Logic and Games

* Would you rather go to a traditional law school or a new-agey interdiscplinary one? [WSJ Law Blog]

* UVA Law beer pong party features Confederate flag table. [Above The Law]

* Corrupt police department literally makes ticketing into a game for one town's cops. [Gawker]

* Blue whales should all have cancer, but they don't. Maybe they can help us. [Discover]

* NYC councilman wants to register bikes as if they were cars. I preferred the 2008 congestion pricing plan. [Village Voice]

* Does the world's most persistent/stupid bank robber get away? [YouTube]

* Westboro Baptist Church wins Supreme Court free speech case. [Huffington Post]

Choosing a Law School Using US News Rankings

Malcolm Gladwell recently critiqued the U.S. News law school rankings. Those rankings have been an institution for quite some time.

Whichever ranking system you favor, some thoughts:

How should you use law school rankings when making a decision?

Because the rankings are such a widely-used indicator of a law school's prestige, it's important to be aware of them at the very least.

To ignore them would be paying over $100,000 for something when you don't know its value.

Of course, the rankings are far from perfect, but you can still use them as a starting point when thinking about where to apply.

After all, it's overwhelming to wade through the dozens of pamphlets, folders, and emails you'll soon be receiving from law schools (if you haven't started receiving them already). Having an outside evaluator like U.S. News to cut through the clutter with some hard numbers is incredibly useful.

They can:

-serve as a general guideline to help you get a sense of a law school's prestige.

-give you a sense of how others would view your having attended a given school.

-help you determine the schools to which you have a realistic chance of acceptance given your LSAT score and undergraduate GPA.

If you haven't yet taken the LSAT, but have a sense of what your undergraduate GPA is or will be, you can figure out what kind of LSAT numbers you'll likely need to have a strong chance at a particular law school.

As such, the rankings can help you to formulate a list of law schools to which you should apply, helping you to select safety schools, match schools, and reach schools.




How much should you actually let the rankings influence your decisions?

The importance of the rankings will vary from person to person. In large part, it depends on the type of law you wants to practice after law school.

If you're looking to go to a corporate law firm, the rankings are very important. Many law firms disproportionately recruit from certain law schools and are significantly more likely to consider a resume from a "T14" school than others ("T14" is a term used to refer to the 14 law schools consistently listed in the top 14 of the U.S. News law school rankings).

However, if you're looking to practice in other areas (such as human rights law), become a sole practitioner (opening your own law firm), use your law degree simply to add to your skill set for your already-existing business, or in conjunction with another graduate degree, the law school's ranking and national reputation may not mean as much.



Enough about the rankings - what else matters?

Financial Aid:

Well, if you're the kind of person who's not planning to write one big check for law school tuition without batting an eye, you may want to seriously consider financial aid offers.

Many law schools will give merit aid to woo applicants with LSAT scores higher than the school's typical student. If your LSAT score's significantly higher than their average, schools will likely want to grab you to help you boost their position in the rankings. They might be willing to pay you for the privilege with reduced tuition costs.


Location:

It's also important to recognize that rankings don't take into account the fact that a law school is always better-known in its region of the country than elsewhere.

For example, if you want to practice law in NYC, you might want to consider Fordham over UCLA, even though UCLA has a higher US News ranking. NYC law firms and residents are more familiar with Fordham Law and its graduates than those of UCLA Law. After all, a significantly greater number of Fordham law graduates settle and practice in NYC than do UCLA law graduates.

There's also the fact that public universities offer lower tuition to in-state residents. If you've established in-state residence, you can take advantage of lower tuition if accepted. Public (state) law schools also set aside a certain number of seats for in-state residents, so it can be easier to gain acceptance if you've established residence.


***

For further reading, see this U.S. News law school rankings article in which I'm featured.

***

Which other factors are affecting which law schools you're considering?

Logical Reasoning: Necessary and Sufficient Conditions

LSAT Blog reader Vicky recently wrote with the following:

"I know you have already covered the sufficient and necessary conditions quite extensively, but there are still many (myself included) who are still stymied by it.

If you feel that the explanation I provide below is accurate and acceptable, posting it as an introductory Logical Reasoning topic might help other LSAT students."

I found Vicky's explanation to be useful and have included an edited version of it below.

Please thank Vicky in the comments for sharing her tips with everyone!

Vicky's Tips on Understanding Sufficient / Necessary Conditions:

Dealing with the concepts of Sufficient and Necessary conditions becomes a whole lot easier if I think of them in mutually-exclusive terms.

I consider the introduction of a new entity, the outcome/objective of these conditions, and, in some instances, with the sufficient condition being a specific example/small part of the bigger necessary condition.

For example, the limo example from Steve's blog post titled, LSAT Logic: Sufficient vs. Necessary Conditions: If I take a limo somewhere, I'll go somewhere

My interpretation is this:

- go somewhere = outcome/objective

- take a limo somewhere = sufficient condition

- traveling somehow, by any means possible, (such as: walk, limo, spaceship, teleport, have a friend wrap you up in a bouncy material and roll you across town to your destination...) = necessary condition

- taking a limo somewhere is a form of traveling. However, taking a limo somewhere is not the only form of traveling.

As such, the sufficient condition is a specific example/subset of the necessary condition. Traveling in general doesn't require that you take a limo somewhere. Like Darth Vader and Star Wars. Like Superman and superheroes. Like LSAT and traditional law school admission. (Do I need to seek professional help here?)


From knowing you got somewhere, we know/safely assume the necessary condition is met - you traveled. However, we can't automatically assume that you took a limo somewhere

From knowing that you took a limo somewhere, we can safely assume you got somewhere - the outcome is met. This also automatically satisfies the necessary condition of traveling.

The necessary condition is automatically met when the sufficient condition is met.

If the necessary condition is not met, the sufficient condition is automatically not met.

The necessary condition might be met without the sufficient condition being met.

This is relevant to page 25 of the LSAT SuperPrep / pages 30-31 of the LSAT Handbook. On these pages, LSAC says there are only 2 possible inferences that can be made from a statement that includes a necessary condition and 2 from a statement that includes a sufficient condition.

NC = necessary condition
SC = sufficient condition

NC #1. Infer from knowing that the NC is NOT met, the outcome does NOT occur = Not NC --> not outcome

NC #2. Infer from knowing that if the outcome occurs, the NC is met = outcome --> NC

SC #1. Infer from knowing that if SC is met, the outcome occurs = SC --> outcome

SC #2. Infer from knowing that if the outcome does not occur, the SC is not met = Not outcome --> not SC

***

“If I take a limo somewhere, I'll go somewhere.”

Scenario 1: I did not travel. So I didn’t go somewhere. I obviously didn’t take a limo somewhere

Not NC --> Not outcome --> Not SC

Scenario 2: I took a limo somewhere. So I went somewhere. I've obviously traveled.

SC --> outcome --> NC

Photo by livenature

LSAT Diary: Studying While Working Full-Time

This installment of LSAT Diaries comes from Justin, a 25-year-old who's studying for the LSAT while holding a full-time job and attending college full-time. He's a pretty busy guy.

In this LSAT Diary, he talks about balancing it all as he starts off his prep.

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

Please leave Justin some encouragement below in the comments!

Justin's LSAT Diary:

When you are growing up, everyone tells you to dream big. Dreaming big was always something I was capable of and now at the age of 25, I find myself shooting big again. I am looking to conquer the June 2011 LSAT.

You always hear, “the LSAT is a learnable test” and “the LSAT can be taught.” It certainly gets you excited and makes you eager to hit the books to learn as much as you can. Once you start reading and gaining small insights into the mind of the beast, you get excited and want more! Preparation ends up being a delicate balance of time and time management.

For me, I have gone a non-traditional route to this point. While only being 25, I have nearly 6 years of professional work experience. I enrolled in college right after high school, but at the time it wasn’t a good fit for me. Sadly, my grades reflected that. I opted to gain some work experience in the mean time with an eye on returning to finish my degree when the time was right.

That time came recently. Ironically, the thought of a career in law came along with it.
So here I am, writing a diary, studying for the LSAT, working full-time, and attending school full-time. Having to juggle multiple balls in the air makes it tough, but it's not impossible. I was ecstatic to come across the LSAT Blog and what Steve has put together here. Once I found the site, I decided to purchase the 5-month day-by- day LSAT study plan. This plan gives me a chance to plan my week ahead of time, which is perfect for me.

In week 1 of the plan, I am tackling basic linear games, which I have had some moderate success with. It seems that each time you have a little success; the LSAT finds a way to throw a crazy game at you. I thought these games were supposed to be basic linear games?

One element that I have added to my study plan is to create a binder with the questions that I answered incorrectly in the eyes of the test-makers. (But I must say, I think my answers are great.) In this binder, I place the questions I answer incorrectly and write a description as to what the right answer is and why my answer is incorrect. I plan to review the binder at the conclusion of each week. In my review of the binder, I am hoping to discover any trends in my answers. I hope this will pay off in a few months when I begin to tackle Logical Reasoning.

I am always open to suggestions and comments. I hope that this diary will serve as motivation for those who are looking to strike a life balance when studying for the LSAT. In hoping to provide some motivation, I would like to share a link to a video clip that should serve to motivate and inspire all of us during our LSAT prep.

Until next time, may your prep be effective and may you learn something from your mistakes!

Photo by offshore

Complete Logical Reasoning Explanations Update

I've added explanations for the Logical Reasoning sections of LSAT PrepTests 61 and 62 (the October 2010 LSAT and December 2010 LSAT) to that mega-PDF - the Complete Logical Reasoning Explanations for Recent PrepTests.

If you haven't bought them yet, be sure to check out more about these Logical Reasoning explanations.

Logic and Games

* For all the ladies out there planning to become lawyers before getting married, and the men who love them. [YouTube]

* LSAT studying often requires coffee. Here are 15 things worth knowing about coffee. [The Oatmeal]

* Two great scenes from My Cousin Vinny, a classic law movie featuring Joe Pesci. [YouTube]

* I kinda wish the author had saved this scary story for Halloween, but I can always read it again then. [Hyperbole and a Half]

* Glenn Beck suggests boycotting Google for assisting in democratic revolutions. Will he switch to Mubarakvista? [Ars Technica]

* Obama tells Department of Justice to stop defending the (anti-gay-marriage) Defense of Marriage Act. [NYTimes]

* Canadian police tell female law students "don't dress like a slut" to avoid attacks. [Above The Law]

Linear Logic Game Diagram and Explanation

My Basic Linear LSAT Logic Game has been without an explanation for far too long.

By popular demand, I'll demonstrate below how to create a diagram for it.

We have 7 variables: ABCDEFG. (I wasn't feeling creative that day.)

Here are the rules, numbered for quick reference:

1. Jandra must visit exactly two countries before her visit to China but after her visit to Bahrain.

2. China cannot be the last country she visits.

3. Jandra cannot visit Bahrain until she has visited Australia.

4. She cannot visit England immediately after she visits Djibouti, nor can she visit Djibouti immediately after she visits England.

5. Fiji must be visited either 4th or 5th.

***

The rules are not primarily about 1 variable going before or after another, as in a Pure Sequencing game. Instead, we have rules that refer to specific spaces, like rule 5, and other rules about immediacy/adjacency, like rule 4.

As such, I consider this game as a Basic Linear game and diagram it as such, with 7 spaces, numbered 1-7:





Rule 1 tells us we have 2 spaces between C and B. Those 2 are before C, and B's even before those. As such, we'll have B _ _ C . We can put a box around it to indicate that there are exactly 2 between them.

Rule 2 tells us C can't be last, so we can place C with a slash through it under the 7th space.

Rule 3 tells us B can't go before A goes. Because no 2 countries are visited simultaneously, we can say that A must go before B. We can diagram this as A - B. Since we already know that we have B _ _ C, we can combine the 2 rules to indicate that A is before B _ _ C, giving us:




Rule 4 tells us D and E can't be adjacent (touching). As such, I'll draw them touching in both orders and put a slash through each ordering. I'll also put a box around them to indicate that their adjacency is what isn't permitted.

Rule 5 tells us F must be 4th or 5th, so I'll put F/ on 4 and /F on 5, to indicate that we either have F on 4 and something else on 5, or we have F on 5 and something else on 4.

I know that's a lot to swallow, so here's a diagram to clear things up for you:






You could simply move on to the game's questions at this point. However, I prefer to instead make some major inferences.

The B _ _ C rule is like the 800-pound gorilla taking up too many seats on the subway/bus/airplane/spaceship. By figuring out the limited places it can fit, we can make some major deductions about where everyone else goes.

B can't start off on 1 because A's got to go before it. B can't end up on any of 5, 6, or 7 because we've got to fit "_ _ C" after it.

As such, B is limited to starting off this enormous unit on 2, 3, or 4, and we can create 3 separate stacked possibilities to represent those options. We can have B on 2 and C on 5, we can have B on 3 and C on 6, or we can have B on 4 and C on 7, generally speaking. Here's what it initially looks like:







(I've temporarily removed Rule 5 - the one regarding F - from the image, but I'll discuss it now.)

In the top possibility, because C's on 5, we'll need to have F on 4. We also know that A must be on 1 in order to go before B, due to Rule 3.

In the middle possibility, because neither B nor C is on either 4 or 5, F could be on either 4 or 5. We can now break this possibility in 2, based upon whether F goes on 4 or 5.

In the bottom possibility, F would have to be on 5, but this possibility is invalid because C can't be on 7, due to Rule 2. As such, this option is eliminated.

So far, this might have been drawn as this:







However, I'll now draw it as:







In the top possibility, we'll need to have one of D or E go on 3 so that they're not together on 6 and 7, which would violate Rule 4. The remaining spaces will feature G and whichever one of D or E didn't go on 3. Either we'll have G on 6 and one of the E/D pair on 7, or we'll have G on 7 and one of the E/D pair on 6.

In each of the bottom 2 possibilities, A must be on either 1 or 2 to ensure that it goes before B, due to Rule 3. Because of this, we know that whatever happens, D and E will never be adjacent in either of these diagrams. That's because 1 and 2 are the only remaining empty adjacent spaces in those diagrams.








The top diagram is pretty much fleshed-out now. The bottom 2 diagrams lack only D, E, and G, which can go pretty much anywhere at this point, since we're no longer in danger of having D and E be adjacent, and since G can always go anywhere.

As always, some of you will likely be thinking that this is way too much time invested up-front.

Is it possible to solve this game without a huge fancy diagram, simply using the basic diagram I drew earlier? Of course.

However, I'm all about showing you the deeper inferences so that you have a bird's-eye view of the game whenever possible. This gives you a stronger jumping-off point from which to create hypothetical diagrams over the course of the game.

***


The text below contains the answers to the above Logic Game.

1. A
2. B
3. D
4. D
5. C


***

The "Difficult Version" of this Logic Game is logically-equivalent, just with different variables, so I'm not going to bother creating a diagram for it. Just use the explanation in this post to understand my approach for it.

LSAT Diary: Prep and Score Increase in Canada

This installment of LSAT Diaries comes from Dan, who followed one of my LSAT study schedules and went from a 141 to a 168!

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

Dan's LSAT Diary:

Ah, yes, Canada. A country that chose not a bird of prey as its national animal, but instead a rodent, the beaver. A country that prides itself on its cold winters, ice hockey, and ice cold ‘Canadian’ beer (brought to us by American companies of course). From sea to sea we too, must suffer the long hours and mental exertion that is the LSAT. Thank you LSAC!

I am a 23 year-old former international relations student from the University of Toronto. Since attending a high school course on Canadian law the goal of receiving a legal education has been firmly implanted within my psyche. I am the prototypical political science student-wannabe-lawyer who is obsessed with international affairs, legislation, and government. In fact, one of my favorite parts of a recent trip to the beautiful beaches of Florida was the presence of C-SPAN in my hotel room—you get the picture.

So while this description may give you a very rudimentary idea of who I am, what I am not is an LSAT superstar. I am not a Brad, JT, or Jake, and do not shrug off 170s like Kobe shrugs off 30 point games. Furthermore, I did not start off scoring in the high 150s. Heck, scoring in the high 150s was a great achievement!

Two years ago after writing a cold diagnostic I started out with a 141. Not only is 141 a not-so-great score, but also, after having a rather bumpy undergraduate experience in my first two years, my cumulative GPA sits at a 3.5. Hence, as is the case for many of those who have written diaries for the site, a good LSAT score was going to be integral in my law school application being a competitive one. Wanting to begin law school the next fall, I planned to write the exam in October. Before beginning my studies I wrote one more prep test to set a reference point and scored a 145. Finding LSAT Blog in June, I started with the 4 month study schedule and aimed for a 165.

Oh man did I put off studying! By the end of June I had gotten very little done besides some measly attempts at a few logic games while picking through parts of the logic games booklet. But come on, it was summer! While working a full-time job I had very little time to fit in the LSAT, especially when you take into account the social component that is integral to every summer. I know, I know, this is the LSAT. So I settled down come July and started taking it a bit more seriously, downsizing to Steve’s three-month LSAT study schedule in order to make up for lost time.

However, the next three months were rushed and when it came to September I had not spent much time on reading comprehension questions and my logic games ability was still rough. At this point I decided to press on anyway and begin writing the prep tests as scheduled; this was a poor decision. What happened next was that, although my timing improved, after almost six prep tests I was scoring a 155 and one week later was stuck at a 158. This is when I learned a lesson I took to heart when studying for my second attempt at the LSAT: it is essential that before beginning prep tests you have a very solid grasp on all sections and their respective question types. For myself, it became very apparent that I had not spent a sufficient amount of time studying the logic games. On some occasions I would score perfect or very close to, while on others grinding out sixteen right answers was difficult. It was very clear that grouping games were an issue and that I needed to go back and review them, but I had already spent almost three weeks on prep tests—there was no time. As the final two weeks approached I plugged on writing prep tests and after hovering around a 158 for some time, I reached a 161 on two occasions.

Before heading into the exam I knew that logical reasoning, in which I was scoring -5 or -6, was going to be my strongest area. I also knew that if I was going to make it into the 160s I needed to score perfect in the logic games section as I was losing 9 to 7 marks on reading comprehension. Scoring well on the exam was going to be more about wishful thinking than hard work and skill.

The day before the exam my unpreparedness was exposed by my nervous and anxious demeanor. That night I got very little sleep. The next morning, tired and nerve-racked, I entered the testing room, took my seat, and began the exam. By the end I knew that it did not go as I had hoped.

Sulking as I drove home feeling rather defeated I knew I was going to have to re-write the exam. After pondering the decision for a few days I also decided to cancel my score, to have a fresh start. I took the next week off from the LSAT and then condensed Steve’s three month retaking schedule into two months (that was all the time I had left). Taking Brad’s advice, I scheduled every day I had remaining until Test Day.

I found that on my second attempt using a day-by-day LSAT study schedule was the most important thing. For the previous exam I had simply given myself tasks that were to be completed by the end of the week. With procrastination kicking in here and there, this method often left me behind on my work.

I went back to previous exams and questions and thought very carefully about what sections I needed to improve on and where I could make the biggest gains. First, it became very obvious that I needed to spend time practicing reading comprehension questions. Scoring -9 to -7 on this section just simply wasn’t going to cut it, and I also believed that it was a section that, with time, could become a personal best. I began by reading Steve’s tips on the section and then disciplining myself to writing two timed reading comprehension sections a day beginning with prep test 7 and ending with 46.

As I became more comfortable with the reading comprehension section I found two of Steve’s recommendations to be the most helpful: (1) focus on structure, and (2) be able to support every answer with information from the passage. Repeated practice also allowed me to foresee what areas of the passage would be questioned and thus, my markings became less-often and more precise. In a few weeks I was between -3 to -5 per RC section—a great improvement.

While undertaking two passages a day I was also focusing most of my day on LGs, especially grouping games. Almost 3 weeks before the exam I was able to complete all LG sections from prep tests 19-38 including repeating some of the more difficult questions. When I went back and looked at my previous exams I found that I was not spending enough time analyzing the rules and diagramming some important inferences. Instead, I had developed the bad habit of simply diagramming the game rules and moving on. The result was a very vague understanding of the game as a whole, and left me occupied with each individual question for far too long. Once I began to properly diagram and analyze the game before moving onto the questions, I was able to knock off some of them in a matter of seconds. As a whole, some games I could finish in four minutes.

Again, repetition was key. The more games I threw at myself the more confident I felt and the less likely I was to be thrown off by an especially difficult game. When I moved into writing prep tests I was able to score perfect on almost every games section. Most importantly, grouping games became one of my preferred game types.

When it came to studying LR I decided not to leave myself too much time. I knew that it was my best section and that increased focus here would probably follow the law of diminishing returns. Personally, I also felt that no matter how good I got at these question types some can be so tricky that I doubted if I could ever reach beyond -4. I spent just over a week going over my weakest types: most supported, parallel, and weaken. If time allowed I also took on some assumption questions.

What improved my score the most in this section was the habit of writing out each question I got wrong. I would write out an analysis about half a page at the very most that explained to me why my answer choice was wrong and why the correct one was correct. Not only did this allow me to understand where I had gone wrong and to correct my faulty reasoning, but it also provided me with a mental framework, a process that I used with each logical reasoning question as I talked myself through the wrong answer choices. And I dare to say it again, repetition was key!

On a side note, I also want to mention that as I moved on to study one section of the LSAT, I never left behind another. That is, when I finally began studying LR questions, I continued to include a reading passage and a game or two each day. I felt that this was important as I remained familiar with the other sections and kept on top of my game.

When it came to writing practice tests, I was surprised at the difficulty I encountered. On my first PT I scored a 163. Whether it was due to the pressures of writing a full exam and thinking, “This is it!” or to a lack of endurance, my scores over five sections did not represent what I could do with 35 minutes on just one section. I found that I needed to learn to become relaxed - even a little arrogant in my dialogue with the test - and keep my mind as focused as possible. Taking on this attitude as I wrote 7 practice tests in the two weeks before the exam, I eventually made it into the high 160s, scoring 167s and a 168.

Writing the exam at my alma mater gave me a familiar and comfortable setting. Feeling confident the night before the exam I slept like a baby. The next morning I went through my morning routine of a jog and a solid breakfast, prepped myself with an LG section, and headed to the test center. Sitting in my seat, things felt quite different from my previous experience, and with that I knew I was ready.

This is a great exam and to be honest, I enjoyed every minute of it. The long nights, the aggravations, the mood swings and swearing fits, all become worth it with persistence. I have seen many speak of a “20 point ceiling”, about how, when it comes to the LSAT you “either have it or you don’t”, but this just isn’t so—and my experience can attest to that.

When it comes to this exam it is all about perseverance and positivity. The latter being in abundance on LSAT Blog, I found it very helpful and hope that it continues!

Logic and Games, LSAT Blog Edition

* Funny and absurd lawyer commercials. [LSAT Blog]

* LSAT-themed Bingo is fun for the whole family. [LSAT Blog]

* What do old people think about the LSAT? [LSAT Blog]

* In which I analyze two spam emails for the soundness of their arguments. [LSAT Blog]

* Did you know the LSAT is also administered in India? [LSAT Blog]

* Stephen Colbert commits logical fallacies. [LSAT Blog]

* Elle Woods gets a 179 on the LSAT and is accepted to Harvard Law. This could be you. [LSAT Blog]

February LSAT Score Release Dates

The February 2011 LSAT scores / results are scheduled to be released via email by March 7, 2011. However, LSAC generally releases LSAT scores the Friday before.

Let's look at the trend over the past several years (click to enlarge):

(Contrary to expectations, February 2010 LSAT scores were released Saturday, February 27, 2010. This may be due to the East Coast snowstorm that closed LSAC's offices on Friday, 2/26/10.)

It seems pretty likely that February 2011 LSAT scores will be released on Friday, March 4, 2011.

"But at what time specifically? I need to know when to constantly refresh my email / LSAC account!"

In batches over the course of several hours. Likely starting late in the day (Eastern Time).

No one knows how the batches are organized, if at all.

The batches do not seem to be organized in any of these ways:

alphabetical/regional/high-to-low scores/low-to-high scores/test center #, etc.

Wish everyone all the best!

***

See other LSAT score release dates posts.

***

While you're waiting for your score, get busy with my Law School Admissions Book Recommendations list and other admissions-related blog posts.

Feel free to leave comments and vent at the injustice of having to wait so long for what is rightfully yours.

Finally, here's Victory Baby, in case you prefer him to the other baby for your Facebook profile photo or something:

LSAT Diary: Supernatural Wasps

This installment of LSAT Diaries comes from Caleb, who scored a 171 on the December LSAT, a 10-point increase from his October LSAT score! Caleb's one of my favorite blog readers and an excellent writer, too.

(He's the man behind the Logic Game about seagulls.)

Even if you don't always read LSAT Diaries, be sure to take a look at Caleb's below. It's funny. And he'll probably respond to all of your comments.

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

Caleb's LSAT Diary:

I hate wasps. They are literally the crappiest of all God's creatures. I have thrown babies and old women out of the way as I run shrieking away from a single wasp. I'm a grown man who has gone skydiving, yet I'm afraid of wasps. Weird.

I set aside a little area in my house for full practice tests every Saturday. It was a calm and peaceful area, surrounded on three walls by 6-foot windows. A room that had never, ever seen a single wasp. Until my first practice test leading up to the October LSAT.

During my first PrepTest I glanced up at my analog watch to see how I was doing on time and I felt something hit my head and fall off. I looked on the table and there it was - Waspzilla. Staring at me. Almost like he had a message, but his only communication was a slight twitch of his antennae. I freaked out, mashed him with my "10 official LSAT" book, and finished the test with shaking hands. I gave myself an extra 1 minute to compensate, but I still did lower than average on that particular section.

Everyone laughed when I told them this story, and thought it was strange that a single wasp would attack me on the day of my first full PT. Well, the next Saturday rolled around and guess what? Another test, another wasp. True story. This one was in the window and harder to see, but I'm sure he was looking at me just like the first one. Dumbfounded, I ran to my garage to get one of my (many) cans of Raid and sprayed him down. Then I checked to see if the corpse of last week's wasp was still around, just to make sure I wasn't dealing with a zombie-wasp. Nope- there it was. 2 separate wasps. This was getting weird.

I won't over-dramatize the next 6 weeks, but I promise you that there was a single wasp somewhere in my test room every Saturday for 6 weeks. At first it was frightening, then hilarious, and finally I became suspicious that it had to more than a mere coincidence. What was the message? What was the universe trying to tell me? As test day approached I received a lot of messages on Facebook from people wondering what the wasps were going to do for test day. Obviously I wasn't going to be home taking a practice test that Saturday so if they were going to make their move it would have to be Friday night. I spoke on the phone about this to a lady-friend the Friday night before the October test and made a decision:

"If I score a 180, I'm going to renounce my wasp-hating forever and never kill another wasp. If I score below my 170 average, I'm going to redouble my efforts to slaughter them mercilessly."

As my friend laughed, I swear to everything sacred that a wasp flew at my face. RIGHT at my face. I have a witness to this, as the girl I was talking to heard me throw the phone down, scream, run around, and then tell her all about it. It was at this point that things went from "coincidentally creepy" to "downright f*cking supernatural." In my 2 years living at my house, I had probably only ever seen 2 wasps other than my LSAT wasps. I just don't allow them around. I spray my entire house, yard, and windows down with several cans of Raid at least twice a year. Mathematically it just wasn't possible for me to see a single wasp every week for 2 months. No way. Though every wasp so far had stared at me or attacked me, I took it as a sign that my test was going to go great.

I took the test and felt very wasp-confident. My preparation had included over 25 full PTs, many other sections done individually, analysis of every question ever missed, online resources (shout-out to Steve's blog!), and timed tests done under exact test-day procedures. I left the test as confident as I had ever been. I realistically expected around my average of 170, but hoped for a game-day boost to 175+. Four weeks later I received my score... 161.

Son-of-a-b*tching wasps!!

Let me clarify: after studying diligently for months and raising my average to the 98% level, my actual score was as bad as the very first test I took. With no explanation (well, no explanation that didn't involve supernatural wasps).

I think I hid my disappointment so well because it was hidden beneath a massive layer of genuine shock. I didn't want to complain and say my score was bad- it wasn't- but it sucked because it surely didn't reflect all of my hard work. So I vowed to retake it.

I spent the time between October and December with a much lighter study schedule. I knew I had it already; I just had to sharpen the edges and practice some of the newer tests. The greatest day of my LSAT career came when I took PT 54 and missed 3. A 179. And that, ladies and gentlemen, included an extra 5th section from another test where I didn't miss any! I was on a roll and had no idea why I was scoring so high on PTs. Then it hit me- I had taken every PT since October at my desk at work instead of my wasp den at home. What? Couldn't be. What the heck was going on here?

I took the test in December, still wasp-free, and scored a 171. That's right about my average, which is great, and certainly enough to be competitive at top schools. But now I'm done... no more studying, no more PTs. And you know what? I miss it. I miss the drive, the focus, and the self-efficacy you gain by watching your scores steadily improve. I even still have my excel spreadsheet with all my test scores!

The study tips that Steve puts on this site are spot-on. The LSAT book recommendations are great and I would agree with 95% of them. If you read through other LSAT Diaries and some of Steve's articles you can find the nuts-and-bolts of effective studying. I could tell you tips like "do a logic game or two every day" but I feel like I would just be re-hashing old advice. What I can offer you is the wisdom imparted to me from the world's nastiest creatures.

When I got my 161 I was shocked and couldn't come up with a non-wasp explanation. I was ashamed, disheartened, and defensive. I felt like I had let myself- and my friends and family- down. I had failed. Then it hit me: I was basing my opinion of myself on my test score. I was becoming my LSAT score. One of the simplest of life's lessons had eluded me and I was equating my self-worth with some stupid test. Some thing outside of myself. This sudden realization helped me let go of the need to be perfect, de-stress, and take LSAT studying on my terms. My last 3 PTs before the December test were 170, 175, and 179. I even finished one logic game in under 4 minutes. And, more importantly, I had more fun.

Maybe this is what the wasps were telling me. Maybe they were guru-wasps that were letting me know that it was my efforts, not my test score, that were a reflection on me. That, in the end, the LSAT was more for me than for any law school.

Or maybe they just didn't know where I worked and I'm going to have to kill them all.

Regardless, I wish all of you the best luck in your studies. Give yourself enough time, stay consistent, and always correct your mistakes. Even if you have to complain about a single LR question to anyone who will listen for days until you get it, make sure you understand every missed question. Above all, relax: you're not your test score.

And please, if you see a wasp, smash him and tell him "Caleb says hi!"

Thanks, Steve!

Caleb the Wasp-Killer

P.S. If you want any of my specific LSAT study tips, check out my blog.

LSAT Numbers: All, Most, Several, Many, Some, None

Isn't it annoying when words seem to mean something different on the LSAT than they do in real life?

Starts to make you wonder about the last time an LSAT test-writer spoke with a live human being.

In this post, I clear up some of the differences between our normal understandings of common quantifiers (words that indicate the number of something) and the way the LSAT uses them.

***

All

The word "all" isn't one of the confusion-causing words, but let's cover it anyway.

Let's suppose I've got 100 chocolate-chip cookies in a box, and, by the time I finish writing this blog post, I've eaten every single one of them (writing works up an appetite, don't judge). Then, I can say with certainty, "ALL the cookies in that box were deliciously fattening."

All = 100%


Most / Majority

Let's suppose I've exercised a bit of restraint and only eaten 99 of them (I'll eat the remaining one after the February 2011 LSAT.) I can then say with certainty, "Most of the cookies in that box were finger-lickin good." I can say "most" because I've eaten a majority of them. However, until I eat the remaining one, I won't be able to tell you whether all of them were good or not, because I haven't thoroughly, ummm, "examined" each one.

As such, it's entirely possible that all of them are good, so when I say that most of them are good, we still have to allow for the possibly that all of them will be good. This is why the word "most" allows for the possibility of all.

(The same would be true if I ate 50 cookies and then took just a tiny nibble of the 51st, because I'd then be over the halfway point. At that point, I can say that a majority are good, but it's still possible that all are.)

In everyday speech, when we say things like "most of that movie was pretty good" and "most of that meal was delicious" there's an implicit (assumed) meaning that not all of it was good.

If we wanted to speak literally all of the time, we'd say things like, "most, but not all, of that movie was good. I found the ending rather elementary, old chap" or "while the majority of my dinner was delectable, the crème brûlée was a bit overdone."

However, we don't always elaborate at the outset, because then I'd have to punch you in the face for speaking like Sherlock Holmes and complaining about your fancy crème brûlée. Instead, for purposes of simplicity, we usually just emphasize the words "most" and "majority," and the other person usually asks us which parts we didn't like.

If we wanted to take those everyday sentences, with their everyday meanings, but give them just a small dose of literalism, we'd say, "most, but not all, of that movie was pretty good" and "most, but not all, of that meal was delicious."

Without the "but not all", when I hear you say, "most of that movie was pretty good", it's possible that you're simply just-over-halfway through the movie and think everything so far is good

Most / Majority = A range from 1/2 of total + 1 (or 1/2 plus the smallest possible unit that can be broken off, like a cookie crumb) - 100%

For purposes of simplicity, we might just think of it as 51% - 100%.



Several / Many

If I told you that I have a box of a 100 chocolate-chip cookies, I confirmed that several of them are tasty, you wouldn't truly know how many I ate, or how many of them are actually tasty.

"Several" and "many" refer to some kind of sizable (and plural) number, so we know it's more than one or two, but how many exactly? It's impossible to say. This is an indeterminate number. Like most/majority, it allows the possibility of all.

Several / Many = a range of more than 2 - all the way up to 100%

For purposes of simplicity, we can think of it as 3 - 100% or 3 - all.



Some

Let's suppose I catch you stuffing your face with cookies from that 100-cookie box. I ask, "How many did you eat?" You reply, ""Some..."

Vague, right? Maybe you ate only 1, or maybe you had 5, 10, 49, 75, 99, or 100. Without more information, we don't know just how many you ate.

Like the many/majority example, making a claim regarding "some" does not exclude the possibility that "all" have that characteristic, whether it's with regard to how many of them were delicious or just how many were eaten.

In order to know that you hadn't eaten all the cookies, you would've needed to specifically claim that you had eaten "some, but not all", so I'll know that there's still at least 1 cookie remaining for me to eat.


Some = a range from 1 - all the way up to 100%

For purposes of simplicity, we can think of it as 1 - 100% or 1 - all.



None

The word "none" isn't one of the confusion-causing words, but let's cover it anyway.

Let's suppose I've got a new box with 100 chocolate-chip cookies, but I now have a stomachache from eating all the cookies in the previous examples. I can't even bear to look at this new box of cookies without thinking about how I'll soon be another number in the oft-cited statistics about America's obesity epidemic.

So, I take the box of cookies and donate it to the homeless guy on the street corner (a questionable donation, I know, but I didn't think he'd want kale).

How many cookies did I eat from that box? None. Zero. Zilch. Nada. How many of the cookies in that box can I say are delicious with absolute certainty? I don't know. Maybe they're stale, and the homeless guy will get pissed at me.

None = 0%

***

Photo by Lisa W.