7 Warning Signs It's Time to Find a New LSAT Instructor

I compiled the following list from various emails sent by blog readers and my conversations with students, based upon their previous LSAT prep experiences.

If your instructor:

-Explains your wrong answers are simply "out of scope" and can't elaborate...
-Tells you to skip difficult questions on exam day because no one gets them right...
-Claims the only LSAT prep materials you'll need are the books of PrepTests...
-Reads word-for-word from an instruction manual and has no opinions or input...
-Isn't willing to answer your questions on the spot...
-Can't provide you with references of previous students who scored well...
-Has never actually taken the LSAT...

it's time to find a new LSAT instructor. Have an outrageously good or bad experience with your LSAT prep? Email me!

5 Ways to Win the Hearts of Law School Admissions Deans

Sometimes it can feel like the law school admissions deans are the popular kids everyone wants to date. Here are 5 strategies to help you win the affections of your favorite admissions dean.

1. Get a well-regarded alumnus to send a letter on your behalf.
It's like having their closest friends vouch for you.

2. Apply on the day the law school begins taking applications (Sep/Oct).
Be the first one to ask them to the prom and beat the competition.

3. First win the hearts of professors and employers to get killer rec letters.
It'll make them jealous and wonder what their law school's missing.

4. If they "play hard to get" and waitlist you, be persistent (but don't overdo it).
See question 2 in my interview with a Virginia Law admissions dean.

5. Donate several million dollars to the law school.
When all else fails, showering them with money can do the trick.

For more on admissions, check out Better Know a Law School.

Michigan Law School Admissions Dean | Interview

This is the 3rd post in the "Better Know a Law School" series. Sarah Zearfoss is Assistant Dean and Director of Admissions at the University of Michigan Law School. A member of the Michigan bar, she stays active in the practice of law as a volunteer attorney for the ACLU. Michigan ranked 9th among law schools in US News and World Report this year.

1. To what degree do you use the LSAT's Writing Sample?

A lot of applicants appear to make an assumption that the LSAT writing sample never gets looked at–and that’s not a safe assumption!

We use it in a lot of different ways. At the most basic level, we always at least glance at it, and that means someone who uses only three-quarters of a page out of the available two pages will stand out, as will the folks who draw pictures, or write repeatedly, "I know you’re not reading this." And I don’t mean that they stand out in the way that one hopes to in the admissions process.

For some applications, we routinely take a much closer look, particularly when we have reason to be concerned about writing abilities (based on a major or something else in the background suggesting a lack of writing experience, or based on a comment in a recommendation letter, or based on writing quality elsewhere in the application). The standard in those cases isn’t a highly rigorous one, to be sure, but we’re looking for a lack of mimicry between the question and the answer, a facility with basic grammar and spelling, and a reasonably coherent argument. It’s surprising how frequently people don’t meet that minimal standard.

And apart from how Admissions Office staff views the sample, there are always the faculty, an unpredictable lot. At Michigan, faculty don’t have a heavy involvement in reviewing files, but I would say at least 50% of those who do look at files consider the LSAT writing sample as the single most interesting element of the application materials. No, I’m not kidding. My colleagues at some other schools have confirmed this idiosyncrasy.

Bottom-line, applicants would be well-served to approach the writing sample with seriousness. You have to sit there for the duration anyway, so you might as well put a little effort into it, right? Treating it cavalierly could leave a big negative impression on a reviewer.


2. What are some changes that students at Michigan would like to see, and what is Michigan doing to implement these changes?

I hear a pretty steady drumbeat of requests for a more tropical climate, but we resist this–I have the power, absolutely, but I choose not to use it because I think it would cut down on study time and ultimately result in less-prepared graduates. I have only the best interests of our students at heart.

In all seriousness, I don’t think there are any Major Issues that we see student concerns coalescing around at the moment. If there were, I have no doubt that they’d get a lot of swift attention from the administration, which in my experience is remarkably responsive. But that said, there are certainly often small coalitions around certain topics, and when they come up, sustained attention gets devoted to figuring out the right answer, a process that can take some time.

One recently solved example: we have heard from students in recent years that they would like a clinic with an international law focus. The challenge was how to put that into effect while being committed to Michigan’s vision of clinical work, which involves considerable hands-on involvement by the student attorneys–as opposed to assigning students one small paragraph in a giant brief being actually written by a faculty member for filing with an international court, an experience we didn’t think would provide much pedagogical benefit. The answer has turned out to be, one, an international transactional clinic focusing on microfinance, which just took off this year, and two, a human-trafficking clinic, which will get started next year. Both will involve considerable client involvement, a core value, while having a central international-law component. Those new clinics didn’t come about quickly; it took us a couple of years between starting to get the requests and figuring out the best way to effect the project. But the end result is terrific, and much better for not having been knee-jerk.

Another issue that has been the subject of sustained dialogue between students and administration in recent years involve public-interest funding, and how to come up with more institutional support. That’s an area where we’ve already seen some wonderful changes, such as a commitment to 2L summer funding for public interest jobs--but we’re also in the midst of trying to think of other new, creative solutions.

And a third issue that has been consuming some energy and attention recently is the question of grading and curves. There have been changes at other schools, so some students have naturally questioned whether we should reexamine our own approach–in fact, our faculty and administration raised the question themselves, independently. But that’s a puzzle we’re at the beginning of solving, and it’s not an easy one; we have concerns that moving to, for example, no grades or no curve could result in risk-aversion by legal employers about hiring our students–employers tell us that they worry a lack of grades means a lack of engagement by students, with the result being a poorly educated lawyer. No one wants to do anything that makes it harder for students to get the jobs they want, obviously. So we’re continuing to grapple with these issues; while we may not have come up with a solution yet, it’s not for lack of approaching the question seriously. That, ultimately, is what students should ask of their institution–not that they get a "yes" answer on every request, but that the requests be given attention and consideration.


3. What are some of the most common / funniest mistakes you've seen in students' applications?

Certainly the most common mistake is sending in an impassioned essay about why an applicant desperately wants to attend.... some other law school, not Michigan. Meanwhile, someone in Charlottesville is scratching his head about why the same student is writing at length as to Ann Arbor’s merits as the ideal student community. We try not to hold that against anyone, though, and only rarely do we actually weep at our sense of rejection.

The funniest kind of mistake I see is beginning an essay with a quote that is misattributed. Given that one of the most fundamental skills of a lawyer is research, this usually strikes me as dispositive. I first started as an admissions dean at just this time of year, when a lot of deny letters had already gone out. One denied applicant, very aggrieved, insisted on meeting with me. I now know how completely unproductive these meetings invariably are, but I was very idealistic at the time and agreed to the meeting, thinking I could give some helpful guidance (even though I hadn’t actually been the admissions dean who had made a decision on her application). The first thing I pointed out to her was that her essay misattributed a famous poem to the wrong author, and that the mistake made a really bad first impression. Her reaction was outrage; she said it showed beyond doubt that she had written her own essay, and hadn’t paid a professional to do it, and that was to her credit. Certainly, the quick thinking was to her credit, but doing her own work was a basic expectation, and her argument didn’t result in a different outcome.

How to Ace LSAT Logical Reasoning | 7 Habits

This is the 2nd part of a 3-part series detailing the 7 habits of highly effective law school applicants on each LSAT section. Last week, I covered Logic Games. Next week, I'll cover Reading Comprehension.

1. Analyze the stimulus for structure, NOT content.
Break apart stimulus into evidence, conclusion, filler, counterpremise, etc. It's about the stimulus' structure and whether or not it's valid, not the stimulus' topic.

2. Have an "eagle eye" for details.
Read EVERY word in the stimulus and answer choices carefully. Many of the wrong answer choices are wrong, and many stimuli are flawed, because of shifts in the scope of the argument.

3. Recognize and understand important qualifiers.
Learn differences between "some," "many," "most," and "all." Of course, the word "EXCEPT" in question stems is crucial as well.

4. Recognize the words that indicate evidence and conclusion.
"Because" and "since" often indicate evidence, and "thus" and "therefore" often indicate conclusion.

5. Read with a plan.
Ask yourself whether or not the argument's evidence justifies its conclusion. In most Logical Reasoning stimuli, the evidence is not sufficient to do so.

6. Don't diagram most questions.
Diagramming is not a substitute for thinking. While it can be useful in stimuli containing formal logic, it's not going to do much to help you understand arguments using informal logic.

7. Learn to stop worrying and love LSAT Logical Reasoning.
Do enough Logical Reasoning questions that you start to recognize their patterns. They're just as predictable as Logic Games.

15 Common LSAT Logical Reasoning Topics

LSAT Logical Reasoning questions often fall into one of the following categories. There's no reason to classify every LSAT question in this way. However, it's important to be familiar with these topics and concepts so they don't intimidate you.

1. TV shows and violence in children
2. Climate change, fossil fuel use, and crops
3. Dinosaur extinction, ice ages, volcanoes, and asteroids
4. Cigarette advertising, nicotine levels, and smoking rates
5. Government bureaucracies, political parties, politicians, and campaigns
6. Cholesterol, high blood pressure, and obesity
7. Employees and management in mid-sized businesses
8. Highway speed limits, car accidents, traffic, and car insurance
9. Economic recessions and consumer spending in imaginary countries
10. Pharmaceutical companies and government spending on medical research
11. Industry's pollution of the environment and its responsibility to clean up
12. Vaccines, bacteria, and viruses
13. Government support of academia, artists and aesthetics
14. Planets, moons, and brown dwarf stars
15. Morality, criminals, law enforcement, and law-abiding citizens

5 Reasons to Stay Motivated During LSAT Prep

Without an LSAT study group, it can get lonely in whatever study nook you've found. Even if you do have an LSAT study group, here are 5 reasons to continue studying even if you're sick of it:

1. Surpass everyone's expectations.
Do even better on the LSAT than people expected and wow them.

2. The economy is in bad shape.
The unemployment rate rose to 8.1% in February. More people have taken the LSAT in the past 12 months than at any time since 1991.


3. All the cool kids are doing it.
Movies like My Cousin Vinny, The Paper Chase, and To Kill A Mockingbird (book) shaped the public's perception of the law. You want to join the esteemed ranks of Vinny Gambini, James Hart, the harsh Professor Charles Kingsfield, and Atticus Finch.

4. You need to practice in order to improve.
It won't just get you to Carnegie Hall - it'll get you into law school too.

5. You want to get into the best law school possible.
Imagine opening your mail one day and getting that acceptance letter. You'll need a killer LSAT score.

Bonus reason: If you wait, you may also need to take a "personality test."
The NYTimes reported on Wednesday that our friends at Berkeley have developed a test intended to serve as an alternative to the LSAT. However, applicants in future years may have to take this new test in addition to the LSAT. The NYTimes article states:

"David E. Van Zandt, dean of the law school at Northwestern, said he would welcome a supplement to the LSAT to evaluate applicants, a sentiment echoed by other law school deans."

Now start doing what you need to do in order to ace the LSAT!

How NOT to Prepare for the LSAT

My friend Cal Newport asked me to do a post for his Study Hacks blog this week on How NOT to Prepare for the LSAT.

Check it out!

You'll also enjoy his post on Getting Things Done for College Students whether you're still in college or just a busy person.

5 Reasons Not to be Discouraged by a Low LSAT Score

After LSAC sends out the scores, I hear from many of you. Many of you did great (congratulations!), but others did not-so-great (congratulations on having a few more months of LSAT fun!).

Here are 5 reasons that a low LSAT score on the LSAT can actually be a good thing:

Reason #1: You have at least a few months to study for an LSAT retake.
The LSAT's given in February, June, September or October, and December. A few more months is plenty of time, especially since you're already familiar with the exam.

Reason #2: You can still be early in the law school application process.
You can study hard, take the LSAT again, and submit your application toward the beginning of the admission cycle. Rolling admissions means applying early to law school gives you a better shot because more seats are available.

Reason #3: You have more time to plan your applications and future.
Being forced to retake means you'll have more time to decide whether or not law school is right for you. You'll also have more time to work on your personal statement, get recommendation letters, and cultivate relationships with alumni who can help you.

Reason #4: An addendum might help.
If your SAT score wasn't an accurate indicator of your college GPA, you can submit an addendum explaining that the LSAT may not accurately reflect your potential in law school either.

Reason #5: I'll be there with you every step of the way.
As you study for your retake, you'll now have several more months of LSAT Blog posts to read, memorize, and share with your friends. All 100% free!

LSAT Logic in the NYTimes

Thursday's New York Times featured an article about The Tap Project's use of unconventional advertising in its fundraising efforts. The Tap Project promotes children's access to clean water in developing countries.

I'm all for this. I think it's great when advertisers use their skills to promote nonprofit causes. However, too much time with the LSAT caused one section of the article to jump out at me.

Read the article first and see if you can guess which quote I'm talking about (hint: it's an example of flawed logic).
.
.
.
.
.
Here it is:

“It doesn’t take much to make a big difference...It was amazing the differences between communities that had clean water systems and those that did not. In the communities that didn’t have water, most of the kids didn’t have shoes...The ones that did, the kids seem to be thriving in so many ways.”

As we know from the LSAT, correlation does not necessarily imply causation.

Now, I'm not denying the possibility that the clean water systems led to the kids' thriving and access to shoes. It actually sounds quite likely, as a lack of clean water undoubtedly leads to sickness and disease.

However, it's possible that when kids are thriving, parents have time to go out and get access to clean water (or at least reach out to nonprofit organizations and the government to get clean water). Think about it: if your kid is sick, or simply not thriving, you may not have the resources to get clean water as much as you'd like it. When your kid is well, you're more likely to have the time to create a stink over your lack of access to clean water, and you may end up rewarded for your efforts with clean water.

Alternatively, there may be a third variable that leads to kids' access to clean water, shoes, and conditions under which kids can thrive. Some examples include:

Peace. If one's country is not at war, one is more likely to get access to clean water, shoes, and conditions under which kids can thrive.

Democracy. Dictators might not care about their citizens enough (or have the incentives) to provide all three. Democracies may be more likely to do so.

Economic improvements. If a country has more money, the government and private sector will be better equipped to provide all three.

What does this mean for The Tap Project?

The project is, without a doubt, incredibly important. However, research should be conducted to determine whether or not some of the causation is reversed. Research should also be conducted to determine the extent to which improving a third variable will improve access to clean water, shoes, and conditions under which kids can thrive.

Friday's xkcd webcomic on correlation vs. causation also discusses this:

How to Ace LSAT Logic Games | 7 Habits

Want to ace the LSAT Logic Games? You'll need these skills to separate yourself from the pack. This is the 1st part of a 3-part series. The series details the 7 habits of highly effective law school applicants on each LSAT section. We'll begin with Logic Games, then move on to Logical Reasoning and Reading Comprehension.

1. See letters as variables, not people/things.
Avoid thinking of the game's "topic" and focus on relationships between letters instead.

2. Easily categorize.
Quickly place logic games into main categories: linear/sequencing, grouping (in-and-out/matching), and combinations of the two main types.

3. Focus on key words in set-up and rules.
Learn obsessive attention to detail.

4. Diagram efficiently.
Symbolize the game's variables and rules with minimal writing.

5. Create minimum # of diagrams.
Combine rules early in the game to eliminate some possible scenarios. Use previous diagrams to avoid making new ones.

6.. Budget time well.
Determine whether it's worth spending more time on main diagram or on questions.

7. Learn to stop worrying and love the LSAT Logic Games.
Do enough Logic Games that you actually start to enjoy them.

5 Hardest LSAT Logical Reasoning Questions

Today, I'll show you how to approach 5 difficult LSAT Logical Reasoning questions. Students ask me to explain these questions all the time, so I'm using this week's main post to do so. I'm not posting the actual questions because I don't want to get a visit from the folks at LSAC (although I'm sure they're wonderful people). Here's where to get the actual LSAT PrepTests.

Also, here are some other Difficult LSAT Logical Reasoning Questions.

1. Reproductive abnormalities in fish and whether or not they're caused by dioxin (PrepTest 45 - December 2004 LSAT, Section 1, Question 12)
Evidence: Even after a mill shut-down, dioxin decomposes slowly. During shutdowns, fish hormone levels quickly return to normal levels.

Conclusion: Dioxin probably isn't the cause of abnormalities.

Question stem: "Which one of the following statements, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?"

Explanation:
If normal river currents move dioxin far downstream in only a few hours, then the fish should be in clean water. It wouldn't matter whether the dioxin decomposed or not because it already left the area.

Wrong answer choices:
A - Weakens it a little bit, but not enough.
B - Irrelevant. The rate of dioxin decomposition doesn't matter.
D - Refers to physiological, not reproductive, so it's too broad.
E - Too broad AND irrelevant.

The correct answer is C.


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

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

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

This is a sufficient assumption question.


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

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

We could diagram this as:

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

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

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

Choice C says this word for word.

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

As always, try not to get overly involved with (or scared by) the topic of the argument. Instead, focus on its structure.


3. Rattlesnake's age determined from # of sections in its rattle (PrepTest 30 - December 1999 LSAT, Section 2, Question 22 - page 60 in Next 10)
Evidence 1: If rattles were not so brittle
Evidence 2: A new section of rattle forms whenever rattlesnakes molt

Conclusion: One could determine rattlesnake age by # of sections in rattle.

Question stem: Which one of the following is an assumption the argument requires in order for its conclusion to be properly drawn?

Explanation: We're looking for something that "must be true" in order for the argument to work. Therefore, if we negate each answer choice, we'll find the correct answer choice by seeing which one, when negated, causes the argument to fall apart.

A. This answer choice is sufficient for the argument to work, but it doesn't have to be true for the argument to work. The length of the interval doesn't matter as long as there is regularity to the molting rate.
B. This answer choice is irrelevant. We don't care what the rattles look like.
C. This negation strengthens the argument. In its original form, it weakens the argument.
D. We don't care about brittleness' relationship with lifespan.
E. This negation destroys the argument. We need rattlesnakes to molt at regular, predictable rates if we are to determine a rattlesnake's age by the number of sections in its rattle alone.

E is correct because it eliminates the possibility that food availability alters the rate at which rattlesnakes molt.

Also see: Necessary Assumption Question: The Rattlesnake Folktale


4. Beethoven Mercury Venereal Disease (PrepTest 28 - June 1999 LSAT, Section 3, Question 16 - page 337 in 10 More)
Evidence: People who had venereal disease in Beethoven's time often ingested mercury as a cure.
Conclusion: If there's mercury in Beethoven's hair, then he had venereal disease.

The argument is flawed because it confuses necessary and sufficient conditions (also known as the converse or mistaken reversal fallacy). Having VD is sufficient to lead to the conclusion that someone may have ingested mercury. (so if VD -> maybe mercury). However, this is not equivalent to saying that if someone ingested mercury, then they probably had VD. There may have been other reasons to ingest mercury. Perhaps it treated other diseases also.

If we negate each answer choice, we'll find the required assumption.

A. It doesn't matter if some mercury can be eliminated.
B. If everyone in Beethoven's time ingested mercury, then mercury in his hair is not proof of VD.
C. It doesn't matter if mercury is an effective treatment for venereal disease or not.
D. It doesn't matter if mercury poisoning causes deafness or not.
E. A comparison of Beethoven and Newton is not necessary.

B is correct.


5. Gutenberg Bible, B-36 Bible, Vinland Map, and presence of titanium (PrepTest 12 - October 1994 LSAT, Section 1, Question 24 - in 10 Actual)
This stimulus contains two arguments:

Argument 1
Evidence: Titanium is in both Gutenberg's Bible and the B-36 Bible

Conclusion: Gutenberg is the probable author of B-36 Bible.

Assumption: Gutenberg is the only person likely to have used titanium ink.

Argument 2
Evidence: Titanium is in both Gutenberg's Bible and the B-36 Bible (yes, same evidence as previous argument).

Conclusion: Vinland map could have been written in this time period.

Assumption: Gutenberg is NOT the only person likely to have used titanium ink.


Question stem: "The reasoning in the passage is vulnerable to criticism on the ground that..."

Explanation: This stimulus contains contradictory assumptions. It assumes that titanium ink is rare enough for Gutenberg to be the only person to use it, but it also assumes titanium ink was common enough for others to use it.

A is correct because it identifies this contradiction.

Answer Keys to LSAT PrepTests

Please see LSAT Answer Keys for Every PrepTest / Exam.

I've included answer keys for every single PrepTest in that blog post.

***

It's tempting to check the answer key at the end of each book of LSAT PrepTests after completing each LSAT question. I don't blame you for the impulse. However, checking your answers after each question slows you down during practice exams.

It also snaps you out of the test-day mindset and prevents you from predicting your performance. It's important to be able to guess how you did on a given section or exam. On test day, you'll want to make an informed decision over whether or not to cancel your LSAT score.

What should you do instead? Complete at least one section at a time, and preferably a full exam, predict how many you answered incorrectly per section, then mark your answers. If you just can't wait, complete at least a full section, then check your answers.

If having the answer key at the end of your book just proves too tempting, rip it out of each book and place all the answer keys in a folder in a safe place.

Unfortunately, lawyers tend to be fairly disorganized, and the same might be said of future lawyers. That's why lawyers have armies of paralegals, right? Unfortunately, you're not lawyers yet.