car 2. Each must have a driver as well.

This information, combined with the rules, gives us a very basic initial main diagram:










Explanation of basic initial main diagram:

This is what I call a "Grouping: Splitting" game because we are splitting (or dividing) the variables (in this case, workers) into exactly two groups, both of which are present. I represent each group vertically, rather than horizontally, because the game has no ordering component.

In this game, the 6 workers are being divided into two different cars. We know that each car has at least 2 people in it, so I've drawn 2 slots in each column. Each car has exactly one driver, so I've designated the top slot in each column as the "driver" slot by writing "(Dr)" to the side of that row.

I've also placed "(Dr)" to the sides of F/G and F/K, since one of each pair must be a driver.

On the other hand, G and L must be together, but it's not required that either one be a driver.

These rules have no bearing on which car is "car 1" and which car is "car 2" leading us to only 4 major possibilities based upon which people end up being the drivers.

Possibility #1:
We can have F drive H and have K drive J.

Possibility #2:
We can have G drive H and have K drive J.

Possibility #3:
We can have G drive H and have F drive J.

These 3 possibilities all assume that the two blocks involving H and J being passengers are separate. However, what if they were one and the same? This would lead us to:

Possibility #4:
We can have F drive both H and J in one of the cars. The other car would have to hold the GL block because each car must have at least two people. The GL block can't be in the same car as F, H, and J, because then we'd have 5 people in one of the cars and only one in the other.

***
Note that none of these possibilities have any relationship to whether the workers are in car 1 or car 2. Car 1 and car 2 are completely interchangeable.

Here's what these 4 possibilities actually look like (click to enlarge):

In each of the possibilities, we can now fill in the remaining people.

In Possibility #1, all we have to do is keep G and L together, and this block can easily go on either side, so I've placed it "on the fence."

In Possibility #2, L must go in G's car since they must always be together. We've satisfied all conditions, so F is "on the fence."

In Possibility #3, L must go in G's car since they must always be together. We've satisfied all conditions, so K is "on the fence."

In Possibility #4, we've satisfied all conditions, so K is "on the fence."

Our diagram now looks like the following, and almost everything is determined:







Now, on to the questions:

Question 1:

Each of the incorrect choices will violate at least one rule.

Choice A happens to fit Possibility #4 and just jumped out at me, so I'd pick it and move on.

However, I'll explain why the others are invalid scenarios:

Choice B doesn't have J with either F or K. Eliminated.

Choice C doesn't have G and L together. Eliminated.

Choice D doesn't have H being driven by either F or G. Eliminated.

Choice E doesn't have J being driven by either F or K. Eliminated.


Question 2:

Choice A works in Possibility #3. Eliminated.

Choice B works in Possibility #1. Eliminated.

Choice C works in Possibility #4. Eliminated.

Choice D works in Possibility #2. Eliminated.

By elimination, Choice E is our answer, and we see that it doesn't occur in any of the possibilities.


Question 3:

If L is driving, we must be in Possibility #4. Since K's on the fence, it could easily be with F, and choice A is our answer.

The other choices can all be eliminated simply because none of the others can occur in Possibility #4.


Question 4:

F being with two other workers prevents Possibility #1 from being relevant to this question. F not being the driver prevents Possibilities #3 and #4 from being relevant to this question.

So, only Possibility #2 is relevant, and F goes to the car with K and J.

The hypothetical scenario drawn for this question should look something like the following:









(I've placed Car 2 on the left and Car 1 on the right simply to make it look more like the original possibility. You may want to draw a new diagram with the columns reversed if that feels more comfortable to you.)

In this diagram, the person in F's car besides the driver and F is J, so choice C is our answer.


Question 5:

This is a general question to which any of the possibilities might apply, so let's look at the general main diagram again:







Choice A can be satisfied in Possibility #4, so it's eliminated.

Choice B can be satisfied in Possibility #1, so it's eliminated.

Choice C can be satisfied in Possibility #1, Possibility #2, or Possibility #3, so it's eliminated.

Choice D can't be satisfied in any of the possibilities, so it's our answer. The cases in which K could be with only one other worker are when K himself is the driver.

I'll go through Choice E anyway for you:

Choice E can be satisfied in Possibility #4, so it's eliminated.

Photo by al7ayer

PrepTest 61 LSAT Logic Games Solutions #2

This LSAT Blog post covers the second Logic Game of the October 2010 LSAT (PrepTest 61).

Don't look at these explanations until you've taken PrepTest 61 as a full-length timed exam.

Also see:

PrepTest 61 (October 2010 LSAT), Game 1 Explanation
PrepTest 61 (October 2010 LSAT), Game 3 Explanation
PrepTest 61 (October 2010 LSAT), Game 4 Explanation

Explanations for Recent LSAT Logic Games

***
This game concerns six ancient artifacts: Figurine, Headdress, Jar, Necklace, Plaque and Tureen being placed in order from oldest to newest (most recent).

The rules in this game are primarily relational, meaning they require that one variable occurs before or after another, so we're dealing with a Pure Sequencing game.

In these games, I like to build the diagram step-by-step.

In this particular game, I diagram the first rule, then connect it with the second, to form:








Whatever's to the left of those lines is earlier than whatever's to the right.


Now, the final rule is a bit tricky. It sets up 2 main possibilities based upon whether P is older than both (to the left of both) or younger than both (to the right of both). Here are both possibilities for this 3rd rule:







Now, the hard part is connecting this rule to what we already have, since N and H are spaced far-apart in our connection of the 1st and 2nd rules. There are a number of ways to connect everything together, none of which are incredibly pretty or easy to create, but you'll want to connect the rules in order to make the greatest possible number of inferences.

Here's the connection of the 1st and 2nd rules with the possibility that P occurs before (is older than) both H and N:











You'll notice that I flipped around N and H from what I had previously, and I also flipped around H and J - this was just to bring things together in order to more easily connect them. Whether a variable is higher or lower than another doesn't matter. What does matter is that the relationships are made explicit.

Ideally, we wouldn't have H in the middle of things, but there's not really a way around that.

Here's the alternative possibility, where the connection of the 1st and 2nd rules is combined with the possibility that P occurs after (is younger than) both H and N:













Again, we've needed to do some top-bottom flipping to connect things more easily.

Again, it would've been nice if there weren't a variable in the middle (in this case, N), but there's not really a way around that.

Here are both possibilities, side by side:














Now, on to the questions.

Question 6:

Each of the incorrect choices will violate at least one rule.

Choice A happens to fit Possibility #2 and just jumped out at me, so I'd pick it and move on.

However, I'll explain why the others are invalid scenarios:

Choices B and E don't have both N and J before T (they have N after T). Eliminated.

Choice C doesn't have P either before both H and N or after both H and N. It has P between them, which isn't allowed. Eliminated.

Choice D doesn't have F before both J and H (in this choice, J is before F). Eliminated.


Question 7:
In possibility #1, either P or F could be 1st. In possibility #2, either F or N could be 1st. Therefore, generally speaking, any of P, F, or N could be 1st, and choice C is our answer.


Question 8:
We can automatically eliminate choice D. Because N was 4th in the correct answer to Question 6, we know it's possible for N to be 4th.

Now, if something can't go 4th, and we have only 6 variables, then we want to look at something that usually has to go pretty early. The one variable that could consistently be 1st (in both possibilities) is F.

Regardless of which possibility we're in, F always has at least 3 variables that must go after it. In Possibility #1, H, J, and T always have to go after F. In Possibility #2, H, T, P, and J must all go after F. Since there are only 6 artifacts total, F can't ever go 4th or later, so Choice A is our answer.


Question 9:
If F is 3rd, we must be in Possibility #1. Possibility #2 has at least 4 artifacts going after F, so F wouldn't be able to be 3rd in that possibility.

Within Possibility #1, if F is 3rd, H, J, and T must go after it on 4, 5, and 6, with J before T. P must go before N within the 1st 2 slots. This gives us:





There are 3 different possible orderings based upon the placement of H, but we're concerned here with what is 2nd, and we know it must be N, so Choice C is our answer.


Question 10:
If P is 1st, we must be within Possibility #1.

If it's 1st, it's before all other variables, of course. In Possibility #1, it's already before every single variable except F. A new diagram representing this limitation will bring us to the answer:








I've flipped J and H around in order to connect J to T more smoothly.

Now, the question asks us how many could be 2nd. Looking at the new diagram, we can see that both N and F could be the next artifacts after P, but no other artifacts could come immediately after P. As such, Choice B (two) is our answer.


Question 11:

This is a rule substitution question. They're removing the 2nd rule that N and J are required to come before T, and asking us which choice, if true, would put things back as they were.

Well, removing that rule simply leaves us with F coming before H and J, as well as the rule that P is either before both N and H or it's after both N and H.

The correct answer will have to bring us back to our two main possibilities from before:












As such, it's going to involve T is some way, and it's going to involve forcing T to go late (towards the end), since T is late in both diagrams. Now, all 5 choices involve T, of course, which makes things a bit more difficult.

Choice A creates the ordering "F - T - H", but we didn't have that requirement in both possibilities. In fact, we didn't have it in either. Eliminated.

Choice B places both F and N before T. While that was certainly true in both possibilities, this does not return things to normal because it doesn't put J before T. Eliminated.

Choice C says that either both N and J are before T, or both N and J are after T. However, we need both to be before T. Having both after T is not an option given the original possibilities. Eliminated.

Choice D requires that everything except H and P go before T. In other words, F, J, N would all have to go before T. Maybe H and P would also, maybe they wouldn't. However, this puts things back as they were before, by imposing that N and J go before T (since F is already before J, it must always go before T as well). Choice D is our answer.

I'll discuss Choice E anyway.

Choice E requires that P is either before both N and T or that it's after both N and T. In Possibility #1, P was before both N and T. However, in Possibility #2, we could've had the general ordering N - P - T. As such, this new constraint violates what was previously possible. Furthermore, this new constraint does not require both N and J to go before T, so it's not limiting things in the same way they were limited before. Eliminated.

Photo by flydime

October 2010 LSAT Logic Games Explanation #3

This LSAT Blog post covers the third Logic Game of the October 2010 LSAT (PrepTest 61).

Don't look at these explanations until you've taken PrepTest 61 as a full-length timed exam.

Also see:


PrepTest 61 (October 2010 LSAT), Game 1 Explanation
PrepTest 61 (October 2010 LSAT), Game 2 Explanation
PrepTest 61 (October 2010 LSAT), Game 4 Explanation

Explanations for Recent LSAT Logic Games

***

This game concerns five runners: Quinn, Ramirez, Smith, Terrell, and Uzoma, four of whom are picked and then placed in order.

Here's a very basic initial main diagram:









Explanation of basic initial main diagram:

I've listed the 5 runners to the side of the numbered spaces.

I've written Q on the side and said that if we have Q, we will have Q and T occurring consecutively in that order.

I've placed S with a slash through it below places 2 and 4 because S can't go on those slots.

I've created a double-arrow between NOT-U and R2, because the combination of the 3rd and 4th rules tells us that if U doesn't go, R's 2nd, and if R's 2nd, U doesn't go. Each is both necessary and sufficient for the other, giving us NOT-U <-> R2

Now, we can also take the contrapositive of these statements.

Original = Contrapositive

If U doesn't go, R's 2nd. = If R's not 2nd, U goes.

If R's 2nd, U doesn't go. = If U goes, R's not 2nd.


The contrapositive statements give us:

NOT R2 <-> U


Now, we know 1 of the 5 runners must not be chosen, since there are only 4 races. As such, I create 5 main diagrams, one representing the "non-selection" of each runner:




















I've crossed out the runner who's not going in each possibility, leaving the 4 who are going.

You can leave off here and jump into the questions and answer them all correctly. However, there are many more initial inferences worth making if you can.

Now, possibility 5 is actually the easiest to start with because U being out requires that R go on 2. When R's on 2, QT must go on 3 and 4 (respectively), leaving S on 1. Therefore, possibility 5 is complete.

Possibility 4 can't ever occur because Q requires T to be in.

In Possibilities 1, 2, and 3, we can't have R on 2 because when U is in, R can't be on 2, according to the diagrams drawn on the side.

We're now at this point:

















In Possibility 1, we don't have Q, so there's not going to be a QT block, and things are kind of open-ended. All we can really say is that either T or U is 2nd.

In Possibilities 2 and 3, we're going to have a QT block, but we don't know where it goes. There are 3 different possible placements of QT (on 1-2, 2-3, or 3-4).

I've now broken each of those apart a bit (and moved the numbering of the "Possibilities" over to the left side of each:















Now, we can easily place the remaining runners on the remaining slots of 2A, 2B, 2C, and 3A, 3B, and 3C.

Since S can't be on 4, 2A will have S on 3, and 2B will have S on 1. 2A and 2B then get U on 4 since that's all that remains, so they're complete.

3A and 3B have no rules to satisfy since they don't even contain S and they've already avoided the possibility of having R on 2, so their remaining slots can interchangeably hold U and R.

In 2C, S can't go on 2, so it must go on 1, leaving U to go on 2.

In 3C, R can't go on 2, so it must go on 1, leaving U to go on 2.

This gives us a complete diagram for nearly every valid scenario:















For those of you who are still reading, it's time to *finally* move on to the questions. First, a comment/caveat:

I know people are going to ask me whether making all these initial inferences is really necessary. The answer is a firm "No." You can get all the questions right without doing all this work beforehand, but doing this will make the questions go more smoothly.

The method you choose depends upon your level of comfort with spending more time in the initial setup, as well as your ability to diagram quickly.

Even if you don't have the time to make all of these inferences and still have the time to get to the questions, that's ok. Again, you don't have to make all these inferences, but I still want to get you thinking about the fact that it's possible to make them. While they might give you more information than you need for these questions, it's better to have too much information than too little.

Question 12:

Since our diagrams contain all valid possibilities, we can simply eliminate those answer choices that don't fit the scenarios we've already drawn.

Choice A can't happen in any of our possibilities. Eliminated.

Choice B can't happen in any of our possibilities. Eliminated.

Choice C can't happen in any of our possibilities. Eliminated.

Choice D could happen in Possibility 1. It's our answer.

Choice E can't happen in any of our possibilities. Eliminated.

Of course, you can also solve this question simply by taking the basic rules one at a time and applying them to the choices.

Using that method:

Choice C's eliminated because it has Q but doesn't have QT occurring consecutively in the correct order.

Choice B's eliminated because it has S on 2.

Choice E's eliminated because it lacks U, yet doesn't have R on 2.

Choice A's eliminated because it has R on 2, yet it still has U.

By elimination, choice D's our answer.


Question 13:

The possibility that didn't work was the one that lacked T, Possibility 4. Therefore, T must always be in. Choice D's our answer.


Question 14:

For this question, we can just run through the choices and see which choice limited things to only one valid scenario, with no ambiguity at all.

Choice A says R1, but R1 could've occurred in any of Possibility 1, 3B, or 3C. Eliminated.

Choice B says R2, but R2 can only occur in Possibility #5. This is our answer.

I'll go through the others anyway.

Choice C says R3, but R3 could occur in Possibility 1 or 3A. Eliminated.

Choice D says R4, but R4 could occur in Possibility 1, 3A, or 3B. Eliminated.

Choice E says R doesn't go at all, but R could "not-go" in any of 2A, 2B, or 2C. Eliminated.


Question 15:

Anything that we've seen occur in our possibilities can automatically be eliminated.

Choice A: R immediately before S never occurs in any of the scenarios we've drawn, and it can't occur in Possibility 1 because S can't be 4th. This is our answer. I'll run through the others anyway, though.

Choice B: S immediately before Q occurs in Possibility 2B. Eliminated.

Choice C: S immediately before T can occur in Possibility 1. Eliminated.

Choice D: T immediately before R can occur in Possibility 1, 3A, and 3B. Eliminated.

Choice E: U immediately before T can occur in Possibility 1. Eliminated.


Question 16:

If U goes 1st, we can be within Possibility 1 or 3B.

Choice A can be eliminated because Q is in Possibility 3B.

Choice B can be eliminated because S is in Possibility 1.

Choice C can be eliminated because in Possibility 1 we could have UTSR. Q doesn't have to be 2nd.

Choice D can be eliminated because Q is 2nd in Possibility 3B.

By elimination, Choice E is our answer.


Question 17:

If both Q and S are in, we could be in any of Possibilities 2A, 2B, 2C, or 5.

Looking across these possibilities, we've only seen Q or S appear 1st. Therefore, Choice B (two) is our answer.


Photo by jmrosenfeld

October 2010 LSAT Explanations: Logic Game #4

This LSAT Blog post covers the fourth Logic Game of the October 2010 LSAT (PrepTest 61).

Don't look at these explanations until you've taken PrepTest 61 as a full-length timed exam.

Also see:


PrepTest 61 (October 2010 LSAT), Game 1 Explanation
PrepTest 61 (October 2010 LSAT), Game 2 Explanation
PrepTest 61 (October 2010 LSAT), Game 3 Explanation

Explanations for Recent LSAT Logic Games

***

This game concerns seven nurses: Farnham, Griseldi, Heany, Juarez, Khan, Lightfoot, and Moreau who are placed in order, 1st through 7th.

Here's a very basic initial main diagram:







Explanation of basic initial main diagram:
I wrote down "H/M - ? - ? - M/H" because there are at least 2 nurses between H and M, but there could be more. I've kept things open-ended by representing this with dashes, rather than as a block. I put down H/M and M/H because we don't know which one comes first. The question-marks signify the nurses coming between H and M.

I put down GK with a box around it to indicate that they must be consecutive in that particular order. J later than M is represented with "M-J" meaning that since M is to the left of the dash, it's occurring earlier than J, which is to the right of the dash.

F before K but after L gives us the general ordering of "L - F - K". However, since there is a GK block, the ordering becomes "L - F - GK" (with a box around the GK).

Since L can't go on 2, place an L with a slash through it under the 2nd space.

***

Now, L can't go on 2, and we know that it can't go too late because it has at least 3 variables (F, G, and K) occurring after it. This makes me think about where L might go.

It seems like L could only go on 1, 3, or 4.

However, if we place L on 4, a problem arises:







L on 4 forces FGK to go on 5, 6, and 7, respectively.

We can then try to space apart M and H. Since M must go before J, we can put M on 1 and H on 3. However, we need at least two spaces before M and H. As such, L on 4 is impossible. This leaves L to go on either 1 or 3.

If L's on 3, we can't have the GK block on 4-5, since we need to have F between them. Therefore, when L's on 3, we can either have the GK block on 5-6 or 6-7.

When L's on 3 and the GK block's on 5-6, F must go on 4. When L's on 3 and the GK block's on 6-7, F could be on either 4 or 5.

This gives us the following two possibilities:









Now, keeping in mind the other rules:

-M and H have at least two nurses between them.
-M is before J.

We know that in the top possibility I've drawn, one of M or H must go on 7 in order to keep M and H spaced relatively far apart. We can't have M on 7 because then J would have no room to go after it. Therefore, in that diagram, H must go 7th, M must go 1st, and J must go 2nd.

In the bottom possibility I've drawn, one of M or H must go on either 4 or 5 (depending upon which one of those F goes on) in order to keep M and H spaced relatively far apart. M can't be the one to go on either 4 or 5, because then F would go on the other one of 4 or 5, and we'd then have no space to place J after it. Therefore, in that diagram, H must go wherever F does not. In order to keep M before J, M goes on 1, and J goes on 2.

We now have:










These represent all possibilities for when L is on 3. However, we still have the more open-ended possibility where L is on 1.

In this scenario, F before the GK block must occur somewhere in the remaining spaces, H and M must have at least two nurses between them, and M must go before J. M/H on 2 or 3 seems fine, but having either M or H on 4 is problematic. If H was on 4, we'd need to have M on 7, but then J wouldn't be able to fit after it.

On the other hand, if M was on 4, and H was on 7, we wouldn't be able to fit GK after F while still fitting M before J.

If the GK block is on 5-6, J can't fit after F. If the GK block is on 2-3, F can't fit before it. Therefore neither M nor H can go on 4 when L is 1st.

Here's everything we have so far:













Now, we can split apart the diagram with L on 1 based upon the placement of the GK block. We know GK can't go on 2-3 because we need F before it. It seems that GK can go on 3-4, 4-5, 5-6, or 6-7.

However, placing GK on 3-4 creates a problem. How can M and H have at least 2 nurses between them when they can only go on 5, 6, or 7? It won't work. As such, GK can only go on 4-5, 5-6, or 6-7. (I've numbered the possibilities on the left side for quick reference.)













In Possibility 3, M and H must be split across 2 and 5 in order to have at least two nurses between them. Now, we know that M must go before J. As such, M will go on 2, H will go on 5, and F and J will be interchangeable on 3 and 4.

In Possibility 2, one of M and H must go on 7. It can't be M because M has to go before J. Therefore, H has to go on 7. Within spaces 2, 3, and 4, we must fit M before J, and then F's floating around within any of those 3 spaces. As such, there are only 3 possibilities for those 3 slots based upon the various placements of F (shown in below diagram).

In Possibility 1, F must go on either 2 or 3 in order to go before the GK block, and J must go on either 6 or 7. If J was on 3, we'd need to have M on 2, and then we wouldn't be able to fit F before the GK block.

This all brings us to our...

Final Main Diagram:










Every valid scenario falls within one of these possibilities.

For those of you who are still reading, it's time to *finally* move on to the questions. First, a comment/caveat:

I know people are going to ask me whether making all these initial inferences is really necessary. The answer is a firm "No." You can get all the questions right without doing all this work beforehand, but doing this will make the questions go more smoothly.

The method you choose depends upon your level of comfort with spending more time in the initial setup, as well as your ability to diagram quickly.

Even if you don't have the time to make all of these inferences and still have the time to get to the questions, that's ok. Again, you don't have to make all these inferences, but I still want to get you thinking about the fact that it's possible to make them. While they might give you more information than you need for these questions, it's better to have too much information than too little.

It's now time to (finally) move on to the questions themselves.

Question 18:

Since our diagrams contain all valid possibilities, we can simply eliminate those answer choices that don't fit the scenarios we've already drawn.

Choice A can't happen in any of our possibilities. Eliminated.

Choice B can't happen in any of our possibilities. Eliminated.

Choice C can't happen in any of our possibilities. Eliminated.

Choice D is identical to Possibility 2B. It's our answer.

Choice E can't happen in any of our possibilities. Eliminated.

Of course, you can also solve this question simply by taking the basic rules one at a time and applying them to the choices.

Using that method:

Choice E has only one space between H and M, not the required minimum of 2. Eliminated.

Choice C has J before M, not M before J. Eliminated.

Choice A has F before L, not L before F. Eliminated.

Choice B has L on 2. Eliminated.


Question 19:

Where can't J go? Scanning vertically through each of our possibilities, J's never gone on 5. Of course, J's never on 1 either, but 1's not a choice. (Making 1 the answer instead of 5 would be a little too easy, given that we know it off-the-bat from the simple rule that M is before J). Choice C's our answer.


Question 20:

If J's 3rd, we must be within Possibility 2C or Possibility 3.

If an answer choice doesn't happen in either of those two possibilities, we know it can't be true.

Choice D, G on 5, occurs within Possibility 2C, but none of the other choices occur in either possibility, so they're eliminated.


Question 21:

If K's before M, we must be within Possibility 1, because all of the others have M before K.

In order to have K before M in Possibility 1, we must have M on 6 and J on 7. This would then require F and H to be interchangeable on 2 and 3. F is not a choice, but H is, so choice B's our answer.


Question 22:

If G's on 5, we must be in either Possibility 2 or 4. The correct answer has to occur in both possibilities in order to be a "must". Choice B, H on 7, occurs in both, so it's our "must". I'll run through the others anyway.

Choice A occurs in 2B, but not in 2A, 2C, or 4. Eliminated.

Choice C occurs in 2A and 2B, but not in 2C or 4. Eliminated.

Choice D occurs in 2, but not in 4. Eliminated.

Choice E occurs in 2B and 2C, but not in 2A or 4. Eliminated.


Question 23:

We know L could be on either 1 or 3, but those are the only possibilities, so Choice A is our answer.

Choice B, L on 4, is probably the most tempting wrong answer for those who didn't make the initial inference that L couldn't be on 4, but we've got it under control.


Photo by gbaku

LSAT Diary: A Retaking-The-LSAT Success Story

This installment of LSAT Diaries comes from JT (Justin Timberlake?), who followed one of my LSAT study schedules, scored a 172, and got accepted to UVA Law!

He's got some great LSAT advice for you about how he did it.

If you want to be in LSAT Diaries, please email me at LSATUnplugged@gmail.com. (You can be in LSAT Diaries whether you've taken the exam already or not.)

Thanks to JT for sharing his experience and advice, and please leave your questions for him below in the comments!

JT's LSAT Diary:

After my first practice test, I thought that Logic Games were impossible; they were unlike anything I had seen before. I couldn’t keep track of any of the variables or rules and felt so frustrated. I stumbled across Steve’s blog and attended one of his free LSAT Logic Games workshops in NYC. I was amazed at how quickly he solved them - there was hope! I began working through logic games, and although some games would take me 20 minutes, I was starting to figure them out. I started Steve’s 5-month study schedule and within a matter of weeks I was feeling comfortable with linear games.

By the end of the 5-month schedule, I felt ready to take the June 2010 LSAT. I was averaging a 173 on my 10 most recent timed practice tests and felt confident about meeting my 170 goal. I took a week off from work in the days leading up to the test to maximize study time.

I was restless the night before the test; I kept dreaming about impossible Logic Games and convoluted Reading Comprehension passages. Arriving at the test center I had butterflies in my stomach. I anxiously waited for the test to begin and almost immediately began second guessing my answers. My adrenaline was flowing and heart rate was high. I ended up running out of time on the second LR section and guessed every answer on the last logic game. This had not happened to me in months of taking practice tests. I couldn’t believe it – I was devastated and felt that after 5 months of studying, I had blown the chance of reaching a 170. I simply was not ready for the pressure of the real test and ended up canceling my score.

During the practice tests I felt calm, sure of my answers and confident with Logic Games. After reading the question, I could frequently predict what the answer would look like. The real LSAT felt like a totally different test. I thought I was seeing different question types and logic games that never existed on other tests. When the June test was released, I realized that it was just like all the other tests; the truth was that I simply was not prepared for the pressure of taking the real thing.

I started following Steve’s 3-month retake schedule. I knew that the most important area for me to improve on was overcoming test day pressure. Steve recommended taking practice tests in a simulated setting, with a proctor and other test takers. This truly helped. I felt nervous at the beginning of my first simulated test but quickly got into a rhythm. Success on one section of the test led to success on the next section. After a couple simulated tests, I felt much more confident about taking the real thing and started to relate to Steve’s blog entry “How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the LSAT”.

Taking the October 2010 LSAT felt good. In the days prior to the test, I did not take off any time from work and treated the whole thing like it was no big deal. I slept well the night before. I finished each section with time to spare and felt confident in my answers. I had 2 LG sections (1 was experimental) and felt like I crushed both of them. Logic Games turned out to be my best section and I only missed 1 question on it.

I learned that doing well on practice tests is necessary but not sufficient to doing well on the real thing. It is just as important to learn the skills necessary to conquer test day nerves. I scored a 158 on my first timed practice test and scored a 172 (99th percentile) on the October 2010 LSAT. Putting time and effort into the LSAT will pay off; I was just accepted to my dream school, University of Virginia School of Law.

LSAT Self-Study Schedules / Plans / Guides

New LSAT self-study schedules (premium day-by-day versions of my free week-by-week LSAT study schedules) are now available for instant download after purchase.

The newest ones I've made available are for 5-month, 6-month, and 7-month study timelines. They're currently arranged for those of you planning to take the June 2011 LSAT.

If you're taking the December 2010 LSAT or February 2011 LSAT, I've already had shorter premium day-by-day versions of my LSAT self-study schedules available for a few weeks now. Get moving!

October 2010 LSAT Curve - PrepTest 61

Just wanted to let everyone interested know that I've included the October 2010 LSAT (PrepTest 61) "curve" data in my blog post containing all the other LSAT PrepTest raw score conversion charts.

The "curve" on the October exam was pretty generous. It allowed 12 incorrect answers to get a 170. (The average for September/October exams in recent years was only 10.25 incorrect answers).

The below chart contains recent data regarding the number of questions you could get wrong on recent exams and still achieve a particular scaled score (out of 180):

This continues the trend of relatively generous curves in the most recent exams.

(See what it's taken to get an LSAT score of 160 or 170.)

How'd everyone do?


Photo by blprnt_van