Taking your LSAT questions on Facebook Live tomorrow night

I heard from many of you that you wanted to keep the LSAT study group on Facebook. As much as I have a love/hate relationship with that site - I can't help giving you what you want. And Facebook has some cool and unique features - like Facebook Live - that it didn't back when I "swore off" using it years ago. So, I'm introducing the LSAT Unplugged Facebook Group: https://www.facebook.com/groups/LSATUnplugged/ And I'm reluctantly becoming a Facebook addict again...but only for LSAT :) To kick things off, I'm hosting a Facebook Live in the group tomorrow night. The focus will be on Test Day prep for the September LSAT, but I'll cover other topics and take Q&A. (And if you can't make that one, don't worry - I'll do more in the future.) Join the group now so I have time to approve your membership before tomorrow night. Looking forward to connecting with you all in the group! Steve P.S. Not into Facebook? I get that. Check out my LSAT coaching sessions on YouTube. Or why not both? Join the LSAT Unplugged Facebook Group ---->

Future LSATs + Last-Minute LSAT Prep in Facebook Live

Last night's LSAT Unplugged meetup at my office in Brooklyn was a huge success. It was great to meet so many of you. And a big shout-out to Rina who came all the way from Boston! There was no agenda. This wasn't your typical LSAT class. We just got real and talked about many of the deeply personal aspects of LSAT prep that are often ignored. Like the fact that it's hard to go it alone. And the LSAT makes us feel dumb sometimes. And that it's turned out to be MUCH harder than we first expected. I find that live events like last night's are a great way to connect with others going through the process and help us all feel a little less alone. That's why I created the LSAT Unplugged Facebook group. To help you connect with other students in the same position as you. And to allow me to connect with you more than I can on the LSAT Blog or the LSAT Unplugged YouTube / podcast. Of course, we can't always meet up in person the way we did last night. Sadly, not everyone lives in NYC (even if they should). So I wanted to connect with you all online, especially since the September LSAT is just a few days away. For that reason, I'm hosting a Facebook Live tonight at 5:30 Pacific / 8:30 Eastern.  Tonight, I'll be going over last-minute test prep advice for those of you taking the September LSAT, and I'll share LSAT prep advice and strategies for anyone prepping for the October / November LSATs and beyond. As always, I'll save plenty of time for Q&A. Join the group now so I'll have time to approve your request before tonight's event in just a few hours. Here's the link where I'll be at 5:30 Pacific / 8:30 Eastern: https://www.facebook.com/groups/LSATUnplugged/ Hope to see you tonight. Steve P.S. Even if you can't make it tonight, be sure to still join the group anyway. I'll be announcing future meetups and other live online events there as well.

Law school prep class recording for you

Larry Law Law - creator of the KTCOOLS law school prep course - was kind enough to offer a free law school prep class for LSAT Unplugged students. He covered prepping for law school exams, succeeding as a 1L, etc. All the good stuff you need to know BEFORE starting fall semester of law school Here's the recording from that class:

Here's the link to find out more about Larry's LawLaw's law school prep course (that's a mouthful!) ---> So if you're planning to start law school this fall, and you're one of those people who likes to plan ahead (or often WISH you did): * watch the replay of the law school prep class ICYMI * join Larry LawLaw's prep course * come back and let me know all about how you aced 1L year I'll be waiting to hear from you, Steve

what happens when I say "No" to people

My coaching's not for everyone, and some people have a hard time getting that. 

They think it's just about trading services for money.

I don't work that way.

Yes, I require a significant financial commitment investment of my students. (It's a minimum investment of $5,000 to work with me and students pay up to $20,000.) 

But this opportunity will cost you more than just money. You must be ready to invest your time and energy. You must be ready to commit to this process and make it such a powerful force in your life that it will have a lasting impact into law school and beyond.

In more cases than you'd think, I have to turn students away because they're not willing to invest of themselves the dedication it takes to succeed.

Now, I promised you a story in the subject line, and I'm going to deliver.

Here's why I said "No" to one student (and his reaction):

I ask potential students to email me their answers to a list of background questions before we speak. This allow us to make the most of our time together during the call.

His answer to some questions was incomplete, and he completely skipped others with no explanation.

When I asked him to fix them, he didn't.

He failed to get back to me about our first potential appointment time, and basically said "anytime works" when I asked him to suggest a few.

So, you can imagine how frustrated I was by this point. I'd given him several chances to show what kind of student he'd be, and he'd let me down every time.

Finally, I'd had enough!

Here's what I initially wrote:

I'm going to take the option of coaching off the table for now. I only work with highly-motivated, high-performing students who are willing to invest significant time and energy in their LSAT prep. This is the 2nd opportunity I've given you to complete the questions and confirm a specific date and time.

My coaching's not for everyone, but I'll still do what I can to point you in the right direction. Just let me know what you need right now.

All the best,
Steve

His reaction (full of excuses!):

Hi Steve,

I don’t appreciate that knowing that I have adhd that you associated me with not being highly motivated and high performing. My adhd causes me to forget a lot of daily tasks.

That’s a quick assumption to make on a small number of interactions. Which as we know from the LSAT is not proper logic.

I understand that this is became a waste of you time quickly, which is quick for someone to say when they are ignorant of learning disabilities and disabling conditions.

I will no longer be wasting any of your time.

I'm sympathetic to people with all sorts of unique challenges, but ADHD isn't why I suggested he might not be highly-motivated and high-performing.

It's because of his behavior! 

(So many LSAT students get overzealous in accusing others of flaws right off the bat. But if we look at specific language, we can be more precise in evaluating the arguments and claims we come across.)

My full response:

In my experience, I do see an association between responsiveness, attention to detail, and having those attributes I mentioned. I'm understanding of the ADHD and have worked with students with challenges like this.

I didn't see responsiveness and attention to detail in your answers to the initial questions I asked, or in scheduling our free initial conversation. This leads me to believe that those may not be present in our future potential coaching sessions, or in your LSAT preparation. I work with students who are responsive and detail-oriented. They value our coaching time and LSAT preparation highly enough to find a way to make it happen.

If we were to work together, the first thing we'd do is establish a system to ensure you're giving appropriate attention to our time together and your LSAT preparation. I ask a tremendous amount of my students, and their ability to deliver on those requirements is how we make miracles happen.

Thanks for understanding.
Steve

It's ok that things didn't work out with this guy. Our expectations didn't line up, so it wasn't a good fit. Maybe there's a tutor out who will go to his house every day and babysit him to make sure he studies.

I'm not that guy, and that's not how I work.

I ask a tremendous amount of my students, and their ability to deliver on those requirements is how we make miracles happen.

If you think you might have what it takes for LSAT coaching, reach out and let me know.

-LSAT Steve

P.S. Are you taking the LSAT within the next few months? Or are you taking it 6+ months from now?

Whenever you're taking it, I'd like to know:

What's giving you the most trouble with your LSAT studying?

and 

What would you like to learn more about?

(For example, are you having a hard time getting started, and you need some advice to stay motivated? Or have you started already, but you're finding that Logical Reasoning questions make your head spin?)

Yeah, I know everyone has different areas of difficulty, but I'm going to take the most commonly mentioned topics and focus on them going forward.

Questions from students like you are what led me to write 1,000+ free articles, publish best-selling LSAT guides, and create a series of popular LSAT courses. Your feedback inspires me to keep sharing with you.

Looking forward to hearing from you!

LSAT sufficient assumption formulas (with examples)

In my last article, I walked you through how to solve Sufficient Assumption questions using an incredible formula I discovered. Here's a quick recap: Evidence: D ---> E Conclusion: D ---> F Sufficient Assumption #1: E ---> F Sufficient Assumption #2: NOT F ---> NOT E with photo of connecting parts that are different going clockwise:

Evidence: A ---> B Conclusion: C ---> B Sufficient Assumption #1: C ---> A Sufficient Assumption #2: NOT A ---> NOT C with photo of connecting parts that are different going clockwise:

Now, let's add on to the first example above (mentioning D, E, and F) to include a 4th variable, G. Evidence: D ---> E Evidence: G -> NOT E Conclusion: D ---> NOT F We can take the contrapositive of the second piece of evidence to give us "E -> NOT G" Then, we can link the two pieces of evidence together to give us: Evidence: D -> E -> NOT G Conclusion: D -> NOT F Just like before, since the sufficient conditions are the same, we can link the necessary conditions to give us: Sufficient Assumption #1: NOT G ---> NOT F Sufficient Assumption #2: F ---> G Just like before, we link the parts that are different, going clockwise (in this case, the necessary conditions). *** Now, here's an example based on a real LSAT PrepTest question: Suppose we have an argument where the evidence is: Evidence: C -> NOT T Evidence: P -> T Conclusion: P ---> NOT H Again, we can take the contrapositive of the evidence, then link it to the other piece of evidence to form a longer chain: Evidence: P -> T -> NOT C Conclusion: P ---> NOT H The middle piece of evidence about "T" is irrelevant. We can link NOT C to NOT H forming the (sufficient assumption) conditional statement: Sufficient Assumption: NOT C ---> NOT H This conditional, when combined with the evidence, forms a longer chain guaranteeing our conclusion. Same thing works if we have the contrapositive: Evidence: C -> NOT T -> NOT P Conclusion: H ---> NOT P Again, the middle piece of evidence about "T" is irrelevant. We can link H to C forming the (sufficient assumption) conditional statement: Sufficient Assumption: H ---> C This conditional, when combined with the evidence, forms a longer chain guaranteeing our conclusion. Here's the answer choices for this one, diagrammed: (a) H -> T (b) H -> C(c) T -> P (d) H -> NOT C (e) C -> NOT P We see that choice B (H -> C) is exactly what we predict based on our formula. Cool, huh? More fun LSAT goodies coming your way soon. -LSAT Steve P.S. By the way, for those who have it, this example is based on an actual LSAT question: PrepTest 35 = October 2001 LSAT, Section 1, Question 22, p226 in Next 10. Recommended Resources: 1. LSAT CoursesThe best of my LSAT material with exclusive access to attend my Live Online LSAT Master Classes + Q&As, and on-demand video lessons you can watch anytime. Plus, LSAT study plans to keep you on track. Save hundreds of dollars with an LSAT course package. 2. Logical Reasoning Explanations The explanations that should have come with the LSAT. These don't just fall back on "out of scope," but actually tell you why the wrong answers are wrong, why the right answers are right, and the easiest way to get the correct answer. 3. Logical Reasoning Cheat Sheet Based on what I'd typically do in college: read what the professor emphasized and condense it all onto a single piece of paper. It gave me a quick reference, making things a lot less threatening and a lot more manageable.

Free Stuff | YouTube | Podcast | Facebook | Instagram | Twitter | Books | Courses

Why you get LSAT sufficient assumption questions wrong (and how to fix it)

Got an email asking about Sufficient Assumption questions: "For some reason, I really struggle with these questions. Any advice would be appreciated." Got another one that's kinda related: "Do you think it is necessary to be able to diagram for the LSAT?" I'll answer the 2nd question, first.

Just kidding, obviously. Yes, you do need to be able to diagram --- But you SHOULDN'T diagram for all question-types!!! Quick sidenote on that: Some people are big on diagramming. I think it's useless for informal logic questions, which are MOST of the Logical Reasoning section! When I DO diagram, it's for *some* Must Be Trues/Most Strongly Supporteds, *some* Sufficient Assumptions, and *some* Parallel Reasonings. ****** Today, I'll focus on Sufficient Assumptions, since that's what the 1st - more significant - question was about. Like I said, these are one of the few question-types often worth diagramming. I think of Sufficient Assumption Qs as providing information that, if true, would be sufficient to guarantee the argument's validity. In other words, this information, if true, will guarantee the conclusion's validity. In a general sense, the most common formats for these questions, are (in order of complexity): 1. restatement of conclusion / argument 2. contrapositive of conclusion / argument 3. the format I'm about to share with you (called linking conditions) I've found this 3rd format to be the most common. (Click here for a big list of Sufficient Assumption questions in each of these formats.) I'm going over the most common format with formal logic, then with a few examples from real PT questions: Evidence: D ---> E Conclusion: D ---> F Sufficient Assumption #1: E ---> F Sufficient Assumption #2: NOT F ---> NOT E Why does this work? Because if we take our evidence, "D ----> E" and combine it with our Sufficient Assumption "E ---> F", we get a longer chain D ---> E ---> F that fully guarantees our conclusion, "D ---> F." Cool, huh? When I first discovered this, it completely blew my mind! The contrapositive's a bit tougher to understand, so let's take a look at it: Evidence: A ---> B Conclusion: C ---> B Sufficient Assumption #1: C ---> A Sufficient Assumption #2: NOT A ---> NOT C Why does this work? Because if we take our evidence, "A ----> B" and combine it with our Sufficient Assumption "C ---> A", we get a longer chain "C ---> A ---> B" that fully guarantees our conclusion, "C ---> B." Now, why doesn't A ---> C work? Well, let's try it: If we take the evidence A ---> B and add the Sufficient Assumption A ---> C, all we get is that A requires both B and C. It does nothing to tell us that B and C are conditionally or directly related to each other. Here are the steps to take to use these formulas: Make either the: sufficient conditions of the evidence and conclusion identical (as with the example involving D, E, and F) or necessary conditions of the evidence and conclusion identical (as with the example involving A, B, and C) Then, imagine each of those evidence-conclusion diagrams as a big circle and link the parts that are different going CLOCKWISE. For the first example (with D, E, and F), you get:

For the second example (with A, B, and C), you get:

Cool, huh? Very truly yours, Sufficient Assumin' Steve Recommended Resources: 1. LSAT CoursesThe best of my LSAT material with exclusive access to attend my Live Online LSAT Master Classes + Q&As, and on-demand video lessons you can watch anytime. Plus, LSAT study plans to keep you on track. Save hundreds of dollars with an LSAT course package. 2. Logical Reasoning Explanations The explanations that should have come with the LSAT. These don't just fall back on "out of scope," but actually tell you why the wrong answers are wrong, why the right answers are right, and the easiest way to get the correct answer. 3. Logical Reasoning Cheat Sheet Based on what I'd typically do in college: read what the professor emphasized and condense it all onto a single piece of paper. It gave me a quick reference, making things a lot less threatening and a lot more manageable.

Free Stuff | YouTube | Podcast | Facebook | Instagram | Twitter | Books | Courses