LSAT Diaries: Self-Study Veteran

LSAT Diaries Self Study VeteranLSAT Blog reader Anna scored a 165 on the February LSAT using my 3-month LSAT study schedule.

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.)

Please leave her your questions and comments!

The Self-Study Veteran's Diary:

When I started planning for the February LSAT last year, I was completely clueless about the test, so I did what I always do: I Googled it. It immediately became clear that many people take an LSAT prep course, but when I navigated to a list of course prices, I had a cow: I’d have to forgo 2000 cans of Diet Coke for even the scrimpiest group LSAT course!!

I know it’s an investment and it isn’t as if it even approaches the cost of college, but somehow the massive cost of tuition is so large it feels like Monopoly money, whereas these courses were just in the extremely expensive end of the “real money” category.

Luckily, my cow was short-lived, as I was soon given the motivation to opt for the Diet Coke over the course:

1st, I found LSAT Blog – a free (thank goodness!) alternative source of guidance and information

2nd, I expressed my hesitation about taking an LSAT prep course to a friend. When she replied with a skeptical comment about being able to do well on the LSAT without a prep course, my knee-jerk reaction was, in the words of Emperor Kuzco, “Bring it on.”

Once I’d decided to go sans-course, I did what most readers of this blog probably do and selected one of Steve’s LSAT study schedules (in my case, the 3-month schedule). I have to be honest though: I obsess, so the schedule was more of a structured restraint. I knew I wouldn’t struggle with forcing myself to study (I’m in college, for Pete’s sake!) but I didn’t want to overdo the LSAT stuff and end up ruining the next 3 months of my life.

I vowed to stick only to the schedule, and to treat the LSAT like any other class with homework assignments. I usually stuck to this philosophy, though every once in a while I’d go a little overboard. This usually happened because I was trying to watch Dirty Jobs while studying, which meant bombing a problem set, thereby triggering a panic attack, and I'd start to spaz a bit.

I found the quickest way to nip the spazzing in the bud was to keep perspective, so pretty early on, I began keeping a Bible near my LSAT study material and reading it in between tests or book chapters. Reading the Bible helped remind me that God is in control, that He alone is necessary and sufficient for joy in life (you can tell I’m an LSAT taker, right?) and that law school is not the be-all, end-all.

As the test grew closer, I continued to treat it like I would a final exam for a class, and made a summary study sheet. I put all the Logical Reasoning question types, the Logic Games notations, and the Reading Comprehension tips into a word document and edited them down to a double-sided colorful reference card I could use to review on the morning of the test. When the fateful morning arrived, I got up in plenty of time to drive around town singing at the top of my lungs to my favorite music and took my Bible with me (though I had to stash it outside). All in all, I lived and got an awesome score!

Next step: law school admission.

Photo by new housedesign

LSAT Retake Study Schedule / Plan: Intense Version

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

I originally created the following 3-month LSAT study schedule for a student of mine. This student is preparing for an LSAT retake, has the goal of 170+, and is able to study for the LSAT full-time from now until Test Day.

If you're not preparing for a retake, use one of the other  LSAT study schedules.

If you're preparing for a retake but can't study full-time, also check out this 3-month LSAT study schedule.

Anyway, if you're:

-retaking

-can study full-time for the 3-month period leading up to Test Day (at least 4-5 hours on most days)

-have the desire to work hard (which is a good idea if you struggle a lot with this stuff and/or want a top score)

the following schedule is a good guideline for you.

Most people (as well as the student I made this schedule for) tend to struggle less with Reading Comp than with the other sections. As such, I've left out RC-specific prep for the earlier portion of the schedule, but you'll be doing a couple dozen exams worth of RC, anyway, so that should be enough.

Aside from that, this schedule will allow you to cover nearly every single LSAT PrepTest's Logic Games and Logical Reasoning questions. It's super-intense but doesn't include the older RC passages, so, as always, feel free to modify as necessary.


If you didn't study properly the first time around, you may want to make some kind of hybrid of the following and one of the original 3-month LSAT study schedules (not for retakers). This one's for people who have already done a good portion of that work.

Without further ado....

The 3-Month LSAT Retake Study Schedule / Plan: Intense Version


Relevant links:

LR Categorizations

LR Analysis Example

LG Categorization for PrepTests 19-38
LG Categorization for PrepTests 39-present


Recommended Books:

See a list of recommended books in Best LSAT Prep Books.



Week 1:

Do every LG from several older PrepTests by type at least twice using my categorization. If you have already used many of the released LSAT exams, you can work out of older PrepTests by using Grouped by Game Type.

Do each game until it makes perfect sense and you're able to solve it efficiently (within a reasonable period of time and inferences/questions flow naturally).


Week 2:

Do every Logical Reasoning question from several older PrepTests by type using the categorization. If you have already used many of the released LSAT exams, you can work out of the older PrepTests by using Grouped by Question Type.

Mark off any questions you answer incorrectly or have trouble on and analyze them in depth. Write out WHY the correct answer is correct and why the incorrect answers (esp. the one you chose) are wrong.


Week 3:

Do Logic Games from several older PrepTests by type using my categorization.

Do each game until it makes perfect sense and you're able to solve it efficiently (within a reasonable period of time and inferences/questions flow naturally).


Week 4:

Do Logical Reasoning questions from several older exams by type using the categorization.

Mark off any questions you answer incorrectly or have trouble on and analyze them in depth. Write out WHY the correct answer is correct and why the incorrect answers (esp. the one you chose) are wrong.


Week 5:

Do Logic Games from several older PrepTests by type using my categorization.

Do each game until it makes perfect sense and you're able to solve it efficiently (within a reasonable period of time and inferences/questions flow naturally).

Do two older PrepTests as full-length timed 4-section exams. Review any questions you answer incorrectly or have trouble on and analyze them in depth. Write out WHY the correct answer is correct and why the incorrect answers (esp. the one you chose) are wrong. Also read the LSAT explanations for the sections that give you trouble.


Week 6:

Do Logical Reasoning questions from several older exams by type using the categorization.

Mark off any questions you answer incorrectly or have trouble on and analyze them in depth. Write out WHY the correct answer is correct and why the incorrect answers (esp. the one you chose) are wrong.

Do two older PrepTests as full-length timed 4-section exams. Review any questions you answer incorrectly or have trouble on and analyze them in depth. Write out WHY the correct answer is correct and why the incorrect answers (esp. the one you chose) are wrong. Also read LSAC's explanations for these questions.

Do a single older PrepTest as a full-length timed 4-section exam. Review, etc.

Week 7:

Do Logic Games from several older PrepTests by type using my categorization.

Do each game until it makes perfect sense and you're able to solve it efficiently (within a reasonable period of time and inferences/questions flow naturally).

Do two older PrepTests as full-length timed 4-section exams. Review, etc.


Week 8:

Do Logical Reasoning questions from several older exams by type using the categorization.

Mark off any questions you answer incorrectly or have trouble on and analyze them in depth. Write out WHY the correct answer is correct and why the incorrect answers (esp. the one you chose) are wrong.

Do two PrepTests as full-length timed exams with Reading Comp sections from other exams inserted to simulate experimental sections. Review, etc.

For the remaining weeks, study each of these Logic Games Explanations after completing the relevant exam.


Week 9: Complete 3 recent LSAT PrepTests (timed). Splice in sections from another to simulate the experimental section. Review all wrong answers and write out explanations for them. Consider using one section to create a 6-section exam for extra practice. Review each exam on alternating days.


Week 10: Complete 3 recent LSAT PrepTests (timed). Splice in sections from another to simulate the experimental section. Review all wrong answers and write out explanations for them. Consider using one section to create a 6-section exam for extra practice. Review each exam on alternating days.


Week 11: Complete 3 recent LSAT PrepTests (timed). Splice in sections from another to simulate the experimental section. Review all wrong answers and write out explanations for them. Consider using one section to create a 6-section exam for extra practice. Review each exam on alternating days.


Week 12: Complete 3 recent LSAT PrepTests (timed). Splice in sections from another to simulate the experimental section. Review all wrong answers and write out explanations for them. Consider using one section to create a 6-section exam for extra practice. Review each exam on alternating days.



LSAT Extended Time Accommodations Documentation

LSAT Blog Extended Time*This is the first of a 4-part series on the LSAT accommodations process.*

Test-takers often say if they had unlimited time, they'd get 180s. Whether or not that's true, the fact remains that virtually everyone taking the LSAT would benefit from extended time on each section.

LSAC's research suggests:
LSAT scores earned under accommodated testing conditions that included extra testing time are not comparable to LSAT scorers earned under standard timing conditions as evidenced by a tendency of the former to overpredict FYAs [First-year grade point averages in law school -Steve].
Source: Predictive Validity of Accommodated LSAT Scores (PDF)

(Also see: Accommodated Test Taker Trends and Performance for the June 1993 through February 1998 LSAT Administrations)

Basically this means people who take the LSAT with extra time get higher scores than they would've otherwise. Not so surprising.

Unfortunately, the time constraint is a large part of what makes the LSAT difficult, so LSAC makes it extremely difficult to get extra time.

Applying for accommodations (for extra time) is a bit like preparing for a trial where you're guilty until proven innocent. LSAC presumes that every test-taker who applies for extra time is not actually in need of it, until proven otherwise.

This blog post contains some info on how LSAC views your requests for extra time, and what to do about it:

First, the accommodations process in general:

Apply Early for Accommodations
It can take LSAC several weeks to process your request for accommodations and reach a decision. There's no guarantee that they'll process your request before your test date, but you have to register before you can apply for accommodations.

This means you have to apply for accommodations before you know whether they'll approve your request. If you apply too late, and they don't reach a decision before the test date, you'll have to take the LSAT without accommodations or be a no-show.


Fill Out All Their Forms
More on that in a bit.


Your Score Will be Flagged
Test-takers who receive extra time on the SAT, ACT, GRE, GMAT, and TOEFL don't get a mark on their record indicating that they received extra time. LSAC is the lone holdout among them that still places the dreaded asterisk (*) next to the score on your score report to show that you received accommodations.

You Don't Have To Take A 5th (Experimental) Section
Enough said.


Factors in LSAC's Decision to Grant Extra Time / Accommodations:

Scored Decently in the Past
if you've demonstrated that you're capable of scoring better than average (an LSAT score of approximately 150), LSAC is very unlikely to give you extra time due to ADD / ADHD.

Even if you suffer from severe ADD/ADHD and would score 175+ with a bit of extra time, LSAC won't care about that if you've demonstrated that you can score decently without accommodations.

However, LSAC's definition of "scoring decently" is scoring 150+. For many test-takers, "scoring decently" means 160+ or 165+ because these are the sorts of scores required for their goal law schools.

This suggests that if you intend to apply for accommodations, you should do so before you ever get an official LSAT score on your report. Any decent score you receive can (and will) be used against you in LSAC's decision.


Medication
If you take ADD / ADHD medication (Ritalin, Adderall, etc.), this will also be held against you in your request for accommodations. LSAC operates on the assumption that the medication levels the playing field, meaning that the medication supposedly offsets any problems or disadvantages you might face.


Documentation
If you have no previous documentation of a learning disability / disorder or attention deficit disorder, it's going to make your claims appear questionable. You've got a better shot if you were diagnosed at an early age and have received accommodations on other standardized exams in the past. LSAC will request a lot of medical forms and records. Test-takers with actual learning disabilities such as dyslexia or dysgraphia are much more likely to be granted accommodations than any kind of attention deficit disorder such as impulsivity, hyperactivity, or inattention.

Most test-takers struggle with timing - it's part of the exam's challenge. LSAC isn't going to give you unique treatment if you don't have a unique issue.

Even if you hire a doctor for your desired diagnosis, LSAC may still reject your request for accommodations if the learning disability / ADD / ADHD diagnosis is recent. Do some research before shelling out big bucks on this to some kind of 'testing accommodations expert." (It'll likely run into thousands of dollars for all the medical opinions and tests. LSAC can make you go to their doctors in addition to your own.)

If you only have ADD/ADHD, you're probably better off investing your time and money in preparing for the LSAT itself. Create your own advantage through studying rather than by trying to get one from LSAC itself.

If you do decide to hire a professional to diagnose you, make sure it's someone with experience in getting test-takers accommodations for the LSAT. This person should know the difference between a clinical diagnosis and a diagnosis for the purposes of getting accommodations under ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) guidelines. You need someone who will perform a comprehensive evaluation - not simply give you a bunch of forms to fill out.

***

Read on for Part 2: LSAT Medical Learning Disability Accommodations Forms

Photo by tonivc / CC BY-NC-ND 2.0

LSAT Medical Learning Disability Accommodations

LSAT Blog Accommodations FormsWhether you have a physical/medical disability or a learning disability, LSAC makes it extremely difficult to get extra/extended time on the LSAT. It's not as difficult to get physical accommodations, though.

No matter what, you'll have to fill out a lot of forms. In this blog post, I link to a bunch of PDFs on LSAC's website with info on how to get LSAT accommodations. It'll give you a sense of the LSAT test accommodation request process.

LSAT Accommodations: Extra Time From LSAC | Links

LSAT Blog Lawsuit Extra Time LinksThis is Part 3 of a 4-part series on LSAT Accommodations. Part 1 is LSAT Extended Time Accommodations Documentation.

***

When it comes to receiving LSAT accommodations or extra time, LSAC is notoriously strict. Most test-takers don't realize just how difficult it is.

In this blog post, I compile links from a variety of sources on LSAC's process for receiving extra time on Test Day.

Advice on Requesting LSAT Accommodations from LSAC

LSAT Advice for Disabled Students in Requesting Accommodations

Canadian Disability Rights Organization Overview of LSAT Accommodations


How Do Law Schools View LSAT Accommodations?
The Fable of the Timed and Flagged LSAT: Do Law School Admissions Committees Want the Tortoise or the Hare? discusses whether the strict time limits on the LSAT make sense. It also covers whether it's fair for applicants who get extra time to have a "flag" (asterisk) next to their score indicated they received special accommodations.


News Articles on LSAC Accommodations Lawsuits and Court Case PDFs
There have been a lot of lawsuits over LSAC's denial of many test-takers' requests for accommodations. If you plan to seek accommodations, be prepared and know what you're up against.

Man Sues for Extra Time on LSAT, Claiming ADHD

Would-Be Law Student Files Suit Claiming ADHD Merits More Time for LSAT

Law student sues admissions test firm: Claims denied accommodation for Tourette's Syndrome

Law School Admissions Council sued by UW student and others

Plaintiff in UW case describes her need for accommodations

Lawsuit between quadriplegic law school applicant and LSAC (PDF)

Former Student Sues LSAT Council

Paralyzed Law School Applicant Alleges Disability Discrimination Against LSAT

Judge's ruling in LSAC appeals case appropriate

Disabled student gets fresh shot at LSAT (scroll down a little to see article)

Are Disabled People Writing the LSAT Entitled to Accommodation?

Emma Arenson v. Law School Admission Council

Thomas Scherer v. LSAC (PDF)

US Government vs. LSAC over ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act)

Extra Time Denied to LSAT Taker Who Claims He Has ADHD

ADA Complaint for Kim Dempsey Suing LSAC For Accommodations (PDF)

***

Read on for Part 4: LSAT Accommodations Extended Time Deadline PDF

Photo by stealthtractor / CC BY-ND 2.0

LSAT Accommodations Extended Time Deadline PDF

LSAT Blog Accommodations DeadlineThis is Part 4 of a 4-part series on LSAT Accommodations. Part 1 is LSAT Extended Time Accommodations Documentation.

***

Here are LSAC's deadlines for LSAT accommodation requests (PDF). The deadline to submit your request forms to LSAC for extended time is generally a little over a month before the given test date.

However, there are a lot of forms to pull together, so if you plan to apply for extra time, create a self-imposed deadline that's far before that deadline. This will increase your chances of having a complete request package by the deadline date.

Photo by aidanmorgan / CC BY 2.0


LSAT Logical Reasoning Question Types: A New Approach

Just about everyone loves to suggest completing LSAT Logical Reasoning questions by question stem type.

I also recommend this, of course. I even tell you to work through Logical Reasoning questions this way in my LSAT study schedules.

There are two major reasons LSAT prep folks often recommend this:

1. You have to understand what the question is asking in order to solve it. Drilling by question-stem type can help you solidify your understanding of what sort of information the question asks.

2. It's easy to categorize questions by their question stem. You can do this without taking the time to read the stimulus.

A New Approach to Logical Reasoning Questions
I have another Logical Reasoning categorization system in mind - one that categorizes each stimulus by its method of reasoning, rather than by its question stem.

It would take like 10 bajillion hours to actually categorize all the Logical Reasoning questions like this, so I'm not going to. Sorry, guys.

However, I will discuss how to think about Logical Reasoning questions by focusing on the method of reasoning and the gap between evidence and conclusion.

Rather than thinking about the question-stem, let's focus on the stimulus itself. This allows us to engage with each question on a deeper level and make connections across these (somewhat) artificially-imposed categories.

By thinking about Logical Reasoning questions based upon the method of reasoning in the stimulus, you get a better understanding of the argument.


A Few Methods of Reasoning
For example, we could categorize many LR questions by the flaws or gaps exhibited in their stimuli.

Here are just a few:

Necessary/Sufficient Condition Confusion
Correlation/Causation Issues
Confusing a "Could" for a "Must"
Taking "absence of evidence" as "evidence of absence (of evidence)"

These sorts of issues don't just come up in flaw questions. They come up in several "types" of questions.


Altering Logical Reasoning Questions
To illustrate the fact that gaps are central to many types of questions, think about this:

Some stimuli can easily be transformed from one question-stem type into several others.

In other words, we can view the same stimulus and correct answer choice from a variety of perspectives.

By leaving the correct answer choice as is, by negating it, or by modifying it slightly, we can change the question stem and still have a perfectly valid LSAT question.

All we have to do is change the perspective from which we view it.

For example, we can easily transform Necessary Assumption questions into the following types of questions:

Must Be True, Cannot Be True, Flaw, Strengthen, Weaken, Evaluate the Argument, and Resolve the Paradox / Discrepancy


Example
Read on to see me transform one real LSAT Necessary Assumption question into all of those other types:

LSAT Necessary Assumption Question: The Rattlesnake Folktale

Necessary Assumption Question: The Rattlesnake Folktale

LSAT Blog Necessary Assumption Question Rattlesnake FolktaleLSAT Logical Reasoning Question Types: A New Approach started off this series. This is the second part, where I go into a particular example.

Let's look at one of my favorite Logical Reasoning questions: the Rattlesnake Folktale question. It's PrepTest 30 - December 1999 LSAT, Section 2, Question 22 - page 60 in Next 10.

We know this is a necessary assumption question because it says "which one of the following is an assumption the argument requires?"

I can't publish the full text of the question due to copyright law, but I can give a general summary of the argument and correct answer choice.

The argument describes a rattlesnake age folktale. According to this folktale, you can determine a rattlesnake's age by counting the number of sections on its rattle. This is because the rattlesnake forms a new section on its rattle each time it molts. The argument claims this rattlesnake age folktale doesn't work only because rattle sections break off due to their brittleness. It then concludes that if the rattles were not so brittle, the rattlesnake age folktale would work fine.

The question then asks for a necessary assumption. The correct answer tells us that food availability does not affect the molting rate. If food availability did affect the molting rate, then you could have two rattlesnakes, one that's had a lot of food in its life, one that's had very little food in its life, and they'd appear to be different ages.

As such, the claim that the rattles' brittleness is the only thing stopping the rattlesnake age folktale from being valid is making a large assumption. The argument assumes nothing else also needs to be true in order for the rattlesnake age folktale to be valid.

Therefore, the argument depends upon this assumption in order to be valid.


Must Be True
This answer choice could have also served as the correct answer choice to a Must Be True question. It needs to be true that food availability doesn't affect the molting rate in order for the argument to be valid (more on Necessary Assumption and Must Be True questions).


Must Be False
Because this large assumption must be true in order for the argument to work, the negation of this answer choice (the denial of this assumption) cannot be true for the argument to be valid, so it must be false that food availability affects the molting rate.


Strengthen
The argument as it stands is not airtight, so it's possible to strengthen it. Again, it's claiming that all we need to do to make this rattlesnake age folktale work is remove brittleness as a factor. If we view the answer choices through the lens of providing new information (Which one of the following, if true, would most strengthen the argument?), what we previously viewed as a Must Be True can now be viewed as a strengthener.

The correct answer to what was originally a necessary assumption question also serves to strengthen the argument by dismissing the possibility that food availability affects the molting rate.

Of course, choice A also serves to strengthen the argument. In fact, it fully justifies the conclusion and serves as a sufficient assumption. It just didn't NEED to be true.)


Weaken
An answer choice that strengthens the argument often does so by dismissing potential problems, alternative causes, or alternative explanations.

This is the case with our strengtheners above. If we negate an answer choice that would strengthen the argument, we are then weakening the argument.

As such, the negation of these answer choices would serve to weaken the argument.

Meaning that if we learned that food availability did affect the molting rate, that would weaken the argument. In fact, it would destroy the argument entirely. Similarly, if we learned that rattlesnakes did not molt exactly once a year, that would weaken the argument, but only a tiny bit


Evaluate the Argument
This is when we take a major strengthener or weakener and phrase it as a question or as a "what if?".

Question: Which one of the following would be most important to know in evaluating the conclusion drawn above?

Answer: Whether food availability affects the molting rate

If food availability affected the molting rate, that would weaken the argument
If food availability did not affect the molting rate, that would strengthen the argument


Resolve the Paradox / Discrepancy
Let's rephrase the stimulus by keeping the evidence the same but saying the conclusion did not logically follow. Something like:

"We genetically engineered rattlesnakes to remove brittleness as a factor, yet our top-secret Pentagon-funded rattlesnake age folktale still didn't reliably determine a rattlesnake's age."

How is this possible?

Well, if we learned that food availability affected the molting rate, that would explain why the rattlesnake age folktale still wasn't working.


***

Now go through the exact same process with another Logical Reasoning question. I propose PrepTest 30 - December 1999, Section 2, Question 15 (page 58 in Next 10).

Photo by zackbittner

LSAT Diary: LSAT Prep Concluding Thoughts

LSAT Blog LSAT Prep Concluding Thoughts Diary
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 Law School Dreamer for sharing her experience and advice!

Law School Dreamer's LSAT Diary:

The week before the exam I took four practice tests – two of which produced scores below 150. I panicked. In fact, I scored a 149 on my very last practice test prior to the June 2010 test administration. This led me feeling, understandably, less than confident in myself – not the way I wanted to go into test day.

I spent the last 48 hours prior to my test day plastering my bathroom mirror with post-its containing messages like “sufficient assumption questions: premise + correct answer choice = conclusion”. I deeply regret having jumped into taking timed practice tests before completing the prep books. In one sentence, an overview of my prep could be described as: “learned about Logic Games, jumped into timed practice tests, got frustrated, freaked out, learned about Logical Reasoning, no time left to practice acquired skills, take four more practice tests, and arrive at test day.”

I wish I would have learned Logical Reasoning as soon as I was finished with Logic Games or maybe even together. It is unrealistic to expect that one can always know how to apply the skills without really practicing them so they become second nature. And though not too much time should be spent taking untimed practice tests, I found that doing so periodically improved my skills (and my score on the following timed practice tests) because it gave me the opportunity to really think about what I needed to do and why answer choices were correct or incorrect.

Additionally, I wish I would have waited to take timed practice tests until my improvement on untimed practice tests had plateaued, or I felt there was no longer any need to take them untimed because I had my strategy down to a science. Instead, I rushed into taking timed practice tests, and It was only a month ago that I said to myself “hey, maybe you should learn to walk before you run – slow down and figure out what’s going on.” Allowing myself to take the untimed practice tests actually increased my score considerably. This was evident by the very next timed practice test I took (I jumped 8 points).

Lastly, I would have reviewed all of my practice tests and forced myself to understand why I chose wrong. I never took the time to do this until a week before the LSAT. For some reason, I took the poor scores personally and was insulted, ticked off, and wanted to never see the test again. What a mistake. Also, to force myself to slow down and understand why I got a question wrong (instead of just saying well that was stupid, next) – I would actually type out in a word document where I went wrong and what I need to watch out for next time. I forced myself to do this for every question – but again, I’ve only done this on one test (far too few, and far too late) but even still that was a big help.

I was of course nervous for Monday and took a PT on Saturday and a PT on Sunday. I know some people advise against this, but I wanted everything fresh in my mind come Monday – and I think the reason why some people do not recommend this is for fear of burnout, but in all honesty, I did not spend enough time to be anywhere near burnout. I keep improving, and I want to capitalize on that every day until test day.

The night before test day, I packed my ziploc baggy with four sharpened pencils, my pencil sharpener, a banana, bottled water, and my admission ticket and laid out my test taking attire (which include comfy pants and shoes, a light top, plus a non-hooded zip up light jacket in case I am cold). I wanted to be as comfortable as possible. Probably not my most fashionable attire but it was the least restrictive.

I also packed my zip lock baggy, printed my LSAC ticket. I already visited my test center, and most important (but maybe silly to some men) I planned how I would be doing my hair in such a way that it will not be in my way – the last thing I want is my bags or strands of hair in my face while I’m looking down at my test booklet for four hours. I also knew what I would be eating for breakfast and lunch and packed a banana for the break.

I began telling myself that this test simply determines whether I retake in October, nothing more. Can you hear the positive and controlled tone in that? By telling myself it only determines whether I retake in October (and NOT that this test could ruin my entire life and break all chances of going to law school) I was able to put things into perspective. I told my husband that after 5:00 on Sunday, June 6th we were not to mention the LSAT, Law School, or anything with the word “test.” I tried to banish all thoughts related thereto from my mind. In fact, we even went out and saw a movie, “Killers” with Ashton Kutcher and Katherine Heigl, returned home and I went to sleep. Surprisingly, I slept well.

The next morning I paid close attention to my thoughts, and even my breathing. My thoughts and actions were almost machine-like. I refused to let myself be the emotional basket case I sometimes succumb to. I looked for positive reinforcements – and I got them. For instance, I want to study animal law and advocate for animal rights and welfare.

I left a ridiculous two hours early for my test center and on the way saw a giant turtle in a pond near the road and a deer (in the middle of the day) in a nearby field. Additionally, I did not notice it before, but when I examined my LSAT admission ticket, I realized my four-digit test center code was made up the last two digits of both my father’s and step-father’s birth years. It was these little things that allowed me to tell myself I was going to be okay.

I was amazingly calm – because I told myself I had to be. I did not allow my thoughts to run away with my emotions.

The entire day was a whirlwind. I walked out feeling good about the test, but had no clue how I had done. I didn’t even want to guess my score and I could hardly remember any of the questions. (I think that LSAC somehow brainwashes you as you're exiting the test center to be sure you don’t let any of the details slip). Over the following 2 ½ weeks I did my best to not think about my score (which was very hard to do). And then one day . . . .

My score arrived two days early – on Friday, June 25th. I was at my university in my Spanish professor’s office just about to do my oral interview in Spanish. She was very well aware that I was waiting for my LSAT score, and I glanced at my blackberry just one last time before I began the interview. And there it was – a 155/64th percentile. I was shocked. In all honesty, I thought I had gotten the wrong email. I thought I was misreading it. I had NEVER scored that high on any practice test (my best timed was 153).

I told myself going into this that my goal was 160, but that if I scored a 155 I would not retake. I had taken myself from a 143 to a 155 in four months practicing roughly 8-10 hours a week while working full time and attending full time classes - totally on my own. Realizing my accomplishment was so empowering and I began to think about how I had really achieved something that, going into, I was not totally sure was possible.

I am now within the range of schools I want to attend, but am encouraged by my first-time test success to consider retaking to shoot for a high enough score that may heighten my chances of obtaining scholarship money at the schools I want to attend. I’m still deciding whether I want to, or should retake, but nevertheless, I’m very happy with my June 2010 score.

If I do choose to retake, I will follow Steve’s retaking test strategy. In the meantime, I’ve already drafted two versions of a personal statement and have notified my letter of recommendation writers that I will be providing them a packet of information to aid them in their letter writing. I hope to have my transcript, personal statement, and letters of recommendation completed and submitted by the end of August and ready to apply to schools in September.

Photo by Paul Watson

LSAT PrepTest 60 Logic Game #1 Explanation

LSAT Blog PrepTest 60 Logic Game ExplanationThe June 2010 LSAT (PrepTest 60) LSAT Logic Games section seems to have given enough people 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 60 as a full-length timed exam.

This blog post covers the first Logic Game.

Also see:

PrepTest 60 (June 2010 LSAT), Game 2 Explanation
PrepTest 60 (June 2010 LSAT), Game 3 Explanation
PrepTest 60 (June 2010 LSAT), Game 4 Explanation

Explanations for Recent LSAT Logic Games

***

Here's the main diagram:

LSAT Blog PrepTest 60 Logic Game #1 Explanation








Explanation of main diagram:

I've placed J and R to the right of the morning and afternoon rows, respectively, because they will have to go in those rows.

I've drawn K and N with slashes through them under the Wednesday column because they can never go on Wednesday (since Q must always occur at least one day prior to them).

I've drawn Q with a slash through it under the Friday column because it can never go on Friday (since both K and N must always occur at least one day prior to it).


Question 1:

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

Choice E has J in afternoon.
Choice D has R in morning.
Choice A has K before Q.
Choice C has Q and N on same day.

By elimination, the answer is B.


Question 2:

This sort of question can take forever if you start by testing each choice.

Looking at the rules, start by thinking about Q, K, and N, because they are involved in the rule that Q is before both K and N, and each of them is also involved in one of the other two rules.

Out of these 3 variables, Q is unique because it must go before the other two variables, so start by testing out Q on Thursday morning.

(N is unique also, because it's involved in the R rule, but Q trumps it because Q must go before 2 other variables, which give it unique restrictions regarding how late it can appear on the diagram.)

If Q on Thursday morning, then K and N would both have to be on Friday. J must be in the morning on the same day as either K or Q. If Q's already in the morning, it can't be with J. If K and N are both on Friday, then N can't be with J. As such, Q on Thursday morning violates the rule that J must be with either Q or K, and D is the answer.


Question 3:

We know that neither K nor N can ever be on Wednesday at all, so any choice containing at least one of the two is the answer.

Choice A contains K, so it's the answer.


Question 4:

If K's on Friday morning, this means J and Q must be on the same day with J in the morning. This creates two main possibilities. One with J and Q on Thursday and another with J and Q on Wednesday:

LSAT Blog PrepTest 60 Logic Game Question 4 Diagram 1







LSAT Blog PrepTest 60 Logic Game Question 4 Diagram 2






J on Thursday morning occurs in the 1st of these 2 diagrams, so it's our answer, choice A.


Question 5:

We already know Q can't be on Thursday or Friday morning, so if it's to be on a morning, it must be on Wednesday morning.

This means J and K must be on the same day with J in the morning. This creates two main possibilities:

LSAT Blog PrepTest 60 Logic Game Question 5 Diagram 1







LSAT Blog PrepTest 60 Logic Game Question 5 Diagram 2






Looking across these diagrams, we see J, K, N, and R appearing on Thursday, so we can eliminate all of those choices.

Whatever's left is our answer (choice E).


Question 6:

From previous diagrams, we've seen J, S, and Q appear on Wednesday morning, so choices A and B can be eliminated.

Out of the remaining variables, neither K nor N can be on Wednesday at all, and R is always in the afternoon, so it can't be on Wednesday morning either. That means J, S, and Q are the only ones who can appear on Wednesday morning, so the answer is 3 (choice C).

Photo by Urban Woodswalker

LSAT Logic Games Explanations: PrepTest 60, Game 2

LSAT Logic Games Explanations PrepTest 60 Game 2This blog post covers the second Logic Game of the June 2010 LSAT (PrepTest 60).

Don't look at these explanations until you've taken PrepTest 60 as a full-length timed exam.



Also see:

PrepTest 60 (June 2010 LSAT), Game 1 Explanation
PrepTest 60 (June 2010 LSAT), Game 3 Explanation
PrepTest 60 (June 2010 LSAT), Game 4 Explanation

Explanations for Recent LSAT Logic Games

***

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:
LSAT Blog June 2010 LSAT Game 2 First 2 Rules Combined










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

The first rule told us that L and M are earlier than H, so I've drawn lines connecting L and M to H.

The second rule told us that P and L are earlier than J, so I've reused the L that I've already drawn and placed it before J. I've also drawn a line from P to J in order to indicate that P is before J.

***

At this point, we get a conditional rule: If M is before P, then H is before G.

Since no two variables occur simultaneously, the contrapositive would simply be:

If G is before H, then P is before M.

The diagram I've previously drawn (above) is the main diagram. You can throw in a G with a slash through it to the right of the diagram if you want to deal with the conditional rule last.

However, I also like to make two big diagrams:

One with the conditional rule of: M before P ---> H before G


Another with its contrapositive: G before H ---> P before M


Initial diagram with M before P ---> H before G:

LSAT Blog PrepTest 60, Game 2, Diagram 1 - not yet complete






You'll notice that I placed M a bit to the left of where it previously was, just to more easily indicate that M is before P. I've also included G after H, since we know that H is before G.

However, the diagram is not yet finished because we know that G can't be last (4th rule). The only variable eligible to go last is J, so I must now create a modification of this diagram to represent that.

It becomes:
LSAT Blog PrepTest 60, Game+2, Diagram 1



This new diagram preserves all the previous knowledge we had, but it now ensures that J goes last to avoid making G go last.

Spend at least a few moments looking at the incomplete version of this diagram (before I placed J) last to figure out how I got my final result. It's not easy, but it's important.


Diagram with G before H ---> P before M:
LSAT Blog PrepTest 60, Game 2, Diagram 2








This one's a bit easier to make. Again, I've preserved everything we had from the combination of the first two rules, and now I've inserted G before H, as well as P before M. In this diagram, it's clear that either J or H will be last, so we've been luckier. We don't have to make any modifications to ensure that G is not last.


Quick note:

These aren't necessarily the only two possibilities, of course. It's entirely possible that neither of those conditionals will be activated (meaning the sufficient condition of either conditional statement might not be met). However, by drawing those out, we now know what happens if either of those conditionals are activated, and we also get the benefit of having a few more specific diagrams.


Now, the questions:

Question 7:

Take one rule at a time and apply it to the choices:

The first rule, that L and M go before H, eliminates choice C.

The second rule, that L and P go before J, eliminates choice A.

The fourth rule, that G goes before D, eliminates choice D.

The third rule, that M-P ---> H-G, eliminates choice B.

Answer is choice E.


Question 8:
H before G could be true in the diagram with M before P. Choice A is eliminated.

H goes 6th could be true in the diagram with G before H. Choice B is eliminated.

In the initial diagram that simply combines the first two rules, L goes before both J and H, so it can't be 5th. Choice C is our answer. (I'll go explain the remaining choices anyway).

P before M occurs in the diagram with G before H. Choice D is eliminated.

P appears second could occur in the diagram with G before H (because we could have G first). Choice E is eliminated.


Question 9:

In the initial diagram that simply combines the first two rules, we know that none of P, L, or M can go last because there's at least one variable that each must go before. We also know that G can't go last (due to the 4th rule). Looking at the diagram with M before P and at the diagram with G before H, we know that J and H could go last. Therefore, the correct answer is choice D (2).


Question 10:

This question imposes the restriction that J is before M.

Draw J - M on your paper, then, step-by-step, combine the other variables contained within the initial diagram (the one that simply combines the first two rules).

Here's one step-by-step process by which you can make all the inferences based on J going before M (the order in which you connect the variables involved in the game's first two rules doesn't really matter):

LSAT Blog PrepTest 60 Game 2 Question 10


For the last step, I placed G before H simply because we know G can't be last.

Now, let's run through the choices:

GLPH works with our final product. Even though G is toward the end of the diagram, all we know about it is that it's before H. GLPH doesn't violate anything, so choice A is our answer.

I'll run through the other choices anyway:

GPHL doesn't work because L must go before H on this diagram. Choice B is eliminated.

LHGP doesn't work because G must go before H and because P must go before H. Choice C is eliminated.

LPHG doesn't work because G must go before H. Choice D is eliminated.

PLHG doesn't work because G must go before H. Choice E is eliminated.


Question 11:
If L is immediately before G, then G would occur before H (since L is before H).

When G's before H, P's before M. We've already drawn a diagram to deal with this possibility. As a refresher, it's:
LSAT Blog PrepTest 60, Game 2, Diagram 2








Now, with the limitation that L is immediately before G, we get:

LSAT Blog PrepTest 60 Game 2 Question 11






All I've done is take G from the bottom of the diagram and put it directly to the right of L.

Now, the question of what must be true:

G no later than 3rd? Well, it only has to have two things after it (H and J), so it could be 4th. Choice A is eliminated.

H appears last? Nope, J could appear last. Choice B is eliminated.

L no later than 3rd? Well, it has to have three things after it: G, J, and H, so it has to be no later than 3rd. Choice C is our answer.

I'll go through the others, anyway.

M before G? There's no rule regarding their order - all we know is that they're both before H. Choice D is eliminated.

P first? It's possible to have L first. Choice E is eliminated.


Question 12:
If M appears first...

step-by-step, place the other variables contained within the initial diagram (the one that simply combines the first two rules) after it.

We get:










Since M being first requires that M go before P, we know that H must go before G. Since G can't go last, J must go last, meaning G will go before J.

Now, the question of what must be true:

G 5th? Nope. G only has to have two things before it, so it could be as early as 3rd. Choice A is eliminated.

H 3rd? H
only has to have one things before it, so it could be as early as 2nd. Choice B is eliminated.

J 6th? Yes, J must go last on our diagram, and choice C is the answer.

I'll go through the others:

L 2nd? L only has to have one thing after it (J), so it could be as late as 5th. Choice D is eliminated.

P 4th? P only has to have one thing after it (J),
so it could be as late as 5th. Choice E is eliminated.


Photo by telstar