LSAT Diary: Studying, the Army, and Justin Bieber

This installment of LSAT Diaries comes from Laya, who's taking the June 2011 LSAT.

In this diary, she talks about studying for the LSAT while working in the military, and her habit of studying while listening to Twister Sister and Justin Bieber.

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 Laya some encouragement and advice below in the comments!

Laya's LSAT Diary:

Hello from Kentucky, everyone. It’s the home of the Derby, Mammoth Caves, and some pretty awesome bourbon.

I’m 23 years old and starting a new job that may give me some actual insight into what a law career's like. I'm also trying to give this whole “living together and being married thing” a shot. We’ve been married since October 2010 but we’ve been geographically apart for about three years. He’s currently a 2nd lieutenant in the Army and works 12.5-14.5 hours a day. We’ve (or rather, I’ve) been living in constant fear of a potential deployment. He didn’t have any experience with the military prior to undergrad, but I grew up in a Marine-town. I am (unfortunately) very familiar with deployments and their effects.

We just PCS’ed (fancy military acronym for moved “permanently” to Kentucky) but his unit hasn’t deployed in a year and a half. He should’ve been given orders by now, but I grew up with military brats and military families. Deployments can suddenly appear. In order to keep myself busy and sane, I took a job as a legal assistant with JAG. It’s really interesting work for the most part, though with tax season, I’ve been relegated to military tax law, which has its downsides.

I’ve been looking at law school for about four or five years. I would’ve applied as soon as I finished my undergraduate degree, but I wanted real life experience first, and I also wanted to see if I was even remotely interested in law.

I’ve got some pretty lofty goals regarding law schools, and I’m definitely worried about that because my GPA isn’t the greatest. There’s a very good reason why it’s not, and I’ll be writing an addendum on it, but it’s still not as strong as I know it could have been. The LSAT is a whole different beast: I’m doing pretty strongly in the Reading Comprehension section (the benefit of being a theology major in undergrad), I’ve been doing fairly well at Logic Games and sometimes I do really well on the Logical Reasoning. Other times, I fail miserably at the Logical Reasoning.

I wish I could classify it into sections, but honestly, it seems like I get questions wrong at random. The Sufficient/Necessary Assumptions questions are pretty much the only things where I’m consistently bad, and I’m pretty much at my wits’ end. It’s not even the length of time that it takes to do the questions, because I haven’t been doing anything quickly! In fact, I’ve been going at a snail’s pace for about two months now.

Even though I’ve been going really slowly, I’ve done all right at studying for long periods of time, which surprises me. It helps that I’m pretty much alone all day, so really only a couple of things can distract me: my obese hamster, watching Glee (don’t judge), and my awesome study soundtrack. I know some people like listening to soothing music and/or indie music while they study. That, however, is not me: Twisted Sister, Kiss, and occasional random 80s one-hit wonders rule my playlist.

When I feel particularly ambitious, I put some terribly catchy Top 100 songs on it. It seems bizarre, but I swear the logic works. If you can listen to Justin Bieber and Twisted Sister for three hours straight and not lose focus, you can do pretty much anything. The day I did that, I ended up scoring the best I’ve ever done on an LSAT- only two wrong. Having said that, sometimes the power of the Biebs is too much for me, and I just have to dance. Anyone know the chances of a school band/orchestra rehearsing Twisted Sister and Justin Bieber while I take the LSAT?

Once the dance parties have finished though, I’m back to the books. I wish I could say that it was a different way of thinking to me, but it’s not. I’ve taken Logic classes for my undergraduate major. I’m actually a really logical person. This is going to sound strange, but I genuinely like studying for the LSAT.

I’m thinking about compiling a binder of every single problem I get wrong, and then organizing them by subject/subcategory, and then going over each problem until I know why I got it wrong, and what the right answer should be. After that, I may write out the explanations. I’m not taking the LSAT until October, but I still want to go over the Reading Comprehension and the Logic Games section, in addition to the LR scouring. Is that enough time? Thoughts? Even better ideas?

If anyone has any advice, feel free to comment, or if you just want to commiserate with me. I’ll try to keep everyone updated.

Photo by 22933113@N07

Logic and Games

* LSAT PrepTests now available for instant PDF download - for a penny less than regular PrepTests ($7.99), and they come with complete Logical Reasoning explanations! [LSAT Blog]

* An initially-sketchy legal claim to half of Facebook now seems more legit, and it's not from the Winklevoss twins this time. The emails are incredibly entertaining. [The Atlantic; Business Insider]

* College professor hires strippers to give lap dances to students - in class. [Gawker]

* Google wins approval from Justice Department to acquire travel company ITA, taking us one step closer to SkyNet. [The Guardian]

* Former Florida governor Charlie Crist gives YouTube apology to Talking Heads singer David Byrne for using his song in a campaign ad without permission. [NYTimes]

* Copyright, trademark, and patent issues surrounding emerging 3D printing technology. [Ars Technica]

* California voters support further drug decriminalization. [Los Angeles Times]

Negating Conditional Statements in Logical Reasoning

A common technique for solving LSAT Logical Reasoning questions (particularly, Necessary Assumption questions) is to negate each of the answer choices. The correct answer choice, when negated, destroys the argument by preventing the conclusion from logically following from the evidence.

Sometimes, answer choices contain conditional statements, rather than simply containing a single clause.

The proper negation of a conditional statement can often be trickier than the negation of a single clause.

When negating a conditional statement, keep in mind that your goal is NOT to negate the variables themselves.

For example, if we have the statement X → Y, we can do 4 different types of modifications that involve negating the variables included, but none of them is truly a negation of the statement as a whole.

We could negate the sufficient condition, resulting in NOT X -→ Y.

We could negate the necessary condition, resulting in X -→ NOT Y.

We could negate both the sufficient condition and the necessary condition, resulting in NOT X → NOT Y.

We could take the contrapositive of the statement, resulting in NOT Y → NOT X.

However, this isn't what you should be doing when your goal is to negate a conditional statement.

A conditional statement is composed of a sufficient condition and a necessary condition.

It's claiming that one thing is sufficient to guarantee, to require, another thing to occur.

The negation of this concept would be that the thing previously claimed to be sufficient to guarantee another is no longer sufficient.

So, if we had been originally told that X requires Y, the negation of that statement would be that X does not require Y -- that X is no longer sufficient to guarantee Y.

Take the following statement:

If I have pizza, then I will be happy.

P → H

Suppose someone then claims this statement is not true. (For example, they say that if I had pizza, but was repeatedly punched in the face, I wouldn't be happy despite my possession of pizza).

As such, pizza is not truly sufficient to guarantee my happiness, because I also need to not be repeatedly punched in the face in order to be happy.

We can diagram this information as P --/--> H

It's simply P, followed by an arrow with a slash through it, followed by H.

Just as a conditional statement is valid information and useful information, knowing that two particular variables do NOT have a sufficient-necessary relationship is also useful information.

It tells us that one thing alone is NOT enough to require another.

Please see, for example, the diagramming technique used in my recent blog post on Logical Reasoning: Inference Questions and the Contrapositive.

***

Examples of diagramming in this way:

Parallel Flaw question:

Take, for example, a Parallel Flaw question - PrepTest 36 (December 2001), Section 3, Question 19 (page 275 in Next 10).

The evidence tells us that liking turnips is not sufficient to guarantee that one likes potatoes.

We can diagram this as T --/--> P.

(Liking turnips doesn't require that you like potatoes.)

The (flawed) conclusion tells us that liking potatoes is not sufficient to guarantee that one likes turnips.

We can diagram this as P --/--> T.

(Liking potatoes doesn't require that you like turnips.)

Even though this is telling us that we DON'T know something (just because someone likes turnips, this doesn't guarantee that they like potatoes), this doesn't mean that it's not worth writing down or knowing.


Necessary Assumption question:

Additionally, let's look at the choices in a Necessary Assumption question - PrepTest 33 (December 2000), Section 1, Question 19 (page 157 in Next 10). Negating answer choices in Necessary Assumption questions is a useful technique, as I described in my blog post titled, Necessary Assumption Questions, Negation Test, and Must Be True Qs.

Choice A can be rewritten to state, "If a demagogue can enlist the necessary public support to topple an existing regime, then a comprehensive general education system must have been in place" or DNPS → CGES

To negate this, we can say, "a demagogue can enlist the necessary public support to topple an existing regime EVEN IF a comprehensive general education system is not in place" or DNPS ---/--> CGES


Choice B can be rewritten to state, "General awareness of injustice in a society requires literacy" or GAI → L

To negate this, we can say, "general awareness of injustice in society DOES NOT require literacy" or GAI --/--> L


Choice C can be rewritten to state, "If you have a comprehensive system of general education, then you will tend to preserve benign regimes' authority" or CSGE → TPBRA

To negate this, we can say, "Even if you have a comprehensive system of general education, it may not tend to preserve benign regimes' authority" or CSGE --/--> TPBRA


Choice D can be rewritten to state, "If you have a lack of general education, then your ability to differentiate between legitimate and illegitimate calls for reform will be affected" or LGE → ADA

To negate this, we can say, "Even if you lack general education, your ability to differentiate between legitimate and illegitimate calls for reform won't necessarily be affected" or LGE --/--> ADA


Choice E can be rewritten to state, "If a benign regime doesn't provide comprehensive general education, then it'll be toppled by a clever demagogue" or NOT PCGE → TCD

To negate this, we can say, "Even if a benign regime doesn't provide comprehensive general education, it won't necessarily be toppled by a clever demagogue" or NOT PCGE --/--> TCD


***

Please leave your questions for each other about properly negating conditional statements (or negating any kind of statements at all) in the comments and help each other out!

LSAT Prep While Working and Dealing With Test Anxiety

This installment of LSAT Diaries comes from Dave, who's taking the June 2011 LSAT.

In this diary, he talks about studying for the LSAT while working full-time, and his efforts to work through his test anxiety.

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 Dave some encouragement and advice below in the comments!

Dave's LSAT Diary:

Like many of you I was still in undergrad when I decided to explore the possibility of pursuing law school. Before I had even done any research, I took one of those free practice LSATs. Like some of my fellow undergrads, I had no idea what was on the test, and I didn’t take it seriously since I was just dabbling at that point. I thought it might be all legal stuff, but I decided to do it just to see what I was getting myself into.

The first section was logic games. For me, the feeling was the same as if I would have casually breezed into an ancient languages class and sat down to take their final. After a period of blank staring, my brain kicked in and reminded me that I used to do similar types of logic puzzles in grade school. So, I started drawing crazy boxes and arrows and whatnot to try and figure it all out. The next sections didn’t fare much better but at least they were based upon English and not weird doodles or animals with their finicky rules. I somehow pulled a 150 out of it, back before I even knew the test was out of 180. I knew I probably wasn’t destined for Yale or Harvard, but with hard work I could attend my state school, which is Tier 1, and my mom works there so I get a huge discount.

Before really getting into studying, I took some time to gain experience and “maturity” since my undergrad GPA took a punch to the face early on after two years of failing incredibly hard at a mechanical engineering major, and then graduating in the completely random field of Regional Development. My poor, poor GPA, it never really recovered. It was just sort of on life support, hoping for a cure in the future. I told myself that cure would be a degree in something I actually care about.

I set about doing research and trying to decide whether to go to law school or, if all else failed, go for a master’s degree in psychology (mostly because it’s one of the only things I’m actually talented in, but I really seriously want to avoid doing it for a living). I’ve also always been somewhat of a history nerd, so upon doing some reading about the history of our legal system I got heavily into politics and law and started reading and writing about it almost religiously.

I talked to and read books by both current and former lawyers about their tireless hours spent on cases, but how that made a favorable outcome that much sweeter, and how those occasional big wins were really why they were lawyers in the first place. Just reading about this stuff got me so pumped up I actually started reading Supreme Court decisions and analyses of Constitutional interpretation. I included this here because, as they say, seriously make sure you want to go to law school before taking this test. After diving head first into the legal world and seeing it for real, I’m sure that I’m sure, and therefore why I’m studying to take the LSAT.

I was planning on going to one of those test prep companies and giving them a small fortune to turn my mind into an LSAT death laser and then everything would be easy. Instead of hard studying, it would be like an 80s montage where I look back at the end and smile, …or at least that’s what the prep companies want you to think.

In reality, it’s more like you throw money at them while they babysit you while you read their overpriced books, and they answer questions with information you can find right here on LSAT Blog. The day I found this blog, I had an epiphany, like when golden angels open up a magic door and they're singing all heavenly and show you the way and you’re like “F*** yeah! Let’s do this!”, except instead of angels and doors and curse words, it was the ability to study by yourself and save that small fortune to save for a new car. I stopped working and began studying. I was actually making progress. I mentally smashed through exo-atmospheric monkeys, crazy-colored dinosaurs, and factories to be toured in sequential weeks (that one isn’t so exciting). I was starting to see the matrix behind the test, I would conquer this after all!

Then, real life kicked back in. My car broke, I had to travel to attend a bunch of weddings, bills were piling up, our rent was upped, and well, I obviously needed a job. Luckily enough I was able to land one at my uncle’s jewelry store part time, although, through some interesting situations, I quickly became a manager working full time with a salary and all sorts of important responsibilities, but most important was my ability to actually have money for a new car.

As a result, paying the bills had become analogous to a big brother shoving its little brother named LSAT studying aside to make sure it gets the most attention. I was still studying somewhat at lunchtime and occasionally at work when I could. This took a couple of months to complete and my schedule was incredibly erratic, working ten hour days, six days a week around the Holiday (but obviously making bank). As a result of adjusting to my new schedule and all the other crazy stuff going on in my life, I was now in uncharted waters, off the study schedule and on my own to interpret what I needed to do.

I have been studying reading comp as of late and took my first practice test at 10pm one night. It was the first PrepTest in the LSAT SuperPrep. I should probably mention that I have extremely bad test anxiety (I hope no one else does, but if you do, know that I have it in spades, and so there’s at least one other person in this crapshoot with you). In fact, I get anxiety whenever any extremely time-sensitive event is occurring. My leg starts shaking and I try to do everything at an incredibly unreasonable pace. So taking this first test was also a diagnostic of myself, attempting to get rid of this rather stupid and horrendously stifling personality trait.

In fact, a lot of studying for the LSAT has consisted of ridding myself of bad habits and traits I had somehow accrued through the years and managed to somehow get by with. I call this process “becoming Super Dave” because that’s my name and, in order to succeed, I have to become a better version of myself. Any possible cybernetic implants and/or brainwashing aside, it was going to take hard work and dedication to do well.

Okay, that small digression aside, back to the practice test. I was obviously pretty tired starting it at 10pm after working all day, running errands and making dinner (crispy garlic and cracked pepper crusted white ruffy with marinated sweet onions and peppers sautéed in lemon and basil oil, oh snap!), which made the potential for anxiety worse, but created an ideal situation to force me to get it under control.

Every time I started reading too fast, I reminded myself to slow down to make sure I was reading every word. My leg began shaking crazily but stopped, took a breath and soldiered on. Another aspect of the anxiety is getting stuck on a question. I realized on a couple of questions that it had more than worn out its welcome in my mind and had to move on. I honestly think that once you have the information down, the most important thing is risk and time management. I was somehow able to drop it from my mind and move on.

Being that I just started studying reading comp, I notated well, but still was having trouble locating the evidence to answer main point and inference questions since I’ve never actually done a practice RC question. Logic games seemed to go decently well and I only had a brief problem figuring out how to set up the second game.

I thoroughly surprised myself however by finishing both logical reasoning sections with more than five minutes to spare. It was mind-blowing to me really, I kept expecting the timer to go off and scare the crap out of me. The real surprise came at the end, I only missed a few in each logical reasoning section, and although I didn’t get to the last logic game, I didn’t miss any questions from the first three. I also surprisingly didn’t completely blow the reading comp section.

I wound up with a 160, which I’m actually quite proud of considering everything I went through. At the end of logic games and reading comp, the only two I didn’t finish in time, I marked down what I would have put for the answers after the timer went off. After scoring the test I realized that I actually answered the last seven logic games questions correctly (meaning I would have aced the section), all I needed to do was work a little faster in order to get them all done in time.

Most of the questions I answered wrong were simple reading errors due to anxiety and a subsequent re-read made the correct answer obvious. If I would have gotten those questions right (LG and RC), it would have bumped my score up to a 170. Which goes to show how just simple adjustments can make such a huge impact on your score. I aim to score over 170 and looking at this has now made it apparent that it’s very possible. I think that between now and June, if I can remove most of my anxiety, work on time management and master the questions I’m still having problems with; I’ll be able to bump myself up to my target score area and show I’m a worthy candidate for law school.

Photo by bobaubuchon

Logic and Games

* Average LSAT scores by major. [Tax Prof Blog]

* Exactly what it sounds like. [Shit My Students Write]

* World map drawn to scale based on each country's population. [imgur via I Love Charts]

* Facebook sued for $1 billion for hosting page calling for 3rd Palestinian intifada. [Gawker]

* More on Facebook - teacher calls her 6-year-old students "future criminals." And future criminals will need future lawyers, so listen up... [Jezebel]

* Snarky (and soon-to-be-unemployed) Borders employees tell customers to use the bathrooms at Amazon.com [Consumerist]

* Where your concert ticket money goes. [NPR]

* NYC time lapse video with music by Explosions in the Sky. [vimeo]

LSAT Test Day: Photo, Not Thumbprint

UPDATE: A variety of hilarious sample photos, mostly centered around how NOT to take your LSAT Test Day photo, are available on LSAC's website.

The following is an important public service announcement from the Law School Admission Council (LSAC):

Greetings from Newtown!

I write to remind you of a change in the way LSAT registrants will provide identification at testing sites. Starting with the June 2011 test, LSAC will no longer thumbprint LSAT candidates. All registrants will be required to affix a recent photograph to their LSAT admission ticket. The photograph must have been taken within the last six months and show only the candidate’s face and shoulders. It must be clear enough so there is no question about identity, and it must be no larger than 2x2 inches or 5x5 cm and no smaller than 1x1 inch or 3x3 cm.

Previously, only registrants for Canadian and international test centers were required to affix a photo to their LSAT Admission Ticket. The new rule makes identification requirements consistent for all test takers.

So, everyone taking the LSAT in less than 6 months, please go out ASAP so you don't forget to get the required photograph. Put it in a safe place.

Regardless of when you're taking the LSAT, add the word "photo" to your calendar next to "I love the LSAT" so you'll remember to bring it. The required photo size is approximately the same as that of a typical U.S. passport photo, which you can typically get at many post offices or chain pharmacies.

As annoying as it is to go out and get a new photo just for the LSAT, I guess you can be glad that getting a thumbful of ink is no longer a requirement for Test Day.

Here's some more information about LSAC's Test Day requirements regarding the photo, from the Day of the Test page of their website:

all candidates must attach to their ticket a recent photograph (taken within the last six months) showing only the face and shoulders. The photograph must be clear enough so there is no doubt about the test taker's identity, and must be no larger than 2 x 2 inches (5 x 5 cm) and no smaller than 1 x 1 inch (3 x 3 cm). Your face in the photo must show you as you look on the day of the test (for example, with or without a beard). The photograph will be retained by LSAC only as long as needed to assure the authenticity of test scores and to protect the integrity of the testing process.

If you do not present both acceptable identification and the required photograph, you will be denied entrance to the testing room.

What are you planning to wear for your LSAT Test Day photo shoot?

LSAT Prep Diary: Retaking the LSAT Plan

This installment of LSAT Diaries comes from John, who's retaking the LSAT in June 2011.

In this diary, he talks about what he'll do differently this time around.

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 him some encouragement and advice below in the comments!

John's LSAT Diary:

I am taking the LSAT for the second time in June 2011.

I've been down this path before, while prepping for the October 2010 LSAT. I scored 170 on my first PrepTest and, within 6 PrepTests, I was hitting 173-174. This was going to be a piece of cake. I was different than than all those people asking if 20-point increases were possible in 3 months. I believed I had a god-given ability to think logically. I cleared my entire summer schedule, and believed it was my destiny to ace the LSAT...man was I wrong.

I began to take the test less seriously, taking long breaks between sections (days). Every perfect section was celebrated with a night of drinking, and every wrong answer was waved off...("oh that was a stupid mistake, i definitely won't make that on the real test"). My rigid schedule broke down and my 100-day countdown timer evaporated.

My Facebook was reactivated, my no-alcohol ban was lifted, and I cruised into the test believing I'd receive a 2-3 point "concentration boost" on the real test. Then the real test came: I was confused for the first time ever on the logic game, the distractions, the 6 sections, the lack of smoke breaks, I was not prepared....I ended up scoring 10 points below my mean.

After that...I went on a law hiatus. Fueled by the scamblogging talk about the legal market, I began to focus on breaking into investment banking instead. Long story short...I realized I couldn't apply a cost-benefit analysis to my career choice. I want to do law. Sure the chances of success aren't great, the work will be hard, but I don't care. I knowingly accept the risks of the path I am taking. The safety net is gone, and I am graduating soon. I will pour my heart and soul into this LSAT, not just for the points, but just to know that at one point of my life...I went for it all in. Life only presents a few opportunities where a man/woman can truly fight for his destiny..and this is one of those times.

Words only mean so much, time for action. I am starting right now, even though it's a week from Finals. I am planning on studying 4 hours a day for now, and taking full LSAT PrepTests after my finals are over.

I will...

-keep my days tracked down to the hour...no more unaccountable breaks.

-eliminate my unnecessary distractions: Facebook is gone, soon I'll stop tracking the NBA and other vices.

-treat every answer that I am not completely sure of as wrong. I won't reward my luck when I guess.

-analyze every mistake. I made it for a reason, and I will break it down and find out why.

Thanks for reading. I hope you'll join me for this journey. I'd love to hear your questions and comments. I was served a massive slice of humble pie last time around, and I no longer have an ego. If someone has something to say, I am definitely all ears. I believe the biggest enemy is myself, the mindset, the concentration, etc. I'll detail how I work through these things along with specific LSAT deficiencies.

It's time for the hardest part...the beginning. Thanks for reading. Let's do this together.

Photo by bdorfman

Logic and Games

* Batman went to Yale Law School. [NYMag]

* Congressman considers invading "Africa" after Libya. [Think Progress]

* Real World congressman apparently needs more than a $174K salary for daily expenses. [Gawker]

* Some sardonic brain teasers. [Thought Catalog]

* Using logical reasoning on an awful first date. [Persephone]

LSAT PrepTest Explanation PDFs Available for Instant Download

LSAC doesn't provide explanations for any of the numbered LSAT PrepTests. LSAT PrepTests are just the questions.

If you want to know why a particular answer choice is wrong, you need to get the explanations separately. On LSAT Blog, you can get PDF explanations for LSAT PrepTests by section (LG, LR, and RC):

LSAT PrepTest Explanations (by section)

-Logic Games explanations for the newest PrepTests
-Logic Games explanations for PrepTests 72-81
-Logic Games explanations for PrepTests 62-71
-Logic Games explanations for PrepTests 52-61
-Logic Games explanations for PrepTests 29-38
-Logic Games explanations for PrepTests 19-28

-Logical Reasoning explanations for the newest PrepTests
-Logical Reasoning explanations for PrepTests 72-81
-Logical Reasoning explanations for PrepTests 62-71
-Logical Reasoning explanations for PrepTests 52-61
-Logical Reasoning explanations for PrepTests 44-51
-Logical Reasoning explanations for PrepTests 29-38
-Logical Reasoning explanations for PrepTests 19-28

-Reading Comprehension explanations for the newest PrepTests
-Reading Comprehension explanations for PrepTests 72-81
-Reading Comprehension explanations for PrepTests 62-71
-Reading Comprehension explanations for PrepTests 52-61
-Reading Comprehension explanations for PrepTests 44-51
-Reading Comprehension explanations for PrepTests 29-38
-Reading Comprehension explanations for PrepTests 19-28

LSAT PrepTests

The June 2007 LSAT PDF is the only free LSAT PrepTest PDF available for instant download.

I recommend getting all your other LSAT PrepTests from Amazon. The books of 10 are cheaper than getting them individually (some of the newest are not yet in books of 10, unfortunately).

LSAT PrepTest 80
LSAT PrepTest 79
LSAT PrepTest 78
LSAT PrepTest 77
LSAT PrepTest 76
LSAT PrepTest 75
LSAT PrepTest 74
LSAT PrepTest 73
LSAT PrepTest 72
LSAT PrepTests 62-71
LSAT PrepTests 52-61
LSAT PrepTests 42-51
LSAT PrepTests 29-38
LSAT PrepTests 19-28
LSAT PrepTests 7-18
LSAT SuperPrep (A, B, C)
Official LSAT PT (Feb 1997)

LSAT Crash Course Diary: You Can Do It, But You Shouldn't

In this LSAT diary, Ricky describes how he retook the LSAT and improved his score by 7 points in just 6 weeks.

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

Ricky's LSAT Diary:

I took the LSAT twice, in December 2010 and then again several weeks ago in February 2011. The first time, I received a 153 and the second time, a 160. A lot of snobs turn the cold shoulder and dismiss anything south of 165. Pay them no mind. Everyone has different goals.

Personally, I take comfort in the fact that out of 100 college-educated people who took the LSAT in February, I did better than 80 of them. Given that, and while I am very happy with my score, and the improvement I posted and can show to law schools, I feel that I am still 5-10 points of where I could be if I did this thing right. However there is little I can do about that now (I need to go to school in the fall). You live and you learn and you can’t change the past, learn from it and move on.

One of the big things I heard about the LSAT before I really dove into it is that you either “got it or you don’t”. This is both right and wrong. For example, a very good friend of mine who is now on a full ride at a top-tier law school (ass), did his undergrad in engineering and just for shits and giggles decided to take the LSAT and got a 172 on his first practice test. I hate him, not really, but I do. I wasn’t so lucky. I thought to myself “Hey, it’s a logic-based test, I’m a logical guy, and usually a good standardized test taker, I got this, no problem.” HA! This is the first of many examples in the next few paragraphs that show me being an idiot.

This fall, I worked as an outdoor education instructor in Texas. While one would assume that a teaching job in outdoor ed would provide ample time for studying, that was not the case. We were short-staffed and overbooked. As a result, 60-hour weeks featuring 2-3 nights and intermittent Saturdays working outside in the Texas sun were the norm. While I’m sure there are some of you who have studied facing similar obstacles, I just could not do it. I registered for the LSAT a week before the deadline, found some study material and bought a book of 10 PrepTests.

In the next weeks, I finished probably 70 pages of the book and maybe a section of a practice test by the time I finished the season in Texas and moved home to start really studying. I had exactly 12 days to L-Day (get it, like D-day but for the L-SAT…hahaha, I don’t care if anyone else laughs, I thought it was funny).

8 days before L-day, I took my first practice test. 148. Shit.

That test just whooped my ass, it shocked me. I’ve been out of school for almost three years; I haven’t had to think like that in a long time. I mean, there is no way they expect me to read those four incredibly dense reading passage filled with paragraph-long sentences about the diet of caveman and how archeologists are using dental fossils to determine what they ate and finish 27 questions in 35 minutes…do they?? I’ve never taken a test that hard before. You know what, whatever; I’ll do much better tomorrow.

The next morning, took it again. 149. Shit.

I still had my sanity and my composure at this point, let’s give it one more try tomorrow. Halfway through my third test in as many days, I cracked. It was the infamous mauve dinosaur logic game that pushed me over the edge. I did not even know where to start on the problem. I didn’t understand how to start, after four or five minutes, I couldn’t even get the first answer. .I stopped working, slammed my fist on the table, hurled my practice test into a wall, and let fly a chain of expletives.

What does this have to do with Law School let alone the practice of the law? Why does this friggin clown have such complicated requirements for how it needs to dress (December 2006 LSAT Logic Game) The average LSAT score is 151, and I couldn’t even get THAT. I was frustrated, terrified, panicked, and angry.

I started looking at this blog a couple of days before the meltdown and mustered the energy to leave the fetal position and email Steve (editor of LSAT Blog) a whiny email explaining the situation and asking for help on a LSAT Hail Mary. He promptly responded with some encouragement and references to a few past posts that helped me out. Soon thereafter, I accepted the fact that I am remarkably stupid for thinking I could beat the test in two weeks and decided to take the test in December as a dress rehearsal. Once I accepted that, I went into the test relaxed. The pressure was off, I was going to retake in February.

The only thing that really threw me off on test day was having to write the “certifying (I won’t cheat) statement” in cursive. What am I in - fourth grade?? Could the LSAT get any more archaic?? I haven’t written anything more than my name in cursive in over a decade. Just stupid. Besides that, it was hard, but I felt alright about it. In early January, got the score back 153….

Time for ROUND 2!

After a few days off, I bought another round of books. I realized that I still put myself at a disadvantage. From everything I read, they said to really improve it takes 3-4 months of studying. I had about a month and some change to go before L-Day Part Two: Ricky strikes back (that’s what I named the second L-day, get it, because its like the 2nd Star Wars movie….whatever, don’t judge me)..

I moved back to my home state, Iowa (God’s country) and started studying the right way. I took Steve's advice and started breaking down my practice tests, grouping the questions and analyzing which ones I needed to improve upon. I used that information, targeted those areas and the scores on my pt’s started to creep into the consistently into the mid 150’s. I stopped any partying (which was pretty difficult while moving back to a college town and working at a bar) and was studying 4-5 hours a day. My scores on LR and RC were drastically improving.

Believe it or not and contrary to popular belief, I think RC might be the easiest area to improve on once you understand how to read the passage and keep track of the points of view. I was still getting my ass kicked by logic games; my mind just doesn’t work like that. I knew I didn’t have enough time to get really strong at those games so I did what I could and I focused on two of the more popular types of games, linear and grouping, and did what I could moving forward. My scores were now around 157-158 consistently and I was starting to feel better. I set my over/under on test day at 157, got it and I would be content, over happy, and under pissed. Bring it.

Luckily, I never have really gotten test day anxiety, and I felt good going in. The test itself is a blur. LR felt harder, until I thought about it and realized that all LR sections, past, present, and future are the same. I got caught spending too much time on one RC passage, but thought I recovered alright, and the games were slightly less awful than usual. There were several people in my testing room that felt the need to have a coughing competition at the end of one section; lsat during flu season is a crap shoot. I felt good, it was over. I went to aforementioned bar and got reacquainted with my friend, Jameson.

Test score came back a month later, 160. I was happy. Here is my advice for all of you:

* Do not cram, you will lose. It can be done in two months with some success, but it shouldn’t be. If I had another month or two to study, I could be several points higher, I’m sure of that.

* Do a ton of practice tests in real conditions, three sections, ten minute break, two sections. Do not deviate from that, no allowing extra time, answering a text, working after the buzzer or taking a bathroom break.

* Get an LSAT study plan from Steve and simplify your life. Know your weak areas and attack them. Understand how/why you got every question wrong.

* Come up with a badass playlist to listen to on L-Day. I chose All I Do Is Win by DJ Khaled, It’s My Time by Fabolous ft. Jeremiah, and Here I Come by The Roots. That stuff gets you jacked!

* Do your research before buying books/signing up for a prep course. Don’t sign up for Kaplan because they have an “improve your score guarantee.” Anyone who is exposed to the test that much is going to improve their score no matter what. It helps for some, but you don’t need a prep course to improve. Use the books but adapt the strategies to fit your strengths. Don’t diagram too much on LG’s, and don’t underline too much in RC. You're wasting time you don’t have.

* Relax on Test Day morning. I know it is easier said than done, but if you’ve done the appropriate prep you will be fine. If you have done PrepTests under the right conditions, nothing is new. The worst thing you can do is freak-out about it, get out of your head and trust yourself. If something throws you off, take a deep breath, close your eyes for a second and move on.

As much as I hate to say this, I do miss studying for the test. You know you’ve crossed an unfortunate plateau when you start laughing at jokes about sufficient and necessary conditions and finding logical flaws in conversations about anything. Love it, or hate it, but if you want to be a lawyer it has to be done. Hit me up in the comments if you got something to say. Try to have fun with it. This video does a good job of running through the gamut of LSAT emotions, particularly how good it feels to be done. Good luck.

Photo by wallyg

Logic and Games

* Worried about law school stress? Yale Law School lets students borrow a "therapy dog" to play with for 30 minutes at a time. [NYTimes]

* Justin Bieber doesn't care whether you love him or hate him, and neither should you. [The Onion]

* Apple sues Amazon for using the term "App Store." [Ars Technica]

* Is The Daily Show a boy's club where women can't participate? [Jezebel]

* There's apparently a regular Nintendo game based on The Great Gatsby, and you can play it online for free. [Great Gatsby Game]

* To truly be happy, buy experiences rather than material goods. [Journal of Consumer Psychology, PDF]

* Rebecca Black's Friday is destroyed by clever satire. [Thought Catalog; imgur]

* An etiquette guide to tsunamis and other disasters. [Gizmodo]

* Rainn Wilson (Dwight from The Office) is a pathetically-funny superhero in this movie trailer. [YouTube]

Logical Reasoning: Inference Questions and the Contrapositive

A while ago, I did a brief post covering one simple format for formal logic inference questions in the LSAT's Logical Reasoning section.

However, they can follow a variety of formats - not simply that particular one.

In this blog post, I'll cover another common type of inference question - one in which the stimulus first sets up a conditional statement. The stimulus then provides us with a clause that activates the sufficient condition of the contrapositive of the previously-provided conditional statement.

***

I know that was a mouthful.

What do I mean?

Suppose a Logical Reasoning stimulus is composed of a conditional statement, like X -> Y, as well as the additional information, NOT Y.

We can then take the contrapositive of that conditional statement, NOT Y -> NOT X, and plug in the additional information of NOT Y to spit out the result, NOT X.

***

Must Be True Example

This is all a bit abstract, but let's look at it with an example from a real LSAT Logical Reasoning question, a Must Be True question:

(Please see PrepTest 30 (December 1999 LSAT), Section 2, Question 20 - page 59 in Next 10 to follow along. Due to copyright law, I'm unable to reproduce the text of the question itself.)

This stimulus begins with a claim made by critics saying (paraphrased):

If continued public funding is justified, then there must be some indication of public benefit.

We can diagram their claim with the following symbols:

CPFJ -> IPB

The stimulus continues by saying that if the critics' claim is true, then there would not be tremendous public support.

We can diagram this statement with the following symbols:

"CPFJ -> IPB" -> NOT TPS

Rather than using the word "NOT", I'd probably draw it instead like this:




I placed the critics' claim in quotes to indicate that the truth of their conditional statement's claim is serving as the sufficient condition of another conditional statement - the one with the necessary condition being (paraphrased), "then there would not be tremendous public support."

However, it doesn't simply say then there wouldn't be tremendous public support - it says, there wouldn't be all the tremendous public support that we do, in fact, have.

In other words, we DO have tremendous public support (diagrammed as):

TPS

As such, we can now take the contrapositive of the big conditional statement we just talked about:

"CPFJ -> IPB" -> NOT TPS

If there is tremendous public support, then the critics' claim that "in order for continued public funding to be justified, we must have an indication of public benefit" is NOT correct.

In other words, if we have tremendous public support, then an indication of public benefit is not necessary in order for continued public funding to be justified.

We can diagram this as:

TPS -> NOT "CPFJ -> IPB"

Again, rather than using the word "NOT", I'd probably draw it instead like this:




Since we do have tremendous public support, then we can conclude that the critics 'claim is not correct.

NOT "CPFJ -> IPB"

Choice E of this question pretty much says just that.

***

Recommended assignment:

Now go through this process with another Logical Reasoning question that follows a similar format. I recommend PrepTest 31 (June 2000 LSAT), Section 3, Question 22 - page 101 in Next 10.