* UChicago Law Dean's response to NYTimes article on conditional law school scholarships. [UChicago Law]
* High school kid challenges Rep. Michele Bachmann to debate about Constitution. [HuffPo]
* Law student plagiarizes his graduation speech - says he just "forgot" to give credit to author. [News Observer via Gawker]
* Unabomber's personal possessions to be auctioned off. More than a little creepy, but proceeds will benefit the victims. [Thought Catalog]
* Texas debates harsh catfish ‘noodling’ law. [Gawker]
* Jon Stewart and Bill O'Reilly debate Common's visit to the White House. [YouTube]
New Option to Withdraw Your LSAT Registration From LSAC
Since June 2009, LSAT test-takers have been in a tricky position with regard to deciding whether they're ready to take the LSAT.
LSAC would make you let them know ~3 weeks before Test Day if you weren't taking it. If something came up between that date and Test Day, or if you weren't sure whether you'd be ready but , you'd have to either just not show up, getting a notation of absent, or show up and cancel your score.
Although LSAC had its reasons, this was annoying, problematic, and stressful for many test-takers.
However, starting with the June 2011 LSAT, LSAC has decided to modify this policy - almost completely reversing its position - this is a good thing.
The test date *change* deadline (aka "postponement deadline") is still approximately 3 weeks before, just as it was before the policy change.
However, LSAC now offers a withdrawal option, meaning you can now decide up until the day before the LSAT whether you'll be taking it. If you withdraw, law schools will never even know you were registered for that exam date in the first place. In other words, law schools cannot tell that you've withdrawn - this is not noted on your record.
Unfortunately, withdrawing after the postponement deadline (which is also the partial refund deadline) means you won't get any refund at all for your LSAT registration fee.
However, this is a small price to pay for no longer suffering the indignity of an "absent" on your record when you knew you weren't taking the LSAT that day anyway.
You can now rest easy, knowing you still have those 3 weeks before Test Day to keep taking practice tests, brushing up on weak areas, and boosting your practice scores.
You can take the LSAT when your scores are close to your goal score, not feeling the pressure of having a absence or cancellation note on your record.
And if you're not feeling ready the day before the LSAT, just withdraw your registration and set your sights on the next LSAT administration.
LSAC would make you let them know ~3 weeks before Test Day if you weren't taking it. If something came up between that date and Test Day, or if you weren't sure whether you'd be ready but , you'd have to either just not show up, getting a notation of absent, or show up and cancel your score.
Although LSAC had its reasons, this was annoying, problematic, and stressful for many test-takers.
However, starting with the June 2011 LSAT, LSAC has decided to modify this policy - almost completely reversing its position - this is a good thing.
The test date *change* deadline (aka "postponement deadline") is still approximately 3 weeks before, just as it was before the policy change.
However, LSAC now offers a withdrawal option, meaning you can now decide up until the day before the LSAT whether you'll be taking it. If you withdraw, law schools will never even know you were registered for that exam date in the first place. In other words, law schools cannot tell that you've withdrawn - this is not noted on your record.
Unfortunately, withdrawing after the postponement deadline (which is also the partial refund deadline) means you won't get any refund at all for your LSAT registration fee.
However, this is a small price to pay for no longer suffering the indignity of an "absent" on your record when you knew you weren't taking the LSAT that day anyway.
You can now rest easy, knowing you still have those 3 weeks before Test Day to keep taking practice tests, brushing up on weak areas, and boosting your practice scores.
You can take the LSAT when your scores are close to your goal score, not feeling the pressure of having a absence or cancellation note on your record.
And if you're not feeling ready the day before the LSAT, just withdraw your registration and set your sights on the next LSAT administration.
Logic and Games
* Florida Senate fails basic biology, accidentally outlaws sex. [Gawker]
* Prosecution screws up witness intimidation claim with MySpace evidence. [Above The Law]
* Google lobbies Nevada to allow self-driving cars. [NYTimes]
* Star Wars-themed article parodying the Bin Laden killing. [Galactic Empire Times]
* Kids react to Osama bin Laden's death. [YouTube]
* This may actually be the worst allergies season ever. Anyone reading this use a neti pot? I'm considering it. [WSJ; The Hairpin]
* Prosecution screws up witness intimidation claim with MySpace evidence. [Above The Law]
* Google lobbies Nevada to allow self-driving cars. [NYTimes]
* Star Wars-themed article parodying the Bin Laden killing. [Galactic Empire Times]
* Kids react to Osama bin Laden's death. [YouTube]
* This may actually be the worst allergies season ever. Anyone reading this use a neti pot? I'm considering it. [WSJ; The Hairpin]
Law School Chances: LSAT vs. GPA
How exactly do admissions officers weigh your LSAT score and GPA? Well, it's complicated.Law School Admissions Index: LSAT vs. GPA
LSAC's website will help you calculate your chances at various law schools. It uses each law school's "admissions index" (a formula unique to each school weighing LSAT scores and GPAs).
Enter your undergraduate GPA and (presumed) LSAT score. Sort the results by likelihood in descending order to see at which schools you have the highest likelihood of success.
This tool is based on info that each law school submits about its admission index, so it's accurate as far as LSAT and GPA are concerned.
Factors that it doesn't consider are diversity, legacy, personal statement, recommendation letters, disciplinary record, etc. Obviously, LSAT and GPA are the big two, but the others have some impact as well.
Enjoy!
Photo by johnwardell
Logic and Games
* Keeping up your law school GPA for that merit scholarship may be harder than you think. Must-read. [NYTimes; AboveTheLaw; U.S. News]
* Was Bin Laden's killing legal? [Der Spiegel; The Guardian; Reuters]
* China develops a new government agency to focus on Internet censorship. [WSJ]
* 5 news stories that Bin Laden's death ruined. [Gawker]
* Best Manhattan movie map ever. [Gothamist]
* Was Bin Laden's killing legal? [Der Spiegel; The Guardian; Reuters]
* China develops a new government agency to focus on Internet censorship. [WSJ]
* 5 news stories that Bin Laden's death ruined. [Gawker]
* Best Manhattan movie map ever. [Gothamist]
LSAT Logical Reasoning Flaw Questions with the Same Argument
Logical Reasoning arguments often contain the same flaw as each other, but such arguments are often about very different topics.
It's somewhat infrequent for different arguments to contain both the same flaw and the very same topic.
In this blog post, I discuss the similarities between two such Logical Reasoning questions from The Next 10 Actual, Official LSAT PrepTests.
Both arguments are associated with Flaw question stems, meaning the question is asking us to identify the flaw, and both are on the topic of altruism and self-interest.
You'll need a copy of the book to follow along as I discuss the following two actual LSAT PrepTest questions:
1. PrepTest 29 (October 1999 LSAT), Section 4, Question 18 (page 41 in Next 10).
Question stem: "Which one of the following most accurately describes an error in the argument's reasoning?"
2. PrepTest 32 (October 2000 LSAT), Section 1, Question 19 (page 124 in Next 10).
Question stem: "A flaw in the argument is that it"
Both arguments reach the same conclusion:
Even behavior that might seem altruistic is actually self-interested.
We see this in the first sentence of the both questions, which contains the conclusion of each argument. The following sentences in each stimulus contain evidence for this.
The PrepTest 29 question suggests people engage in seemingly-altruistic behavior in the hopes of receiving some kind of reward or reciprocal benefit.
The PrepTest 32 question says people engage in seemingly-altruistic behavior in order to boost their self-esteem by feeling useful. Both arguments, on the face of it, seem rather reasonable.
However, the conclusions of both arguments are *too* certain given the way in which the evidence is presented.
The PrepTest 29 question says "can be described" in the 3rd-4th lines.
The PrepTest 32 question says "can be understood" in the 4th-5th lines.
Just because something "can be described" or "can be understood" in a particular way doesn't mean that it must be described or understood in that way. People can interpret actions and behaviors in multiple ways, not only in the ways suggested in these two arguments. The arguments are guilty of the same flaw - they both assume one possible interpretation to be the only possible interpretation, and they fail to consider that there could be other interpretations.
It's somewhat infrequent for different arguments to contain both the same flaw and the very same topic.
In this blog post, I discuss the similarities between two such Logical Reasoning questions from The Next 10 Actual, Official LSAT PrepTests.
Both arguments are associated with Flaw question stems, meaning the question is asking us to identify the flaw, and both are on the topic of altruism and self-interest.
You'll need a copy of the book to follow along as I discuss the following two actual LSAT PrepTest questions:
1. PrepTest 29 (October 1999 LSAT), Section 4, Question 18 (page 41 in Next 10).
Question stem: "Which one of the following most accurately describes an error in the argument's reasoning?"
2. PrepTest 32 (October 2000 LSAT), Section 1, Question 19 (page 124 in Next 10).
Question stem: "A flaw in the argument is that it"
Both arguments reach the same conclusion:
Even behavior that might seem altruistic is actually self-interested.
We see this in the first sentence of the both questions, which contains the conclusion of each argument. The following sentences in each stimulus contain evidence for this.
The PrepTest 29 question suggests people engage in seemingly-altruistic behavior in the hopes of receiving some kind of reward or reciprocal benefit.
The PrepTest 32 question says people engage in seemingly-altruistic behavior in order to boost their self-esteem by feeling useful. Both arguments, on the face of it, seem rather reasonable.
However, the conclusions of both arguments are *too* certain given the way in which the evidence is presented.
The PrepTest 29 question says "can be described" in the 3rd-4th lines.
The PrepTest 32 question says "can be understood" in the 4th-5th lines.
Just because something "can be described" or "can be understood" in a particular way doesn't mean that it must be described or understood in that way. People can interpret actions and behaviors in multiple ways, not only in the ways suggested in these two arguments. The arguments are guilty of the same flaw - they both assume one possible interpretation to be the only possible interpretation, and they fail to consider that there could be other interpretations.
LSAT Diary: Prep and Test Day Experience
This installment of LSAT Diaries comes from Tamara, a 45-year-old computer programmer who scored a 166 on the December 2010 LSAT.She's got some great LSAT advice for you about how she did it, and a great description of what taking the test was like.
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.)
Tamara's LSAT Diary:
Patents and intellectual property rights interest me, and friends who are lawyers suggested my prospects for practicing intellectual property law are good. I've worked in computer software for 15 years while I attended college for degrees in communication and computer science. I had high school ambitions for law school, but high school graduation was 25 years ago. Almost on a whim, I registered for the December 2010 LSAT. I had ten weeks to prepare.
I didn't pin any specific outcome on the results. Everyone who completes a law school application takes the LSAT. So instead of pondering "Should apply to law school" and "How will I ever afford it" I decided to take the test and see what happens.
My first stop was the public library. I opened the phonebook-sized guide and took the practice test at the front. Reading comprehension, no sweat. Short-answer logical questions, hm, some of those I'm getting backwards or not right ... ohmigoodness, these puzzles? Most fun I've ever had with a #2 pencil, but each one takes a full half-hour? Many hours later, without timing anything and with ample breaks, I had a practice score of 159. (But test prep book warmups are not equivalent to the actual tests.)
So my journey began. Next step, Internet, where I quickly found LSAT Blog. Based on the advice of using official LSAT practice tests, I ordered five. One for each of the last five weeks of preparation. I didn't share this goal with anyone other than my housemates; people who could see for the huge tome labeled LSAT preparation on the coffee table.
The first five weeks, I focused on accuracy on the two weak spots: short answer (logical reasoning) and logic games (analytical reasoning). I spent weekday evenings casually answering 10 or 20 logical reasoning questions, then working on the types I got wrong. I learned about the question types, and how to identify the argument and conclusions. I followed a strategy of discarding the obviously wrong answers right off and then selecting the one best answer from the remaining answers.
Logic games? Definitely hard. Fortunately, it's the same type of reasoning required to solve the trickiest real-life computer programming problems. I photocopied logic games on individual pieces of paper and carried them with me, so that a wait at the mechanic or the vet became logic game time. I worked on them in the break room at work, where I sat and tried to figure out the contrapositives and grouping and scheduling and charts and placing square people at round tables.
Spending the weekend drinking Lone Star while trying to figure out which seagull shat on which man was a highlight of my study time. After that game, my speed picked up. I started doing two games every time I sat down, finishing one and immediately starting another, and finally got to where I could solve two in a half hour. Three. I needed three. And eventually four? Would I ever compress two hours of work into 35 minutes?
The last five weeks I focused on completing the test in the allotted time. Oh, and without a cigarette break. And getting my 45-year-old eyes trained in on bubbling selections accurately on those tiny cramped answer sheets. Each Saturday I woke up at the time I'd have to wake up for the real LSAT, drove to the library, and took a practice test. I still needed more speed on logic games. Sometimes getting three completed during a practice test. Sometimes. Almost, but not quite. I had accuracy; if I got to a game, I got all or all-but-one of the questions right. If I worked too fast, jumped to a false conclusion, didn't re-read and carefully map out the initial information? I got the whole thing wrong. Accuracy took time, precious time, but I'd rather get two completely right than four completely wrong.
But at the same time, I remained casual about the results -- if I got a good score, I'd continue down this path and apply to schools, if not, that was OK too.
Game day rolled around. Got there early and joined hundreds of others sitting around waiting to be assigned to a room. Then we had interminable delays while the proctors figured out that even if you'd grown a beard since your license picture you still were allowed to take the test (a rather common thing, you'd think, considering that LSAT studying didn't seem to allow time for shaving...?)
The wait to get our LSAT test booklets was long and frustrating. The proctor mis-read and mis-pronounced instructions. Settled into a zen-like calmness for the rigamarole and tiny uncomfortable chairs; I never thought to practice sitting in a horrible chair with a tiny tiny platform and no place to rest my pencil? Logical reasoning, reading comprehension, logical reasoning, a break to walk around, more logical reasoning, will this never end? It's well after noon, and the quiet and tedium are taking a toll. Finally the analytical reasoning, the logic games. Read them through, ranked them order of attack, worked the first, third, fourth ... time was called, and bubbled in C on the blanks. Oh, and I never did work down my list of things to do and practice that writing sample. Arguing on the best choice for a summer camp? Whatever.
They collected our packages, and the whole thing was over. And I'd gotten to three of the four logic games. And I was jubilant, driving home, calling friends who practice law, my sister, anyone who might care: I'd finished the LSAT. Finished. It is done, and now I'm sharing. Keeping my plans quiet helped keep it low-key. Then we could wait for the scores to be published together.
The results of ten weeks of casual preparation? A 166 that I can send off with my other data to the nearby top-14 law school. Due to LSAC data-sharing settings, my email inbox is filling up with other schools inviting me to open houses, waiving admission fees and talking scholarships. All without ever breaking a sweat. Take it easy -- know the question types, know your strengths and play to them. You can improve your LSAT score with three to five hours a week of consistent but moderate effort over a ten-week period and maintain your job. Friends and family will barely miss you. Next up? Applying to schools. Again, I'll do my best to achieve good results without being too attached to any particular outcome.
Photo by offshore
Patents and intellectual property rights interest me, and friends who are lawyers suggested my prospects for practicing intellectual property law are good. I've worked in computer software for 15 years while I attended college for degrees in communication and computer science. I had high school ambitions for law school, but high school graduation was 25 years ago. Almost on a whim, I registered for the December 2010 LSAT. I had ten weeks to prepare.
I didn't pin any specific outcome on the results. Everyone who completes a law school application takes the LSAT. So instead of pondering "Should apply to law school" and "How will I ever afford it" I decided to take the test and see what happens.
My first stop was the public library. I opened the phonebook-sized guide and took the practice test at the front. Reading comprehension, no sweat. Short-answer logical questions, hm, some of those I'm getting backwards or not right ... ohmigoodness, these puzzles? Most fun I've ever had with a #2 pencil, but each one takes a full half-hour? Many hours later, without timing anything and with ample breaks, I had a practice score of 159. (But test prep book warmups are not equivalent to the actual tests.)
So my journey began. Next step, Internet, where I quickly found LSAT Blog. Based on the advice of using official LSAT practice tests, I ordered five. One for each of the last five weeks of preparation. I didn't share this goal with anyone other than my housemates; people who could see for the huge tome labeled LSAT preparation on the coffee table.
The first five weeks, I focused on accuracy on the two weak spots: short answer (logical reasoning) and logic games (analytical reasoning). I spent weekday evenings casually answering 10 or 20 logical reasoning questions, then working on the types I got wrong. I learned about the question types, and how to identify the argument and conclusions. I followed a strategy of discarding the obviously wrong answers right off and then selecting the one best answer from the remaining answers.
Logic games? Definitely hard. Fortunately, it's the same type of reasoning required to solve the trickiest real-life computer programming problems. I photocopied logic games on individual pieces of paper and carried them with me, so that a wait at the mechanic or the vet became logic game time. I worked on them in the break room at work, where I sat and tried to figure out the contrapositives and grouping and scheduling and charts and placing square people at round tables.
Spending the weekend drinking Lone Star while trying to figure out which seagull shat on which man was a highlight of my study time. After that game, my speed picked up. I started doing two games every time I sat down, finishing one and immediately starting another, and finally got to where I could solve two in a half hour. Three. I needed three. And eventually four? Would I ever compress two hours of work into 35 minutes?
The last five weeks I focused on completing the test in the allotted time. Oh, and without a cigarette break. And getting my 45-year-old eyes trained in on bubbling selections accurately on those tiny cramped answer sheets. Each Saturday I woke up at the time I'd have to wake up for the real LSAT, drove to the library, and took a practice test. I still needed more speed on logic games. Sometimes getting three completed during a practice test. Sometimes. Almost, but not quite. I had accuracy; if I got to a game, I got all or all-but-one of the questions right. If I worked too fast, jumped to a false conclusion, didn't re-read and carefully map out the initial information? I got the whole thing wrong. Accuracy took time, precious time, but I'd rather get two completely right than four completely wrong.
But at the same time, I remained casual about the results -- if I got a good score, I'd continue down this path and apply to schools, if not, that was OK too.
Game day rolled around. Got there early and joined hundreds of others sitting around waiting to be assigned to a room. Then we had interminable delays while the proctors figured out that even if you'd grown a beard since your license picture you still were allowed to take the test (a rather common thing, you'd think, considering that LSAT studying didn't seem to allow time for shaving...?)
The wait to get our LSAT test booklets was long and frustrating. The proctor mis-read and mis-pronounced instructions. Settled into a zen-like calmness for the rigamarole and tiny uncomfortable chairs; I never thought to practice sitting in a horrible chair with a tiny tiny platform and no place to rest my pencil? Logical reasoning, reading comprehension, logical reasoning, a break to walk around, more logical reasoning, will this never end? It's well after noon, and the quiet and tedium are taking a toll. Finally the analytical reasoning, the logic games. Read them through, ranked them order of attack, worked the first, third, fourth ... time was called, and bubbled in C on the blanks. Oh, and I never did work down my list of things to do and practice that writing sample. Arguing on the best choice for a summer camp? Whatever.
They collected our packages, and the whole thing was over. And I'd gotten to three of the four logic games. And I was jubilant, driving home, calling friends who practice law, my sister, anyone who might care: I'd finished the LSAT. Finished. It is done, and now I'm sharing. Keeping my plans quiet helped keep it low-key. Then we could wait for the scores to be published together.
The results of ten weeks of casual preparation? A 166 that I can send off with my other data to the nearby top-14 law school. Due to LSAC data-sharing settings, my email inbox is filling up with other schools inviting me to open houses, waiving admission fees and talking scholarships. All without ever breaking a sweat. Take it easy -- know the question types, know your strengths and play to them. You can improve your LSAT score with three to five hours a week of consistent but moderate effort over a ten-week period and maintain your job. Friends and family will barely miss you. Next up? Applying to schools. Again, I'll do my best to achieve good results without being too attached to any particular outcome.
Photo by offshore
Logic and Games
* Why it's often easier to be productive at coffee shops than at home. [The Atlantic]
* How law schools completely misrepresent their job numbers. [The New Republic; Above The Law]
* The Onion interviews 5-year-old screenwriter of "Fast Five" movie. [The Onion Video]
* Infographic about the Internet's energy use and effects on the environment. [Mashable]
* Small town in Mississippi shuts down protest attempt by the fringe Westboro Baptist Church. [Gawker]
* Maryland law school is renamed after $30 million donation. [Washington Post]
* The true purpose of the Internet, and less sketchy than ChatRoulette. [CuteRoulette]
* How law schools completely misrepresent their job numbers. [The New Republic; Above The Law]
* The Onion interviews 5-year-old screenwriter of "Fast Five" movie. [The Onion Video]
* Infographic about the Internet's energy use and effects on the environment. [Mashable]
* Small town in Mississippi shuts down protest attempt by the fringe Westboro Baptist Church. [Gawker]
* Maryland law school is renamed after $30 million donation. [Washington Post]
* The true purpose of the Internet, and less sketchy than ChatRoulette. [CuteRoulette]
The June LSAT Test Date is on a Monday?
As I mentioned recently, the June LSAT is the only LSAT that's regularly held on a Monday. In October, December, and February, the LSAT is held on a Saturday. (Sabbath observers can always take it on weekdays.)Test-takers are usually happy that the June LSAT is unique because it's the only exam that starts at 1PM, rather than at 9AM.
However, one blog reader recently wrote to me:
Today, I was looking at my registration, and I swear that I had registered for Saturday, but the test is on a Monday. I am really annoyed, since this is not very accommodating for working professionals like myself. Is it normal that all WORKING people have to take a Monday (vacation day) to take the test? Sorry to vent!I suggested:
You could always email LSAC from several pseudonymous email accounts. I estimate it would take 20,000 emails to get them to change the date of the June exam.What do you think?
Will those of you in the 9-to-5 grind be complaining to LSAC about the injustice of having to use a vacation day?
Will those of you working the retail/service industry grind be thanking LSAC for allowing you to take it on a day off?
Leave comments!
Photo by meddygarnet
LSAT Diary: Is the LSAT Pure Evil? NO!
This installment of LSAT Diaries comes from Rebecca, who followed one of my LSAT study schedules and scored a 174 on the February 2011 LSAT!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 Rebecca for sharing her experience and advice, and please leave your questions for her below in the comments!
Rebecca's LSAT Diary:
When I first started studying for the LSAT, it was with a combination of dread and excitement. I was excited because beginning Steve’s 5-month LSAT study plan meant I was taking the first steps towards a new career that I hoped would be more rewarding, interesting, (and lucrative, let’s be honest) than my current job. I was dreading it because I heard from any number of sources that the LSAT was a terrible, terrible test designed to traumatize test-takers and frighten small children.
I have always done well on tests that primarily measure reading and analysis skills, but I was too scared to have my confidence busted by taking a diagnostic LSAT practice test. The key for me was the repetition Steve’s study plan called for. I kept getting my butt kicked by Logical Reasoning questions where I missed a single crucial word, or choosing answer choices that were almost but not quite right. However, after doing questions of the same type over and over, I started to recognize the tricks the test-makers were using repeatedly, and I found I could train my normally skim-prone eyes to read each and every word of the stimulus.
Logic Games were a bigger challenge. I have no head for games of any type, and anything that smells like math makes me nervous. Again, though, repetition was key. Going over the same game types, becoming more and more comfortable with the process of diagramming, and finally getting a handle on the rules about contrapositives and negation that were so slippery to begin with, all came to me as I fought with the games over a period of weeks.
After studying for a few months, it became clear to me that the LSAT was a test I could probably do well on. At least, a test I could do well on if I could take it as I was accustomed to studying for it, in my quiet apartment at the kitchen table. Taking it in a classroom where I had never been before with a room full of nervous strangers was another matter.
I thought a lot about where I wanted to take the test, looking at the test centers closest to me in New York City. Columbia – way too much pressure, thanks. Some random high school in Queens – LSAT test center reviews said the desks were all tiny and people complained about the temperature. Eventually, I thought of taking the test out where my fiancée’s parents live, in suburban New Jersey. There is a low-key community college five minutes from their house, and I would have ample time to scope it out beforehand to hopefully get comfortable with the room itself.
To prep for LSAT test day, I followed Steve’s suggestion of taking the test in a public place. I went twice to my local library, and the first time I was definitely distracted and nervous with all the other people around me. The second time I was much more comfortable, though there was an awkward moment when a guy sat down next to me with an LSAT book and started practicing logic games. Moments like that were worse than anything I was likely to face on test day, and flipped out as I was in the moment, I was grateful for the opportunity to give my nerves a thorough workout.
Eventually, after what felt like a million PrepTests and years of studying (which was actually 10 full PrepTests and 5 months of studying) the big day arrived. I had visited the test center twice, and after scoring consistently within a 10 point range on all my PrepTests, I felt ready. I was particularly comforted by what a previous LSAT diary contributor had written, that this LSAT was just another test that would eventually become a PrepTest like all the others I had taken. (This was not strictly true, since I was taking the February LSAT, but the sentiment was still helpful.)
I pumped myself up on the drive over, which my fiancée kindly accompanied me on. Once we got to the test center, he sat down to do some work in the lounge area, while I went on to the designated rooms. There was a long line there, and I was faced with the prospect of 20 minutes or more of waiting in line without so much as a scrap of reading material to distract me from the anxious looking faces around me, and my own wellspring of anxiety.
This was not a good situation to have before sitting down to the test. While I stood there considering how many times I could read over my test ticket to distract myself, I had my greatest stroke of luck in the whole process, and his name was Ed. Ed was a fifty-nine year old police chief who wanted to go into law to help people. He was a walking perfect personal statement, and he was blessedly not someone I felt at all in competition with or otherwise intimidated by. Ed talked on and on as the line slowly moved forward, and I have never been more grateful for a random stranger talking to me than I was for Ed. He kept my mind off my anxiety, and by the time we were all seated I felt pretty clear headed, if no longer exactly pumped up.
There were still little things that went wrong during the test – a proctor was suspicious of my watch (which was in fact an open faced pocket watch, rather than the prescribed “wristwatch” – I was allowed to keep it) and I was thrown off my game when I realized the logic games I was so pleased with doing well on was just the experimental section, and I still had a chance to screw up the real thing. All in all though, I felt like I had a good day, and after a fretful three weeks of waiting, I was rewarded with a simple email that arrived a whole day early – "Your February 2011 LSAT score is 174." More beautiful words were never written.
With the process over now, I feel a little sorry to have it all done with. Studying for the LSAT gave me a real sense of purpose, and a daily intellectual workout that is sadly lacking from my current job. Throughout the process, I was really grateful for Steve’s LSAT Blog, as it made me feel like I was part of a community that was sharing in my experience.
I think it was crucial to my success that I felt connected to the test: connected by regularly reading LSAT Blog, by making studying part of my daily routine, and by speaking to an LSAC representative at a law school forum. When I thought of the people behind the test, instead of thinking of an army of anonymous evil geniuses who delight in crushing the dreams of law school hopefuls, I thought of Michael, the rep I met at the forum. He was a nice guy in his mid-forties, balding, in khakis and a button-down shirt. He didn’t look like a man who wrote out questions while cackling evilly. He looked like what he said he was – a guy who wanted to be an English professor, but ended up writing test questions instead. It may not surprise you to find out that he said many of the good people at LSAC are English and Philosophy majors, who wanted to be college professors but didn’t quite get there for one reason or another.
So next time you’re feeling intimidated by the test, think of Michael, or one of your adjunct professors in a slightly less lucky universe, just doing their job with no particular malice towards anyone. And when it’s time for you to stand in line, with nothing but your sharpened pencils and your own nerves to keep you company, turn to the next person in line, and try to smile. It might make a big difference for both of you.
Logic and Games
* Webcomic predicts the future from now until 2100 based on Google search results. [xkcd]
* YouTube makes copyright violators watch this animated video. I can't help being reminded of Reefer Madness. [YouTube]
* Publishers sue university for uploading "digital coursepacks." [Ars Technica]
* A troubling study related to criminal law: judges grant parole more often after they've just eaten/had a break, and they're much less likely to grant parole when they haven't eaten/had a break in a while. [Less Wrong; Discover]
* Solid reasoning: "The average life expectancy of Americans has increased — from 49 in 1900 to 78 in 2011. Several cancers are strongly, often exponentially, age-dependent. An aging population will seem more cancer-afflicted, even if the real cancer incidence has not changed." [NYTimes]
* LSAT Blog reader Melanie has a free yoga podcast. [iTunes]
* YouTube makes copyright violators watch this animated video. I can't help being reminded of Reefer Madness. [YouTube]
* Publishers sue university for uploading "digital coursepacks." [Ars Technica]
* A troubling study related to criminal law: judges grant parole more often after they've just eaten/had a break, and they're much less likely to grant parole when they haven't eaten/had a break in a while. [Less Wrong; Discover]
* Solid reasoning: "The average life expectancy of Americans has increased — from 49 in 1900 to 78 in 2011. Several cancers are strongly, often exponentially, age-dependent. An aging population will seem more cancer-afflicted, even if the real cancer incidence has not changed." [NYTimes]
* LSAT Blog reader Melanie has a free yoga podcast. [iTunes]
Logical Reasoning: Parallel and Parallel Flaw Questions
Parallel Reasoning questions in the LSAT's Logical Reasoning section don't always mention that there's a flaw in the stimulus.
In other words, not every Parallel Flawed Reasoning question is described as such in the question stem - some simply present themselves as general Parallel Reasoning questions.
However, knowing there is a flaw in the stimulus, even if you have to identify it for yourself, is useful in solving this type of question, as it gets to the core issue of the argument's method of reasoning.
For example, take this LSAT Logical Reasoning question stem and the question itself:
(It's PrepTest 31 (June 2000 LSAT), Section 3, Question 18 - page 100 in Next 10)
"The pattern of reasoning in which one of the following is most similar to that in the argument above?"
There's no mention of anything wrong with the method of reasoning in the stimulus.
If we were to take the claims of some LSAT prep books as true, then we'd falsely assume that the stimulus' method of reasoning is fine, making it harder to solve the question.
However, the question stem of the Logical Reasoning question on page 100 in Next 10 that I just mentioned does not contain any reference to flawed or questionable reasoning. It contains a major flaw.
How could this be?
Well, the LSAT is not obligated to tell you when a stimulus contains flawed reasoning. They often do, but this doesn't mean that they have to.
Whether a method of reasoning is said to be flawed or not, one can still technically find reasoning that is similar to it.
As such, the LSAT creators aren't doing anything wrong by not explicitly stating there's flawed reasoning - they're just making it a bit harder to solve the question by making you recognize the flawed reasoning on your own.
So, how is PrepTest 31 (June 2000 LSAT), Section 3, Question 18 exhibiting flawed reasoning?
To sum it up, the stimulus claims (the following is my interpretation - LSAC does not allow me to publish LSAT questions on the blog itself due to copyright issues):
science requires measuring, and measuring requires units of measurement. Because the unit of measurement that ones uses is arbitrary, therefore, science itself is arbitrary.
However, just because one aspect of science is arbitrary, this doesn't guarantee that science as a whole is arbitrary. It's possible that other aspects of science outweigh the arbitrariness of the unit of measurement selected.
The flaw is like saying that just because carrot cake might include some salt, therefore carrot cake as a whole is salty.
This is often called a part-to-whole flaw. Just because part of something has a certain characteristic, this doesn't mean the entire thing has that particular characteristic.
The correct answer choice exhibits the same flawed method of reasoning as the stimulus - it takes one aspect of a particular pursuit and incorrectly assumes that the pursuit as a whole can then be said to feature that same characteristic.
***
The question from PrepTest 31 that I describe above is not the only case where a Parallel Flawed Reasoning question does not explicitly state in the question stem that the argument contains flawed reasoning.
Another Example: PrepTest 44, Section 4, Question 21
Its question stem states:
"Which one of the following arguments employs reasoning most similar to that employed by the argument above?"
The argument assumes that it is *better* to drive a small car than a large one because smaller ones avoid more accidents in the first place, as they are easier to drive. However, smaller cars don't offer as much physical protection as larger ones, they are easier to drive.
As such, the argument engages in incomplete and questionable reasoning. It fails to consider that perhaps physical protection when one DOES get into an accident is more important than ease of driving. It never explicitly gives a reason why one characteristic should be valued over the other one. The argument would be stronger if it cited as evidence a scientific study or general principle giving support to the value of accident avoidance over protection from accidents that do occur.
Yet Another Example: PrepTest 48, Section 1, Question 12
Its question stem states:
"The reasoning in the argument above is most closely paralleled by the argument that there is no reason to"
This argument fails to consider that there may still be some legitimate reason or "justification" for delaying the process by which species become extinct even if they will eventually become extinct regardless.
It's like saying that there's no reason to try and keep human beings alive by feeding them or giving them medical care since they will inevitably die regardless, since we're all mortal.
***
The takeaway:
Be aware that even if a Parallel question does not mention that the reasoning contained in the stimulus contains flawed or questionable reasoning, it may do so anyway. Recognizing the flaw in the stimulus is key to recognizing the answer choice containing the reasoning that is most similar.
In other words, not every Parallel Flawed Reasoning question is described as such in the question stem - some simply present themselves as general Parallel Reasoning questions.
However, knowing there is a flaw in the stimulus, even if you have to identify it for yourself, is useful in solving this type of question, as it gets to the core issue of the argument's method of reasoning.
For example, take this LSAT Logical Reasoning question stem and the question itself:
(It's PrepTest 31 (June 2000 LSAT), Section 3, Question 18 - page 100 in Next 10)
"The pattern of reasoning in which one of the following is most similar to that in the argument above?"
There's no mention of anything wrong with the method of reasoning in the stimulus.
If we were to take the claims of some LSAT prep books as true, then we'd falsely assume that the stimulus' method of reasoning is fine, making it harder to solve the question.
However, the question stem of the Logical Reasoning question on page 100 in Next 10 that I just mentioned does not contain any reference to flawed or questionable reasoning. It contains a major flaw.
How could this be?
Well, the LSAT is not obligated to tell you when a stimulus contains flawed reasoning. They often do, but this doesn't mean that they have to.
Whether a method of reasoning is said to be flawed or not, one can still technically find reasoning that is similar to it.
As such, the LSAT creators aren't doing anything wrong by not explicitly stating there's flawed reasoning - they're just making it a bit harder to solve the question by making you recognize the flawed reasoning on your own.
So, how is PrepTest 31 (June 2000 LSAT), Section 3, Question 18 exhibiting flawed reasoning?
To sum it up, the stimulus claims (the following is my interpretation - LSAC does not allow me to publish LSAT questions on the blog itself due to copyright issues):
science requires measuring, and measuring requires units of measurement. Because the unit of measurement that ones uses is arbitrary, therefore, science itself is arbitrary.
However, just because one aspect of science is arbitrary, this doesn't guarantee that science as a whole is arbitrary. It's possible that other aspects of science outweigh the arbitrariness of the unit of measurement selected.
The flaw is like saying that just because carrot cake might include some salt, therefore carrot cake as a whole is salty.
This is often called a part-to-whole flaw. Just because part of something has a certain characteristic, this doesn't mean the entire thing has that particular characteristic.
The correct answer choice exhibits the same flawed method of reasoning as the stimulus - it takes one aspect of a particular pursuit and incorrectly assumes that the pursuit as a whole can then be said to feature that same characteristic.
***
The question from PrepTest 31 that I describe above is not the only case where a Parallel Flawed Reasoning question does not explicitly state in the question stem that the argument contains flawed reasoning.
Another Example: PrepTest 44, Section 4, Question 21
Its question stem states:
"Which one of the following arguments employs reasoning most similar to that employed by the argument above?"
The argument assumes that it is *better* to drive a small car than a large one because smaller ones avoid more accidents in the first place, as they are easier to drive. However, smaller cars don't offer as much physical protection as larger ones, they are easier to drive.
As such, the argument engages in incomplete and questionable reasoning. It fails to consider that perhaps physical protection when one DOES get into an accident is more important than ease of driving. It never explicitly gives a reason why one characteristic should be valued over the other one. The argument would be stronger if it cited as evidence a scientific study or general principle giving support to the value of accident avoidance over protection from accidents that do occur.
Yet Another Example: PrepTest 48, Section 1, Question 12
Its question stem states:
"The reasoning in the argument above is most closely paralleled by the argument that there is no reason to"
This argument fails to consider that there may still be some legitimate reason or "justification" for delaying the process by which species become extinct even if they will eventually become extinct regardless.
It's like saying that there's no reason to try and keep human beings alive by feeding them or giving them medical care since they will inevitably die regardless, since we're all mortal.
***
The takeaway:
Be aware that even if a Parallel question does not mention that the reasoning contained in the stimulus contains flawed or questionable reasoning, it may do so anyway. Recognizing the flaw in the stimulus is key to recognizing the answer choice containing the reasoning that is most similar.
