LSAT Diary: LSAT Prep Concluding Thoughts

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

The 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:










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:
















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:
















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

This 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:











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:








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:




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:









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):




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:









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








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

June 2010 LSAT Logic Games Explanation, Game 3

This blog post covers the third 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 2 Explanation
PrepTest 60 (June 2010 LSAT), Game 4 Explanation

Explanations for Recent LSAT Logic Games

***

This game, often referred to as "the mulch and stone game", or simply "the mulch game", was one of the tougher games of the section, simply because it only had two rules. However, you can make several inferences with these rules. I use them to make 4 main diagrams.

Initially, the rules don't give you very much to work with:







We have 7 spaces for the 7 loads. M must go on 5. We have 3M and 4S to place, and we have a maximum of (less than or equal to) 3 cleanings.

For this game, I create 4 main diagrams. All valid scenarios fall within one of the four.

I create them by taking advantage of the fact that there are only two types of variables to place in the 7 spaces: Mulch and Stone. I also take advantage of the fact that we already have a variable (Mulch) on 5.

Adjacent to Mulch on 5, we have only four possibilities:

Mulch on 4, Stone on 6
Stone on 4, Mulch on 6
Mulch on 4, Mulch on 6
Stone on 4, Stone on 6

Drawing this information on four main diagrams gives me the following:












Next to each of these diagrams, I've listed the variables that have not yet been placed (keep in mind that we have 3 Mulches and 4 Stones in total).

I draw vertical lines between consecutive variables that are different to represent the "cleanings" between different types of variables. Because the third diagram from the top only has Stones remaining to place, I completely fill in that diagram:












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

Both of the top two diagrams have only one Mulch remaining to place. If we placed that remaining on space 2 for both of those diagrams, they would then be surrounded by Stones. Consecutive loads of different kinds require cleanings. For the top two diagrams, placing M on space 2 results in 4 cleanings in those diagrams:













However, the maximum allowable number of cleanings is 3, so placing M on space 2 results in invalid diagrams.

(Yes, the top two diagrams in the above picture are invalid. I've simply drawn them there to show you why M cannot be on 2 in those diagrams.)

This leaves S to be on 2 in those diagrams:











But wait - there's more. What sticks out to me at this point is that, in the 2nd diagram, we have S on both 2 and 4. Placing the final remaining M on 3 might be problematic. Let's see what happens:




Sure enough, placing M on 3 results in 4 cleanings, when the maximum allowed is 3. Therefore, having M on 3 in this diagram (the 2nd diagram in the larger scheme of things) is impossible.

Therefore, we must have S on 3 in the 2nd diagram:












Now, the bottom diagram already has two cleanings, so only one potential cleaning remains for that diagram. However, we still have 2M and 2S left to place. If we placed an M on either 3 or 7, we'd reach the limit of 3 cleanings. However, the other M would still have to touch one of the other Stones, so we'd reach at least 4 cleanings total (try it out).

Therefore, the bottom diagram can't have M on either 3 or 7, so we must have S on both 3 and 7 in that diagram:










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

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

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

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


Question 13:

The best way to approach this question is to see which of the choices we've already seen happen.

Mulch on 4 and 6 occurred in the 3rd diagram, so it's our answer (choice E).

We can also eliminate all the others simply because we have a comprehensive framework for all the possible valid scenarios in the game.


Question 14:

Must the 2nd load be Stone? In our 4th diagram, we had Mulch on 2, so choice A is eliminated.

Must the 1st and 2nd loads be the same? Well, in the 1st and 2nd diagrams, it seems like they could be different. In the 2nd diagram, we could easily put Mulch on 1 and S on 7, and it would still be valid. Choice B is eliminated.

Must the 2nd and 3rd loads be different? Well, in the 2nd and 3rd diagrams, they're identical. Choice C is eliminated.

Must we have at least 2 Mulches consecutively? That occurs in all 4 diagrams, so it must be true in general. Choice D is our answer.

I'll go through the last one anyway.

Must we have at least 3 Stones consecutively? In the 4th diagram, we don't, so choice E is eliminated.


Question 15:
M on 3 could only occur in the top diagram out of the 4 main diagrams, so I'd make a more specific version of that diagram. Since there was only 1 Mulch remaining anyway, Stones will have to go in the remaining slots:





Must 6 and 7 be different? Nope, they're the same. Choice A is eliminated.

Must 1 and 2 be different? Nope, they're the same. Choice B is eliminated.

Must 7 be Mulch? Nope, it's Stone. Choice C is eliminated.

Must 6 be Mulch? Nope, it's Stone. Choice D is eliminated.

By elimination, it's Choice E (and, yes, the first load is Stone).


Question 16:

Exactly two cleanings occurs in the 3rd main diagram, as well as in our work for Question 15. We can use both of these diagrams to help us eliminate things that aren't necessarily true.

2nd load is Stone occurs in both the 3rd main diagram and in Question 15's diagram, so we can't eliminate this answer choice.

However, the only diagram (out of our 4 main diagrams) in which the 2nd load isn't Stone is be the 4th one (where we have 3 cleanings, not 2). Therefore, the 2nd load must be Stone in any diagram with 2 cleanings. Choice A is our answer.

You could pick choice A and move on, but I'll run through the other choices:

3rd load is Mulch does not occur in either the 3rd main diagram or the diagram for Question 15, so Choice B is eliminated. (Of course, seeing 3rd load being Stone in even only one of those diagrams would've been enough to eliminate it.)

3rd load is Stone occurs in both those diagrams, so we keep it for now.

6th load is Mulch does not occur in Question 15's diagram, so choice D is eliminated.

7th load is Mulch does not occur in either of those diagrams so choice E is eliminated. (Again, seeing the 7th load being Stone in even only one of those diagrams would've been enough to eliminate it.)

So, we're down to Choices A and C.

The 4th diagram isn't relevant because it has 3 cleanings. We've already used the 3rd diagram. The second diagram has Stone on both 2 and 3, so that can't possibly help us (since it wouldn't allow us to disprove either answer choice). This leaves the 1st (top) diagram.

This diagram already has the 2nd slot filled by Stone, so we know that Stone must be on 2 no matter what.


Question 17:
The 4th diagram doesn't ever have 3 loads hauled consecutively, so it's relevant to solving this question.

The 1st load is not Stone in this diagram, so we don't know whether it could be true (perhaps there's some other valid diagram where the first load is Stone and we don't have 3 loads hauled consecutively). Leave this choice alone and move on.

The 4th load is Stone in this diagram, so we know that it could be true. Choice B is our answer. Pick it, and we're done with the game.

None of the other choices occurred in the 4th diagram. (Doesn't mean they couldn't occur in some other valid diagram where we don't have 3 loads hauled consecutively, of course.)

Since the 2nd and 3rd main diagrams have 3 loads hauled consecutively, they're not relevant.

If you want to test out the other answer choices, simply take the 1st main diagram, place Stone on 3 (to avoid having 3 consecutive Mulches), then make one version of it with Stone on 1 and Mulch on 7, and make another version with Mulch on 1 and Stone on 7. You'll be able to disprove the other answer choices.

***


For more advanced test-takers, the top 2 main diagrams can be broken apart even further:

The top main diagram can be broken into 3 main diagrams based upon the 3 different potential placements of the remaining M (spaces 1, 3, and 7).

The 2nd main diagram can be broken into two main diagrams based upon the two potential placements of either the remaining M or remaining S (depending on how you want to phrase it):
















This will make the questions even easier. It's all a matter of personal preference, how much work you're willing to do up-front, and how confident you are in your ability to draw out the limited possibilities.

***

Tough game, huh?

Photo by cottergarage

LSAT Logic Games Solutions for June 2010 LSAT, Game 4

This blog post covers the fourth 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 2 Explanation
PrepTest 60 (June 2010 LSAT), Game 3 Explanation

Explanations for Recent LSAT Logic Games

***

This game gives us a lot to juggle. We have:

People: Farber, Gombarick, Hall, Jackson, Kanze, Lha
Stories: Romania, Spain, Tuscany
Fields: Photography, Writing

Fortunately, they tell us that there are two people per story: one photographer, and one writer. This gives us:






The six people will go in the six spaces.

The first rule tells us G and L will go in the same row, so you can just write down G and L next to each other on the side (horizontally).

The second rule tells us F and K will go on different rows, so next to the rows (on the left side), you can put F/K next to one row, and K/F next to the other row.

The third rule tells us H goes in the photographer's assistant row, so place it to the left of the top row.

At this point, there's a big inference to make. We already have F/K in the photographer's assistant row, and we now have H in that same row. There's no way to fit both G and L in that row, but the first rule requires they go in the same row. Therefore, they both go in the writer's assistant row.

The writer's assistant row is now full, so J will have to go in the photographer's assistant row.

Inference for the win.

What you have now should look something like this:









Next rule: J goes on Tuscany. We can put it in the top-right space.

Finally, K doesn't go on Spain, we can put a K with a slash through it under Spain.

We now have a pretty snazzy main diagram:










You can now make two main diagrams:

one with F on the Photo level and K on the Writer level

one with K on the Photo level and F on the Writer level

This gives us:







Splitting it apart into two main diagrams (as I've just done) will allow you to make inferences regarding only one of those two.

On the first diagram (on the left), we know that K can't be on Spain, so we'll have either G or L in that space (on the writer's assistant row).

We can place F/H and H/F on the photographer's assistant row for Romania and Spain, since those two are interchangeable in those spaces.


For the diagram on the right, we once again can't have K on Spain, so K will have to go on Romania. This leaves H to go on Spain. We don't know enough to really do anything on the other row

This all results in the following:









Now, the questions:

Question 18:
This question specifically regards the photographer's assistant level.

We know that J has to be on Tuscany in this level, so any choice that lacks this is eliminated.

Choices B, C, and D are eliminated.

Now, we're down to A and E, but we know that K can't be on Spain, so Choice E is eliminated, and Choice A is our answer.

We've made so many inferences that we could've also predicted that the answer will be:

FHJ (from 1st diagram - the one on the left)
HFJ (from 1st diagram again)
KHJ (from 2nd diagram - the one on the right)

The method you choose simply depends upon how many inferences you've made and your own personal style. Neither way is wrong.


Question 19:
If F is on Romania...by plugging this into each main diagram, we get:







Now, the choices:

G on Spain doesn't have to be true. We could easily have L on Spain in either of the diagrams (even having L on Spain in only one possible scenario would prove this). Choice A is eliminated.

H on Spain occurs in both, so we know it must be true in all valid scenarios because we're working with main diagrams that encompass all possibilities. Choice B is our answer.

I'll go through the rest, though.

In the first diagram, K could be on Romania. In the second diagram, K is definitely on Romania. Using only one of those diagrams is sufficient to disprove this. Choice C is eliminated.

We could easily have G on Spain in either diagram. Again, only one would be sufficient to disprove this. Choice D is eliminated.

We could easily have G on Tuscany in either diagram, and we could even have G on Romania in the first diagram. Again, only one would be sufficient to disprove this. Choice E is eliminated.


Question 20:

If F and H go to the same story, we must be dealing with only the 2nd main diagram. The first has them on the same row, requiring them to be on different stories.

Using the 2nd main diagram, we get:








F with H requires it to go on Spain since H was already on Spain. G and L are now split into the remaining stories: Romania and Tuscany.

Choice A is eliminated because we know F is definitely on Spain.

G can be on Romania, so Choice B is our answer.

I'll go through the rest:

H must be on Spain in this diagram, so it can't be on Romania. Choice C is eliminated.

K must be on Romania in this diagram, so it can't be on Tuscany. Choice D is eliminated.

F is on Spain in this diagram, so L can't be on Spain. Choice E is eliminated.


Question 21:
F on the writer's assistant row refers to the 2nd main diagram.

When they ask who the Romania pair could be, it will have to include K since K is fixed on Romania in this main diagram.

Any choice containing K is automatically eliminated. Choices A, B, and E are eliminated.

We know H can't be on Romania because it's already on Spain, so Choice C is eliminated.

Therefore, choice D is our answer, which is entirely possible on this diagram.


Question 22:
If G and K go to the same story, we must be dealing with only the 2nd main diagram. The first has them on the same row, requiring them to be on different stories.

Since K's already on Romania in this diagram, we get:







F on Romania's impossible. It must be on Spain or Tuscany. Choice A is eliminated.

G on Spain's impossible. It must be on Romania. Choice B is eliminated.

H on Romania's impossible. It must be on Spain. Choice C is eliminated.

K on Tuscany's impossible. It must be on Romania. Choice D is eliminated.

L on Spain can occur. Choice E is our answer.


Question 23:
Looking at our two main diagrams...

G, J, and L have all appeared on Tuscany, so they're eliminated. J isn't even a choice, but we can certainly eliminate Choices B and E.

K can go on Tuscany in the first main diagram, so that's eliminated. Choice D is eliminated.

F can go on Tuscany in the second main diagram, so that's eliminated. Choice A is eliminated.

That leaves H, which can't go on Tuscany in either diagram. Therefore, choice C is our answer.


Photo by byflickr

LSAT Frequently Asked Questions

I've already posted an LSAT FAQ and some book recommendations.

But you asked for more, so here's the next edition of LSAT FAQ:

What are the most effective methods for preparing for the LSAT?

Before taking full-length practice tests, build a strong foundation in the basics of the exam. Learn which techniques and strategies work best for you, then move on to completing several recent practice tests under timed conditions where you apply those techniques.

Develop effective diagramming techniques for the Logic Game section. Develop an efficient and minimalistic notation system for the Reading Comprehension section. Figure out which systems work best for you, and putting them into practice before Test Day.

Approximate the test-day conditions as closely as possible. Time yourself strictly (no food or bathroom breaks during test sections!) and take at least a few tests in a mildly-distracting setting. The published practice tests only contain 4 sections, but you'll take 5 sections on test day due to the insertion of the experimental section. For this reason, insert an extra section from another exam to build endurance.

After taking a full-length practice test, spend several hours reviewing anything that gave you difficulty - whether you answered it incorrectly or not. This includes questions where you were down to two choices and guessed. In the final weeks before the exam, this is where the greatest score increases come from. After all, you're not simply taking practice tests to gauge your performance and impress your family and friends with great practice scores - you're taking them to learn about what's holding you back from your goal score so that you can avoid similar mistakes in the future.


How long should I spend preparing for the LSAT?

I generally recommend a minimum of 3 months. This gives you time to learn strategies and practice them under timed conditions. Some factors that may determine how long you should spend preparing are:

-your prior history with standardized tests (are you a naturally-good test-taker?)
-your work/school/life schedule (do you have many other obligations?)
-your goal score / desired law school
-your college GPA (a lower college GPA means you'll probably need a higher LSAT score to make up for it.)


What strategies should I use while taking the LSAT on Test Day?

Since the Comparative Reading passage in the Reading Comprehension section requires a slightly different approach than the 3 longer passages, test-takers may want to do this passage first or last in the section.

There are 35 minutes per section and approximately 25 questions per Logical Reasoning section. This means the test-taker has approximately 1 minute and 24 seconds per question. Questions in the Logical Reasoning section are presented in a general order of difficulty. For these reasons, test-takers who intend to complete all questions in the section should work through the first 10 questions of the section in less than the average time allotted per question. This allows the test-taker to have more than the average amount of time for the tougher questions where more time is needed.

Similarly, there are 35 minutes per section and 4 games per Logic Games (Analytical Reasoning) section. Although this creates an average of 8 minutes and 45 seconds per game, not all games are of equal difficulty. When completing a particular game, think about how difficult it is compared to the games you practiced. If it's on the easier side, try to complete it in less than 8 minutes and 45 seconds so that you'll have more than 8 minutes and 45 seconds for the tougher games.


Which college courses best prepare students for the LSAT?

Philosophy and logic courses are helpful but not necessary. Reading dense material, reading and making logical arguments, dissecting logical arguments, getting a foundation in formal logic, etc.

Philosophy majors tend to do much better than the average test taker (and much better than English majors).

See this breakdown of average LSAT scores by major to get a sense of who does the best.

However, as you will learn from your LSAT prep, correlation does not guarantee causation. Perhaps the type of people who tend to major in philosophy already have the skills/ability to do well.

As I said, majoring (or taking classes) in philosophy does help, probably more so than majoring in something like English. Pick whichever you like more, though. You can prepare to get a super-high score no matter what your major or classes (even underwater basket-weaving, although even a 4.0 GPA in that course of study would not impress adcomms).

Photo by bjmccray

LSAT Logic, Math, and Verizon's Epic Fail

(aka "One of My Stupidest LSAT Blog Posts Ever." You probably won't learn a single thing from this blog post, but I hope you'll find it as hilarious as I do and forward it to your friends.)

"Wait a second," you say. "There's no math on the LSAT."

Yes and no.

The LSAT doesn't ask you to solve math problems, but it does ask you to understand the differences between percentages and absolute numbers. It also asks you to perform basic deductive reasoning.

You can see my explanation for one basic deductive reasoning question in Formal Logic Inference Questions.

However, this blog post will cover a simpler real-world example. In this epic fail, Verizon customer service reps embarrassed themselves and achieved Internet notoriety by demonstrating their inability to make some very basic math deductions.

Via NYTimes:

A few years ago... a frustrated customer named George Vaccaro recorded and posted his phone conversation with two service representatives at Verizon Wireless. Vaccaro’s complaint was that he’d been quoted a data usage rate of .002 cents per kilobyte, but his bill showed he’d been charged .002 dollars per kilobyte, a hundredfold higher rate. The ensuing conversation [SS: mp3 via xkcd] climbed to the top 50 in YouTube’s comedy section [SS: link added].

About halfway through the recording, a highlight occurs in the exchange between Vaccaro and Andrea, the Verizon floor manager:

V: “Do you recognize that there’s a difference between one dollar and one cent?”
A: “Definitely.”
V: “Do you recognize there’s a difference between half a dollar and half a cent?”
A: “Definitely.”
V: “Then, do you therefore recognize there’s a difference between .002 dollars and .002 cents?”
A: “No.”
V: “No?”
A: “I mean there’s … there’s no .002 dollars.”

A few moments later Andrea says, “Obviously a dollar is 1.00, right? So what would .002 dollars look like? I’ve never heard of .002 dollars… It’s just not a full cent.”

The challenge of converting between dollars and cents is only part of the problem for Andrea. The real barrier is her inability to envision a portion of either.

If you like reading instead of listening, here's a full transcript of the 27-minute conversation where George encountered multiple Verizon reps, none of whom understood his argument.

Since the Verizon reps didn't understand George's argument, it's entirely possible that someone reading this blog doesn't understand it either.

As the NYTimes blog post notes, the Verizon reps commit more than one logical fallacy, so it's worth taking a bit of time to review their arguments.

The simpler (aka stupider) fallacy:

V: “Do you recognize that there’s a difference between one dollar and one cent?”
A: “Definitely.”
V: “Do you recognize there’s a difference between half a dollar and half a cent?”
A: “Definitely.”
V: “Then, do you therefore recognize there’s a difference between .002 dollars and .002 cents?”
A: “No.”

George makes a simple deductive argument that all of you should have understood.

In case you're reading this while under the influence (I really hope you'd do more exciting things in those magical moments), I'll take a moment to explain.

Using symbols, we could say if A (a dollar) doesn't equal B (a cent), then A multiplied by 0.5 doesn't equal B multiplied by 0.5, and A multiplied by 0.002 doesn't equal B multiplied by 0.002.

(We can also say if A = B, then A +1 = B + 1. On the other hand, if A doesn't equal B, then A + 1 doesn't equal B + 1, but George doesn't get into addition.)

Basically, once you accept the basic premise that dollars and cents are not equivalent, you're also committed to accepting several other statements regarding their different values.


More-interesting fallacy:

Andrea: "Obviously a dollar is 1.00, right? So what would .002 dollars look like? I’ve never heard of .002 dollars… It’s just not a full cent.”

She uses this to support her answer of "No" to the question of whether there's a difference between .002 dollars and .002 cents.

Putting this into an Evidence-Conclusion framework gives us:

Evidence: [Because] .002 dollars is not a full cent (it's 2/10 of a cent)
Evidence: [Because] Andrea has never heard of .002 dollars
Conclusion: [Therefore] .002 dollars is no different than .002 cents


Andrea fails to consider that just because:

-we don't create hard currency in such small amounts (like 2/10 of a cent), AND
-we don't usually charge for things in such small increments

THAT

this doesn't mean that if we were to do so, that these small amounts would have no unique value of their own.

The Verizon mp3 conversation is about cost per kilobyte transmission, which some of you might not know much about.


Here's a simpler example:

Suppose you were 5 years old and bought a jar of sand. (Little kids get a kick out of things like jars of sand.)

Each jar costs $1.00 and contains exactly 50,000 grains of sand. If all grains of sand are identical, then you've just bought sand at a rate of .002 cents per grain.

(50,000 grains/100 cents = 1 grain/.002 cents)

Just because there's no coin representing .002 cents and just because people are unlikely to buy only a grain or two of sand, this doesn't mean the "sand store" can't charge for sand at that rate.

(They'd probably impose some sort of minimum on the amount of sand you can purchase in order to avoid wasting their time with purchases of only a couple hundred grains.)

And this, my dear readers, nearly concludes my simplest blog post ever.

***

Before I go, I wanted to share a funny image I came across while searching "Epic Fail" on flickr. Seems like I'm not the only one interested in the dollar/cents confusion.

Enjoy.

(Comments are from the person who uploaded the photo to flickr - not me. Click image to enlarge.)






























Photo by weatherpattern / CC BY-NC-SA 2.0
Photo by kt / CC BY-NC-ND 2.0

LSAT Diary: Logical Reasoning Tips, Please?

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.)

Leave Nazia some encouragement and advice below in the comments!

Nazia's LSAT Diary:

Lazy (Post) Rainy Sunday: In need of LSAT Advice.

So the thunderous rain has stopped. Yipee.

Today the game plan is to do at least 3 timed sections. I’m going to start with Logical Reasoning. I need some heavy work on those especially when it comes to timed.

Some kind of stamina to get through it within 35 minutes! Yikes!

By the way, there hasn’t been an urge to go on Youtube in the past…hour? Go me?

Back to the issue at hand. Timed Sections. Other than a timer what has helped you fellow lads and ladies get through 35 minutes and finish 25 questions? Any advice? Other than “practice.”

Kidding. Everything I read says practice.practice.practice.

Which is what I intend to do.

I’m going to do a timed section now and will be back after to talk about the results.
Wish me luck!

___________________________________________

Well, that went well.

Yeah, right.

Yesterday I had a plan to do three time LSATs.

Result: One untimed LSAT ( Logical Reasoning) … really.

You must be scratching your head wondering what happened.

Well I’ll tell you. LSAC happened.

Those tricky writers caught me in a stump for an evaluate the argument question which had me going through everything all over again and reviewing. Was that useful? Did I waste my time in re-visiting? Should I have just continued through the questions in the prep test?

Although I am writing it in October, I have a practice test scheduled this Saturday and I really really need to work on my timing. I feel that although it was useful to go revisit certain techniques and concepts of the different types of questions, my timing is still an issue that I haven’t practiced yet.
I’m going to try and do 2 timed tests today.
Will report back with the results!
_____________________________________________

Results are in

I did it.

2 timed tests.

How’d I fair on the scoring? Let’s not talk about that now shall we, but the main thing is that I got it done in the timed limit (35 freaking minutes; holy shiznat)

Some thoughts that were running through pre, during and post.
Pre: Obviously, I had my game face on. I had the music playing in the background ( I need music to study..although we’ll discuss this later) Water on my side. Pencil(s) & Erasers. Comfortable lighting.
AC on. Phone hidden. Door Locked.

During: Holy mother of good lord… I’m reading the questions to slowly… oh now I’m reading them too fast… oh wait. Great. Now I’m re-reading them over and over again.. oh snap look at the time. 10 minutes left and I’m on question 10 only! ..Wait what song is this? Oh I don’t like this song. I knew I should have had it on shuffle. Damnit.

Post: And the confidence level drops even more. 160+ will you ever be achieved? Got this wrong. Oh that’s right. Wrong. Wrong.. oh wait why did I get this wrong… OH darn! I missed that part.Great.
(BTW the only sections I did were LR and RC)

Calculate score. Oh boy.

Grab a pint of B&J and some good ol’ Big Bang Theory reruns.

Here’s something to ponder on: Music while studying? Is this something I should re-think even during the timed sections? Does it matter?
_______________________________________

Another day, another result

I did two timed tests.

LG & LR.

Right now I’m praying to god that I get LG for the 4th surprise test on my LSAT. My final score wasn’t great at all. No siree.

Did I manage to get through all the questions ..in LG i did. But not in LR (I so bombed that section, terribly).

I really need to re-evaluate something. But I have a practice test this Saturday.So now I’m in a dilemma should I stick to just getting the timed aspect of the test down or should i go and re read all the discussions of LR? What to do. What to do. What to do.

____________________________

A More Defined Approach

As I may have mentioned before I had signed up for a Mock LSAT. It was this past Saturday. I won’t know how well I did until later on this week with list of my strengths and weaknesses but even without the results I know I need to step up my LR and RC majorly! However what was surprising is the eerie calm I felt before the test. There were no nerves, no freak out; maybe because I knew deep down inside that this was a mock and not the real thing? Hmm, maybe. Nonetheless I felt relieved and a sense of pride only about the nerves.

If we’re talking about how well I did on the test well I can say with a good amount of enthusiasm that Logic Games, I do not fear you anymore. What I do need to do with you however is read your clues more carefully, I need to make more inferences before the game more often. I did find that I wasn’t too rushed in this section, I finished in the appropriate amount of time allowing me to review my answers and take a breather. I remember reviewing the first section which was LG but the third section which was also LG I found my self just taking a breather. Maybe I shouldn’t have done that. Something to ponder on.

On to LR.

oh boy oh boy oh boy.

I don’t know what to say except god you really are going to be the death of me aren’t you? In this section for sure I can say that I did not pace myself, I read over each question and stimulus.. well not each but a nice amount of stimulus’s and questions twice because sometimes the information just went over my head.

Here is what I did not do:

• Look for the conclusion.
• Paraphrase the conclusion.
• When I was down to 2, I really just eenie meenie minnie moe’d.( this was especially true for the weaken questions)
• And of course, I didn’t pace myself.
• I really need work on LR. Really and truly.

Anyone have any time-saving tips?

Last but not least, RC.

I don’t have much to say about this section… surprised? Yeah I would be too. But there is a reason why.

I spent to much time reading and understanding the passage that I didn’t leave myself enough time to answer the questions not just for that specific passage but the other 3 as well! So I ended up quickly scribbling in bubbles onto the scantron.

BAD MOVE! I hope to god that I don’t end up doing that on the real thing.

And there it is. That’s the end of it. I took the next day off to decompress and start over. I know now where I need to put a lot of my focus on and where I feel comfortable. I feel confident in my study schedule. Do I feel confident in my answers? No. The past two months, I have only timed myself a handful of times (5 or so) and I have stayed within the 140-156. It fluctuates. Which also scares me a little more.

I hope that that changes now.

____________________________

Are you sure there’s a light at the end of the tunnel?

Really.. Is there?

As of right now I doubt it. I’m ready to do something, anything, explosive that would cause maximum damage or would cause the light bulb to suddenly flicker on regarding the Flaw in Reasoning Questions and the Method of Reasoning.

Every time I get an answer wrong it always feels like a brand new cut.. oh gosh that sounded terribly emo, didn’t it?

Its not the stimulus that is confusing me, I can see myself paraphrasing the answer or figuring out where the flaw in the argument is or how the speaker makes his/her argument. Its the answer choices that cause me to go all *does jazz hands* I can’t seem to put their wording into my own words, for instance one of the answers that I had gotten wrong was because of the difference in words of ” assume ” and “presuppose.”

Oh and also Casual Reasoning vs Conditional Reasoning.But lets not add more to my plate of worries shall we?

Holy goodness gracious. Holy mother of goodness gracious.( that’s as kosher as I can go for tumblr)
As everyone else, a lot is riding on this test for me. Sometimes when I go on forums and read the posts either about LSAT test day experience, or study tips or how to achieve the perfect score using so and so’s method. Some competing against others.

At the end of the day I realize everyone else is in the same boat as I am and the whole mumbo jumbo about how competitive it is getting in [law school or getting the perfect score on the LSAT] gets thrown out the window because I stop seeing it as a competition and start seeing it for what it truly is; at the end of the day we’re are struggling with the same fear and hope, be it LR, RC or LG.

And for some reason that takes away the nerves, not completely but enough where I know come test day I’m not going to worry about the person next to me or behind me or in front of me. I don’t see them as competition. They won’t achieve me the 160+. That’s going to come from my own worth, my own strength.

However as great as that little epiphany is, I still don’t get Flaw Arguments.

Crappers.

Back to the drawing board.

Photo by bobaubuchon

LSAT Logic Games Section - Scrap Paper Not Allowed

UPDATE: For the Digital LSAT, you do get a booklet of scratch paper. It's about 12-14 pages, 8.5 x 11, unlined.

For the paper LSAT (outside North America), you can write on the page itself.

***

A long time ago, I mentioned that there's no scratch paper allowed on the LSAT.

This is a problem for many people when preparing for the Logic Games section. There's often very limited space on the page.

Occasionally, there's almost no space at all.

I recommend getting accustomed to the limitations of the work space fairly early in your prep.

Here are some ideas on how to deal with this:

If you want to preserve your books to redo/resell them, consider:

1. making photocopies (after all, Logic Games are only 4 pages per exam)

2. limiting yourself to a similar amount of space in a notebook. However, start working with the actual free space on the page sooner rather than later. It's a different experience.

3. using pencil and erasing.

4. getting some large post-it notes (something like these or these, depending upon how much space you want to give yourself). Put one at the bottom of the page. You get to simulate what it's like to work within the page's space constraints, but you don't mess up the page itself. No need to erase or photocopy. It also helps you stay organized because your diagrams don't get separated from the games themselves (like they would if you worked separately in a notebook).

This isn't a perfect solution (since there's often plenty of white space next to each question as well). but it's pretty close. Depending upon whether you draw hypotheticals next to particular questions or at the bottom of the page, this may matter to a greater or lesser degree.

Photo by featheredtar / CC BY 2.0