February 2011 LSAT vs. June 2011 LSAT

LSAT Blog February 2011 LSAT June 2011 LSATLaw schools consider applications on a rolling admissions basis. The earlier you apply in the admissions cycle, the easier it is to gain acceptance. The cycle begins in September.

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

February is towards the end of the cycle. Many top law schools (such as Columbia, Harvard, NYU, and Stanford) don't even accept February LSAT scores for that cycle.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bottom line: if you're not feeling ready to take it in February, I recommend you bite the bullet and wait a year to begin law school, and take the LSAT in June rather than in February. A higher LSAT score means you'll get into better law schools and/or, potentially, more scholarship money. 1 year could be well worth the wait.

If you're only shooting for less competitive schools, it won't matter as much. However, for most people, it's not worth going to less competitive (i.e. 4th-tier) law schools at all.

Photo by lifeontheedge

December 2010 LSAT Score Release Comic Strip

LSAT Blog reader Schopenhauer already brought us a hilarious comic strip about his experience taking the December 2010 LSAT.

He's back with another one. This time, it's about the experience of waiting for his LSAT score and finally getting it back.

Please thank him in the comments for applying his artistic abilities and humor to the topic we all care so deeply about, the LSAT.

Click each of the below images to enlarge, or click each of these 8 links (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8).

December 2010 LSAT Score Release Comic Strip










December 2010 LSAT Score Release Comic Strip






December 2010 LSAT Score Release Comic Strip






December 2010 LSAT Score Release Comic Strip






December 2010 LSAT Score Release Comic Strip






December 2010 LSAT Score Release Comic Strip






December 2010 LSAT Score Release Comic Strip






December 2010 LSAT Score Release Comic Strip


LSAT Diary: LSAT Success Story and Tips

LSAT Success Story TipsThis installment of LSAT Diaries comes from Jared, who scored a 164 on the December LSAT, improving over 20 points from his original LSAT score!

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

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

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

Jared's LSAT Diary:

When I first began my LSAT quest I was, like many law school hopefuls, overwhelmed with the immense quantity of LSAT prep books. I assumed from the beginning that not all LSAT prep materials were created equally—but with each prep company boasting insane promises and drastic score-improvement-testimonials on their covers (oh, how I would have analyzed these claims if my pre-LSAT logic skills would have been what they are now), choosing prep material was a stormy sea to navigate.

I talked to the book salesman (he seemed credible), and he recommended the Kaplan LSAT book (“It does guarantee higher scores. Any book with that kind of guarantee must be worth the investment,” he said), and I walked home thinking that this exam couldn’t be so bad, that Kaplan would unlock the secrets of the exam, that all it would take was this book and a few practice exams before I’d be ready to slay the real thing.

I’ve grown up a lot since then.

Kaplan bolstered my confidence to such an insane degree that I couldn’t help but feel like the difficulty of the LSAT was overly exaggerated. For assumption questions, “you simply have to find the missing link,” logic games are merely “a matter of following rules,” using grids with Xs and checkmarks is “the best way to diagram a matching game,” reading comprehension is easy “because the answers are all in the passage.”

Words like simple, simply, easy, and the like permeated the prep book, and I felt my confidence inflate every time I read them. I never took a cold test because I wasn’t interested in a score that reflected total unfamiliarity with the LSAT. I finished working through my Kaplan book at the end of June, picked up the most recent prep-test I could find early July, set aside a Saturday morning and prepared to annihilate the LSAT.

I scored a 152. Confession: I cheated. Lots. I gave myself extra time, looked at the answers when I had narrowed my choices down to two, bubbling in the right one saying, “I would have chosen that answer anyway.” I actually gave up during the second LG. I stopped my timer and walked out of my room utterly defeated. I came back to finish it, scoring 9/23 on the section. I’d put my actual performance in the low 140s (when I went back to it for the sake of comparison, I couldn’t remember how many questions I’d cheated on, but I know it was a lot. I flipped through my Kaplan book, wondering how I could have done so poorly despite my diligent studying.

At that point, I almost gave up on the LSAT completely. Then I found LSAT Blog (no, Steve doesn’t pay us to write these remarks, nor does he request that we shamelessly promote him as a tutor/free advice giver.) I read every article, every prep book review and made a list of the materials I would need. I cleared my schedule, preparing to start over from square one.

Fact: any prep book that attempts to inflate confidence by underestimating the difficulty of the LSAT probably isn’t worth your while. It’s best to have a realistic understanding of the LSAT, knowing that some of the questions are brutally difficult, and understanding that there is no ‘one size fits all’ approach to the questions/individual question types. There is variance between question types (one Principle question might require a different approach than the next) and you must have an adaptable approach to them.

Tip about games for those overwhelmed by them: Don’t worry about inferences at the beginning. I remember wondering, how did they make this deduction? Don’t try to grasp all of the subtle nuances of the logic games section right away. First work on the fundamentals: the rules, the action, and the variables. Familiarity will reveal patterns and as you get more comfortable with how rules work, the ability to make deductions will increase.

After working through logic games, I took another prep-test and scored an almost legit 153 (no cheating except for an extra minute here or there). Performance on logic games increased, logical reasoning and reading comprehension were the same. Seeing as logical reasoning comprises half the test, I tackled it next. This section took a long time to figure out for me to ‘get,’ so I’ll detail some of the general mistakes I was making and how I fixed them:

Mistakes: under immense time pressure, I’d jump straight to the answers after reading the stimulus and question without taking time to actually analyze the stimulus. I’d analyze the stimulus through the answer choices, wasting valuable time in the process. I diagrammed too much, and I was extremely rigid in my techniques. I didn’t separate premise/evidence from conclusion, and I consistently took the whole stimulus at face value. My advice to you is basically to do the opposite of these things. Know what the stimulus is saying before you look at the answer choices, only diagram when absolutely necessary, adapt your approach accordingly, etc.

Even so, my performance on logical reasoning improved to -5 to -7—up from the -11 before I’d started. My scores at this point (around mid-September) were consistently in the mid-150s. I stopped working on logical reasoning after reading somewhere that every LSAT taker has a ceiling, and it’s around 10 points higher than your diagnostic score. When progress seems to halt, you’ve hit yours.

I emailed Steve about this, telling him my target score. I’ll sum up the conversation like this: you get out of the LSAT what you put into it. Diligence and a high level of commitment are the keys to success on the LSAT. Steve advised me to look at ALL of the logical reasoning questions I’d gotten wrong and to analyze the ‘why’ behind each wrong/right answer choice. I did this for every wrong answer I’d gotten in the logical reasoning section, looking for patterns, and identifying areas of weakness: Assumption, Principle, and Flaw questions were mine. Know yours and drill them. My scores skyrocketed up to the high 160s and into the hallowed realm of the coveted 170+ after this conversation with no cheating (I’d leave the answer sheets at home and write at the library), no extra time, etc.

I enlisted Steve as a tutor, and together we worked on my logical reasoning problem areas. Steve helped me to finally realize the difference between Must Be True and Most Strongly Supported questions, how to approach a Sufficient Assumption vs. a Necessary Assumption, etc. That was time well invested.

The week leading up to the December LSAT was pretty rough. I had a migraine on Wednesday and was pretty delirious for most of the next day. I was exhausted on Friday, and was pretty nervous about how my health would impact my performance. But nothing was going to stop me from writing that exam, nothing. I was extremely nervous during the first half of the LSAT (not to mention exhausted from being sick during the week), but came back after the break and vandalized some stained glass windows and absolutely crushed the last LR section. I can’t say the same for my writing sample though, but maybe I’m just being too hard on myself.

I’m pleased to say that I scored a 164—that’s lower than my average on my last batch of practice exams, but somewhere between 20-24 points higher than my first practice LSAT (it’s hard to know exactly what my score would have been on my first practice LSAT with the cheating and dramatic leaving).

So here I am, contemplating a re-write, knowing full well that I could have performed better. And yet, as I write this diary, I can’t help feeling entirely satisfied with the knowledge that the work I put into the LSAT actually paid off.

Photo by bdorfman

Logic and Games

* The # of 1st-time LSAT-takers in December 2010 was down 22% from last December. Guess that leaves more LSAT for the rest of us. [Law Professors Blog; LSAC]

* What did previous LSAT-takers wish they'd known before starting their prep? [LSAT Blog]

* Sophomore pays his college tuition with $1 bills. [NYTimes]

* Antonin Scalia is apparently the Supreme Court's funniest justice. [ABA Journal]

* Woman uses Craigslist and MySpace to track down thief. [Salon]

* The new Miss America wants to go to law school and become President one day. [Above The Law; Jezebel]

* Alabama's new governor wants everyone to become a Christian. [Gawker]

Preparing for the LSAT Experimental Section

Preparing LSAT Experimental Section
In my LSAT study schedules, I recommend that you include extra sections in your practice exams. Why would I recommend such a cruel and difficult task?

Because LSAC uses test-takers as lab rats (like many organizations that administer standardized exams - think back to the SAT). LSAC includes an unscored experimental section on the LSAT and doesn't tell you which one it is. If you knew which one it was, you'd probably take a nap to recuperate between the sections you care about - the scored ones.

To LSAC's credit, this practice increases the validity of the scored sections of future LSATs. The experimental section allows LSAC to pre-test questions with several thousand applicants, helping LSAC determine which questions deserve to make it into future scored sections.

On the other hand, not knowing which section is the experimental can make it difficult to decide whether or not to cancel your score. If you bomb the experimental section, it may affect your performance on the other sections. Additionally, being forced to "donate" 35 minutes of free research for LSAC after paying to take the LSAT hardly seems fair.

Regardless, because you'll see a 5-section exam on test day, rather than the 4 you're used to seeing in your books of PrepTests, it's essential to prepare.

I decided to write this post after blog reader Katie wrote to me with the following question:
I have been taking 4 section timed tests for a while now but am starting to take 5 and 6 section timed tests as you suggest. I have two questions:

1. I assume that the type of "extra" section(s) I include should vary from test to test. For example, on one day, I would add a logic games section and the next day either a reading comprehension or a logical reasoning section. Is this what you would recommend?

2. What is the best way to score these tests? Which section do I omit? I took a test last night and did an extra logical reasoning section. The scoring for the test I took the extra section from was very different from the full test I was taking - does this make sense? I want to make sure I'm getting an accurate read of my performance.

Varying extra sections
There are two main approaches I'd recommend:

-You can rotate the type of "extra" section(s) that you use.
-You can make the extra section(s) the one that you like the least.

For most people, a combination of the two is probably ideal. Figure out which type of section you dread the most, and include it more often than the others.


Which section to omit
This makes perfect sense, Katie. To get the most accurate score reading, omit the section(s) that are not from the original exam. Different exams have different scales.


Some more tips on preparing for the experimental section:

Where to place the unscored section.
LSAC used to only place experimental sections in the first 3, but they've changed things in recent years, and it can now be ANY of the sections.

It's unfortunate that you might have to take the unscored section earlier, when you're less tired, but just remember everyone else is affected in the same way.


Mix up sections.
As I said earlier, on test day, you won't know which section is the experimental. For this reason, you may want to lay out the sections from each PrepTest beforehand. Take the four from the "scored" exam and one "unscored" experimental, and mix them together.

This way, you won't know which ones are scored and which ones aren't, and you'll be forced to put the same effort into each.


LSAT Diary: Deciding Whether To Go To Law School

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

Please comment and give Jeysa some advice as she decides between pursuing a PhD in Clinical Psych and a JD.

Jeysa's LSAT Diary:

Unlike my initial LSAT Diary, I intend to include a bit about how I am holding up as far as the study process, but I also want to pose some “deep thinking questions” (as they say) and hopefully get some feedback!

As I prepared for the LSAT, as many of you, every single section improved – BUT logic games. With this, I knew it was high time to buckle down. The great combination of LSAT Blog posts, tireless studying, and practice, (and actually further reading for fun helped to boost stamina and a new way of thinking as well), my logic games performance went from -20 (2o wrong), to -18, to -14, to -11. Hopefully it continues to progress, in turn, as well. On another note, I think that this downward slope will make a lovely graph. I am thinking of plotting it as we speak.

I can honestly say that I am pretty confident regarding logical reasoning sections (gives herself a pat on the back). However, I find myself having to keep myself from dozing off with boredom at times, for the section involving reading comprehension. (It can be so long!) I have found that taking multiple heavy reading sections at once to increase endurance is truly the key this relatively early in the game.

Over the past few weeks, and as the fall semester came to a close, I spent a lot of time thinking about my decision to go into law. I feel that far too many people embark on law school “just because they are not sure what else to do.” I have been debating between a PhD in Clinical Psych and a JD, of course. I'm questioning my ability to succeed and put in the hard work once I take the LSAT’s and enter law school. I know that I have an immensely strong work ethic, but what precisely will allow me to stand out in the crowd? Luck?

I only wish that everyone in my personal life was as strongly motivated. Their law-chasing-dreams seem impulsive and not well thought out. I would love to hear feedback on why you chose the legal field, and why you think you will be able to stand out, and succeed. What makes a good lawyer? These are the questions I am asking myself.

Photo by archeon

Logic and Games

* Must-read NYT article about law school, job prospects, and debt, and some responses to it. [NYTimes; AboveTheLaw; WSJ; Atlantic; Chronicle of Higher Ed]

* I'm quoted in this article about the rankings' influence on law school selection. [US News]

* US News might start ranking 3rd-tier law schools. [ABA Journal]

* ABA might stop requiring law schools to use LSAT, but most would probably still use it anyway. [Inside Higher Ed]

* Great parody of The Paper Chase, a classic law school movie. [YouTube]

* Stand-up comedian Hannibal Buress makes an assumption about apple juice. [YouTube]



Informal Logic: Deductive Reasoning

Informal logic is a big part of the LSAT.

Professor Walker White, who teaches Computer Science at Cornell University, has graciously agreed to share some of his tips on understanding informal logic with everyone reading LSAT Blog.

His discussion includes detailed analysis of a real LSAT Logic Game. I've made a few of the other examples "LSAT Blog"-specific. The first part's below, and the second is Informal Logic: Deduction and Arguments.

Please thank Professor White in the comments for sharing these great articles!


Part 1: Deductive Reasoning

An argument that relies only on deduction is guaranteed to be valid. For example, a deductive argument might consist of two premises of the form:
  1. If P is true, then Q is true.
  2. P is true.
Deduction allows us to conclude from these two premises that:
  1. Q is true.
For example, suppose we use a Google search to demonstrate that LSAT Blog has no articles on ladies footwear. In this case, we are making deduction with two premises:
  1. If Google returns no LSAT Blog articles for "LSAT Blog ladies footwear," then LSAT Blog has no articles on ladies footwear.
  2. Google returns no LSAT Blog articles for "LSAT Blog ladies footwear."
From these premises, it is valid to conclude that LSAT Blog has no articles on ladies footwear. Again, this does not mean the claim is true. Premise (1) is a complicated premise, and depends on the reliability of Google. But if Google is not reliable, then our debate is about that premise, and not the conclusion.
Students of informal logic sometimes try to split claim (1) into a premise and a conclusion. However, if-then statements are typically a single claim about a relationship between two observations. In this case, premise (1) is a claim about how reliable Google is for finding LSAT Blog articles. One way to think about this is the difference between the following two statements:
  • If Google cannot find an article, then it must not exist.
  • Because Google cannot find the article, it must not exist.
The first is a single claim about the reliability of Google. The second is an argument where we assert that a Google search has failed, and use this as evidence of the article's absence. In fact, this argument uses the first claim as an unspoken premise.

Deduction works "by definition" (and the principle of identity). When we make a claim like "if P is true, then Q is true," we mean that given argument P is true, this argument also shows Q is true. Given this observation, it does not appear that our deduction is particularly useful. We wanted to prove that LSAT Blog has no articles on ladies footwear, but to do so, we introduced a more complicated premise about Google's reliability. In the case of Google, we may be willing to accept this particular premise on faith. However in general, unless we know how to deduce or evaluate a conditional statement like (1), we are again back where we started.

Fortunately, we can deduce new conditionals as conclusions, provided that we have other conditionals as premises. To deduce a new conditional, we start first with a new premise. This new premise is introduced "for the sake of argument"—we are not making any claims about whether it is true or false. We use the existing conditionals to deduce a new conclusion. If we do this, then the conditional that connects the initial premise with the conclusion is itself a valid conclusion of the existing conditionals.
This explanation confuses even me, so it is best to proceed with an example.

See the rules of the second Logic Game in PrepTest 20 (the October 1996 LSAT), excerpted in Logic Made Easy.

Suppose, in that game, we want to deduce the new conditional statement:

If P is cut, then R is cut.
We start by assuming, "for the sake of argument," that P is cut. Deducing from premise (4), we know that L is not cut. Additionally, premise (5) is actually shorthand for a bunch of conditionals, one of which is "if L is not cut, then M and R are cut." Hence we can deduce that both M and R are cut. We started assuming that P is cut and sequence of deductions provided us with the conclusion that R is cut. That means, from premises (1)-(4), we can deduce the conditional "if P is cut, then R is cut."

From this example, we see that conditionals are a form of hedging our bets. We can have a perfectly valid argument about the consequences of cutting area P without committing to the claim that P is actually going to be cut. It is possible that P is the pet project of the university president and will never be cut, but that does not make our argument invalid. Hence, deductive arguments are another excellent example why we must separate truth from validity.

***

Read on for Part 2: Informal Logic: Deduction and Arguments.

Informal Logic: Deduction and Arguments

This is the second part of Professor White's discussion of informal logic. The first part is Informal Logic: Deductive Reasoning.


Deduction and arguments

We have seen that we can deduce new conditionals from old. But where do we get conditionals to start with? Fortunately, we can get conditionals from our three principles. Premise (5) in Part 1's LSAT example was shorthand for a collection of conditionals; in the same way, both non-contradiction and excluded middle provide us with several conditionals. For example, excluded middle gives us "if P is not true, then P is false" for anything we want to fill in the blank for P.

In addition to conditionals, these principles get us two more induction techniques beyond simple if-then arguments. In reality, these arguments could be converted to if-then deductions if we wanted to. These additional methods are just templates that help us speed up the process a bit.


Argument by contradiction

In an argument by contradiction, we provisionally assume that a claim is false. We then deduce a premise is false. As a valid argument is an argument about true premises, this violates the principle of non-contradiction. Hence our deduction had to have made a mistake somewhere. The only possible mistake was our initial assumption that the claim is false, so it cannot be false. By the principle of excluded middle, this means this claim is true.

Returning to our LSAT example from Part 1, suppose we want to deduce the claim

One of P, G, or S cannot be cut.

To argue by contradiction, we start assuming that this claim is false. In other words, all three of them are cut. When G and S are cut, we can deduce from premise (2) that W is cut. By premise (5) we know that two of L, M, and R must be cut. Counting all these up, we get at least six areas that must be cut. This contradicts premise (1), so one of the initial three—P, G, or S—cannot be cut.


Argument by cases

In an argument by cases, we start with a claim and create two arguments: one assuming the claim false, and another assuming the claim true. If we can deduce the same conclusion in both cases, then that conclusion is valid because of the principle of excluded middle.

Returning to our LSAT example, suppose we want to deduce the claim

If R is not cut, then G must be cut.

We are deducing a conditional, so we start with the provisional assumption that R is not cut. We can immediately deduce, from premise (4), that L and M are cut. By premise (1), we need to reduce three more areas from G, S, W, and N. We now break our argument into two cases:

  • N is not cut. This leaves us only three areas left to choose from, so G must be cut.
  • N is cut. We deduce from premise (3) that S is not cut. That leaves us only two areas to choose our remaining two cuts from, so G must be cut.

G is cut in both cases, so we have successfully argued "if R is not cut, then G must be cut."

In practice, these arguments rarely have a true/false breakdown. Instead, they start with an exhaustive list of possibilities and use them as the cases. For example, if we want to argue that tuition at Ivy League schools is too expensive, we can list all of the Ivy League schools and present a separate argument for each. Be warned that this approach has an unstated premise, namely that the list covers all of the possibilities. Ignoring this additional premise is the source of the false dilemma fallacy.

***

Please thank Professor White in the comments for sharing these articles!

Photo by wallyg

Logic and Games, Lawsuit Edition

* What to do when the house you just bought turns out to be haunted? Sue, of course. [Google Scholar]

* What to do when a $40,000 donation doesn't get your kid into college? Sue, of course. [Slate]

* The Simpsons imagines a world without lawyers where the above lawsuits never happen. [YouTube]

* Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia says women don't have constitutional protection against discrimination. In other news, he hasn't gotten laid since making that statement. [Huffington Post]

* Police can't go through your cell phone after they pull you over, or can they? High school kids had better cut back on the sexting. [Ars Technica]

* Republican state lawmakers have their own take on the 14th amendment. [Above The Law]

* Want to skip 3 years of law school? Buy your law degree on eBay for $200,000. [ABA Journal]



LSAT Diary: Score Release Wait

LSAT Score Release Wait Diary
UPDATE: Lisa got a 175!

Here's what she wrote:

"I got my LSAT score yesterday and was thrilled to find out that I got a 175. I really want to thank you for all the information you put on your blog and for offering the 3-month-study schedule that I followed...There's not enough I can say to thank you."

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

Please thank Lisa for her advice below in the comments!

(And see her previous LSAT Diary here.)

Lisa's LSAT Diary:

The window by my desk looks across the snow-covered roofs of dozens of houses in my sister’s subdivision in south-central Wisconsin. When I first began studying for the LSAT, the roofs were not covered with snow; rather the trees were covered with leaves: green leaves, then shades of orange and red. Now the leaves are gone, and my comfortable schedule of getting up, studying for the LSAT, making dinner for my husband and sister, watching The Office, and going to bed, has ended. The December LSAT has come and gone, and I’m left reluctantly facing the real world again.

Last year, my husband and I celebrated Christmas in Taiwan (where houses are condos, crowded together in multi-story buildings, and not a flake of snow is to be found). The season was marked with excitement: Despite having no idea whether any of our plans would turn out, we had decided to go ahead and leave our jobs in the spring, travel around Europe for three months, and move 13 time zones away to Wisconsin, where I grew up. We turned our backs on the security of jobs or even a good back-up plan because we both knew that the time had come to move on.

Eight months later, some of our plans had fallen through but new and unexpected ones had emerged. Like my plan to go to law school, and our plan to live with my sister and brother-in-law until we found jobs. I soon discovered that studying for the LSAT was much more rewarding than looking for a job. After all, when I finished a PrepTest, I was only a minute away from a score. I never heard back from most companies I sent resumes to. Yet a strange dichotomy emerged: Somehow I could regularly snag scores of 172 and up on PrepTests and yet couldn’t seem to figure out how to get someone to notice my resume. As strange as this may sound, the LSAT had become a method of procrastination.

And procrastinate I did. I followed the 3-month LSAT study schedule. I took 20+ PrepTests. Slowly, PrepTest after PrepTest I began to see patterns in logical reasoning questions, the section I most needed to improve. The correct answer for necessary assumption questions, a weakness, started to take on a certain “feel.” I came to relish sufficient assumption questions for the relative simplicity of “connecting the dots” to make the conclusion work.

I improved my speed and accuracy on long parallel reasoning or parallel flaw questions by carefully diagramming the stimulus and then mimicking that diagram with dots and arrows beside each answer to see if the argument followed the same flow. I wrote out why the correct answer was right for every logical reasoning question I got wrong.

When the actual LSAT came in December I was confident and ready. The LSAT had truly “become my friend.” The LSAT had restored my confidence in my academic abilities. Six years of work had made me wonder if I had the mental stamina to “hit the books” again.

When I started studying, I realized two things: The college student in me was long gone, and that was a good thing. As a college student, studying was simply something I did. As an unemployed professional, studying was an investment that could possibly see a return as scholarship funds. As a college student, the world and all its choices lay ahead of me. As a married woman pushing 30, I was becoming more deliberate about my choices because I realized they come with an opportunity cost.

Now I am left waiting for my score, finishing up my applications and finally facing the job market. Just this past week I lost an opportunity to work at a law firm as a paralegal because I honestly answered pointed questions about my future plans. Realizing that my honesty would probably close the door on any full-time, permanent positions, I am now looking for temporary jobs. Fortunately, the people in staffing agencies seem to think there is a place for out-of-work editors and I already have a promising job lead. In the meantime, if you need something proofed, let me know.


Update:

I got my LSAT score yesterday and was thrilled to find out that I got a 175. I really want to thank you for all the information you put on your blog and for offering the 3-month-study schedule that I followed. I was unsure at first about using so many preptests as a part of prep, but quite a lot of advice I found seemed to support that, and now I am very glad that I decided to go that way and study on my own. After a while, it seemed that I had reached some sort of "plateau," but I really do think that consistently working on my weaknesses and studying each test (each question) thoroughly helped me to improve so that the last 5 or 6 tests before the LSAT my average was at 175-176. How I was able to actually score my average despite test nerves, I don't know, though I do have to thank LSAC for giving the December LSAT such a generous curve.

There's not enough I can say to thank you. I absolutely recommend self-study for anyone who has the initiative and discipline to keep at it. I think I was able to do better through self-study rather than a program because I had to depend on myself and not a teacher for my test prep.


Photo by carbonnyc

Free LSAT Logic Games Explanations | Advanced Linear

Free LSAT Logic Games Explanations | Advanced LinearMy free Advanced Linear Logic Game about monkeys in space has been without a complete setup explanation for far too long. Several of you have rightfully hounded me about this shameful omission, so here you go:






The description of the main diagram states:

The seats are in consecutive rows that are numbered 1, 2, 3, and 4 from front to back. Each row contains exactly two seats: a seat with a window facing the sun and a seat with a window facing the moon.
Normally, I'd put the numbers 1, 2, 3, and 4 as the "base" (running horizontally). However, because the term "rows" typically describes sets of variables that are horizontal (as anyone who regularly uses Microsoft Excel can tell you), I'm going to make the numbers run vertically on the diagram.

The description gives us the following:
LSAT Blog Free Logic Games Explanations Advanced Linear Basic Diagram










If you want to do make your numbers run horizontally that's perfectly fine. You'll just have to rotate everything 90 degrees as punishment for diagramming contrary to the way I do things.

Additionally, the placement of S on the left and M on the right is arbitrary.

Now, the rules, starting with the 1st rule:

E's window never faces the sun, but D's window always faces the sun.
Since E doesn't face the sun, it must face the moon. Put E below the moon column. Put D below the sun column.

The 2nd rule:
F sits in row 1 or row 2, but neither row 2 nor row 3 can contain D.
Place F with a slash through it next to rows 3 and 4, and D with a slash through it next to rows 2 and 3.

What you have should look something like this:
LSAT Blog Free Logic Games Explanations Advanced Linear First 2 Rules












The next rule is a bit tricky to diagram:

B sits in the row immediately behind D's row.
Thing is, they may not be in the same column (facing the same thing). 2 quick inferences we can make are that D's not in row 4, and B's not in row 1 (otherwise, how could B go behind D?). Since we already know D isn't in rows 2 or 3, it must be in 1. Since B's in the row immediately behind D's, it must be in row 2.

Here's one way you might want to diagram the rule itself (along with the new inferences included on the diagram):
LSAT Blog Free Logic Games Explanations Advanced Linear Third Rule











Of course we no longer need the indications of the rows that D and B aren't going in, since we know exactly which rows they are going in. We now know that D must go in S1. I'll erase the redundant information in the next pictured version of the diagram.

For now, the next rule:

If B's window faces the sun, then A's window faces the moon.
We can simply say, Bs -> Am.

The contrapositive would be:
If A's window does not face the moon, then B's window does not face the sun.
However, if A's window is not facing the moon, we know it must be facing the sun. Similarly, if B's window is not facing the sun, it must be facing the moon.

As such, rather than writing the contrapositive in negative terms, we can write it in positive ones:
If A's window faces the sun, then B's window faces the moon.
Diagrammed, this gives us: As -> Bm

We can simply write both of these conditional statements to the side of the diagram.

The next rule:
If D sits in row 1, then G sits in row 4.
Although this is a conditional statement, we already know through our inferences that D must, in fact, be in row 1. As such, since the sufficient condition of this rule must always be met, the necessary condition must always be met as well. We know with certainty that G must be on 4. Therefore, we should place G next to row 4.

We now have the following:
LSAT Blog Free Logic Games Explanations Advanced Linear With More Rules












However, we can actually make two main diagrams, based upon whether B's window faces the sun or moon:













Now, when B faces the sun, we know A faces the moon, so we can go ahead and place A under the moon column in that particular diagram.

Now, the final rule:
If B sits in the same row as F, then G's window faces the sun.
We already knew F couldn't be in either of rows 3 or 4. Now, we also know that when it's in row 2 (since B's always in 2), we'll get even more information.

We can diagram this rule as the following:






Every valid scenario must fall within 1 of these above 2 diagrams, and they're more than enough to move on to the questions. By creating these up-front, you give yourself more of a starting point to draw hypothetical scenarios over the course of the game for particular questions. The game is too open-ended for you to draw every scenario up-front, but these diagrams will allow you to solve the questions more easily.

Most of you should simply move on to the questions with the diagrams that I've laid-out above. What we've done so far is enough to solve the questions without trouble.

However, if you'd like to see how it is possible to break the main diagrams apart even further (simply as an exercise), I'll show those of you are interested how to do so, below.


***


You can split each of the 2 main diagrams above into 2 more (resulting in 4 main diagrams for all the non-math whizzes out there), based upon whether F goes to row 1 or row 2 in each of those diagrams.

On the left side, where B's window faces the sun, I have F in row 1 in the top diagram and in row 2 in the bottom diagram.

On the right side, where B's window faces the moon, I have F in row 1 in the top diagram and in row 2 in the bottom diagram.

Here's what it looks like:

LSAT Blog Free Logic Games Explanations Advanced Linear 4 Main Diagrams
















Now, in the bottom 2 diagrams, B and F are in the same row. As such, G's window must face the sun in those diagrams. In the others, we simply don't know whether G's window faces the sun or the moon.

One more inference to make: the seat in the 3rd row facing the sun is particularly limited in the two diagrams on the left.

Since A's window must face the moon in these diagrams, A can't go there in these diagrams. Additionally, none of B, D, E, F, and G can go there - B, D, F have already been placed, G must go in row 4, and E's window must always face the moon. As such, only either C or H can go in that seat on those diagrams. I'll place C/H in the 3rd seat facing the sun on both of these diagrams:

LSAT Blog Free Logic Games Explanations Advanced Linear Final 4 Main Diagrams






















Every valid scenario must fall within 1 of these 4 diagrams. By creating these up-front, you give yourself more of a starting point to draw hypothetical scenarios over the course of the game for particular questions.

Photo by donsolo