LSAT Logic and "Ground Zero Mosque" Arguments, Part 1

As regular readers may agree, aside from a few simple dissections of logical fallacies on The Colbert Report, I've rarely revealed, let alone promoted, my personal opinions on this blog.

However, the more I read and watch about Park51 (the so-called "Ground Zero Mosque"), the angrier I get.

It looks like this will be a major issue in the Congressional elections this November unless something more controversial comes along (unlikely).

Since I know you all come here for LSAT advice (not for my personal opinions), I've debated for a while on whether to blog about it.

However, since I have a strong opinion on this, I feel the need to share it with others and present my arguments to those who may not agree with me.

Don't worry - I'll relate this to LSAT Logical Reasoning prep. The arguments on the opposing side contain many LSAT-style flaws, so I'm going to analyze several of them.

If you care about this issue and want to inject some reason into this debate, please forward this to your friends and post the link on Facebook and Twitter.

If you think you'll be offended, or you'll disagree, I especially want you to read this, and post a comment. It's healthy to read things you disagree with, and you're the folks I'm really writing this for, anyway.

***

Before we get into things, a few notes:

1. These are not the only flaws in the arguments of my opponents. Just some of the big ones.

2. I have not dissected every flaw contained in each video I link. Within a 30-second clip, several flaws may appear. Relatedly, even within a section on a specific flaw, I may make points addressing other flaws. This is simply because real-world arguments are more complicated than those on the LSAT. Consider yourself lucky.

3. This is the first part of a 2-part series. The 1st deals with LSAT-style flaws contained in some arguments opposing the construction of Park51. The 2nd deals with general arguments opposing its construction, and my responses to those arguments. While some are certainly related to the LSAT flaws in the 1st section, I haven't explicitly connected them.

If you're living in the LSAT vacuum (it happens, believe me) and don't care at all about the Park51 debate, focus more on the 1st part. However, if you engage with the arguments and analyze them, you may become interested enough in the general debate to read the 2nd out of curiosity.

***

Finally, I just want to say it's perfectly fine to disagree - you can still do perfectly well on the LSAT. Again, I encourage everyone who holds any position at all on this to leave a comment on this blog post.


Some Flaws in Arguments Against Park51

Appeal to Emotion

The Anti-Defamation League betrayed its principles when its Chairman stated, with regard to (some) 9/11 victims, "[t]heir anguish entitles them to positions that others would categorize as irrational or bigoted.”

I suppose what he really means that their anguish "entitles" them to irrational and bigoted positions. That's perfectly understandable.

However, I hope it doesn't take you future lawyers too long to determine the problems inherent in deciding public policy based upon the wishes of the more emotional and irrational members of society.

The fact that some find the exercise of a particular religion to be offensive is not sufficient reason to ban it or to ask it to go somewhere less bothersome.

One downside of freedom of speech and religion is that sometimes you'll be offended by a particular form of speech or religion. Similarly, sometimes others will be offended by your speech and religion. That's part of living in a free society. I'm sorry.

Attempting to avoid offense is certainly something you can pursue on your own, but don't ask others to step in to prevent speech or religion simply because you're upset.

(Here's a perfect example of appeal to emotion. Maybe it's insensitive to equate those building their version of the 92nd St. Y with extremists just because they happen to fall within the same general religion.)

In LSAT language:

"It appeals to the emotion of pity rather than addressing the issue raised"

Example of the same flaw in an actual LSAT question:
PrepTest 26 (September 1998 LSAT), S2, Q1 (p258)



Appeal to Popular Opinion

A Time Magazine poll states 61% of Americans oppose the mosque, and "more than 70% concur with the premise that proceeding with the plan would be an insult to the victims" of 9/11. (This poll's similar.)

A Fox News poll shows, while 61% of registered voters believe Muslims have the right to build the mosque, 64% believe it would be wrong to do so.

"Because the majority of those surveyed believes that building Park51 would be wrong, building it would be wrong."

However, just as emotion is not the soundest guide to public policy, neither is public opinion.

Just because a majority holds a particular opinion, this doesn't necessarily mean their wishes should be followed or their viewpoint is correct.

Our Founders specifically established the First Amendment in order to protect civil liberties - to prevent the government (the expression of the will of the majority) from infringing upon the rights of an unpopular minority.

An example of LSAT language describing this flaw:

"taking evidence that a claim is believed to be true to constitute evidence that the claim is in fact true"

Examples of the same flaw in actual LSAT questions:
PrepTest 28 (June 1999 LSAT), S1, Q9 (p324)
PrepTest 32 (October 2000 LSAT), S4, Q13 (p141)



False Analogy

Newt Gingrich argued by way of analogy, "Nazis don't have the right to put up a sign next to the Holocaust Museum in Washington."

Whether or not that's true, 9/11 is not on the same scale as the Holocaust, those who want to build Park51 are not part of Al Qaeda, and Park51 is not being built by radical Islamists as a symbol of "Muslim Triumphalism," as Gingrich claims at 3:10 in that clip (more on that below).

Additionally, Park51 is not at Ground Zero.

In other words, Gingrich's example treats the two different situations as if they are similar.

In LSAT language:

"treats as similar two cases that are different in a critical respect."

Examples of the same flaw in actual LSAT questions:
PrepTest 29 (October 1999 LSAT), S4, Q25 (p43)
PrepTest 31 (June 2000 LSAT), S3, Q5 (p97)
PrepTest 33 (December 2000 LSAT), S3, Q15 (p172)



Straw Man (Misrepresenting the Argument)

In the same Gingrich interview, Gingrich is also commits a Straw Man argument. In a Straw Man argument, one misrepresents the opponent's position in order to more easily argue against it.

The false claims about the Park51 folks (described in below sections) function as part of a Straw Man argument. By portraying Sharif El-Gamal and Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf as radical Islamists, and it becomes easier to argue against their establishment of a community center.

In fact, El-Gamal is a real estate developer (a businessman), and Rauf has been an imam in NYC for nearly 30 years (not exactly off the plane from a terrorist training camp).

In LSAT language:
"makes exaggerations in formulating the claim against which it argues."



Ad Hominem Attack (Personal Attack)

In this flaw, one attacks the source of the argument rather than the argument itself.

Example #1:
Simply because the imam behind Park51 has ties to an organization supporting the Gaza flotilla raid (segment starts ~3:53), this doesn't make him an extremist. It means he supports an organization that supports activism. People of various faiths support this type of activism without supporting terrorism. It has nothing to do with whether it's appropriate for the imam to build Park51.

Example #2:
Taking $305,000 from Saudi Prince Al-Waleed doesn't make the imam an extremist.

After all, the News Corporation's second-largest shareholder (with a $2.3 billion stake) is that very Saudi prince. In other words, taking money from Prince Al-Waleed does not require one to promote radical Islam.

In LSAT language:
"rejects a claim by attacking the proponents of the claim rather than addressing the claim itself"
"attack employers' motives instead of addressing their arguments"
"criticizing the source of a claim rather than examining the claim itself"

Examples of the same flaw in actual LSAT questions:
PrepTest 19 (June 1996 LSAT), S2, Q14 (p24)
PrepTest 26 (June 1998 LSAT), S4, Q4 (p241) (esp. relevant to Park51)
PrepTest 32 (October 2000 LSAT), S2, Q6 (p139)
PrepTest 34 (June 2001 LSAT), S2, Q1 (p194)



Failure to Acknowledge Opposing Evidence

The imam behind Park51 has been imam of a mosque in Lower Manhattan for almost 30 years. He's not new to the U.S. or NYC. He's written 3 books about Islam's role in the West, as well as quite a few articles on various Islam-related subjects.

Furthermore, opponents of Park51 also fail to mention that Rauf was selected by the Bush administration as a paragon of moderate American Islam, and he called himself both a Jew and a Christian when giving a eulogy at an Upper West Side synagogue for Daniel Pearl.

Finally, Glenn Beck and the imam had a perfectly nice conversation on Good Morning America a few years ago. If Beck thought he was extreme back then, you'd think he would have mentioned it.

Those who oppose Park51 and portray Imam Rauf as an extremist neglect to mention these facts on their shows.

As a separate issue, Muslims who work in the Pentagon have been praying there ever since the building was repaired, and no one's ever seemed to mind.

Examples of the same flaw in actual LSAT questions:
PrepTest 30 (December 1999 LSAT), S2, Q2 (p54)
PrepTest 34 (June 2001 LSAT), S2, Q24 (p201)



Part-to-Whole Flaw

This video is guilty of this flaw.

(I picked it simply because it's the most-viewed video on YouTube for the search "ground zero mosque.")

In summary, "Islam contains some extremists, therefore all Muslims are extremists."

Is it right to equate the actions and opinions of a radical minority (Al Qaeda) with the actions and opinions of moderate Muslims? If certain people aren't able to distinguish between terrorists and the majority of moderate Muslims, why should moderate Muslims further confuse things by humoring and accommodating those mistaken beliefs?

Why should they be maligned in the press, and why should their perfectly-clear motives be challenged due to the actions of people from a radical sect within their religion?

In LSAT language:
"improperly draws an inference about the scientific community from a premise about individual scientists"

Examples of the same flaw in actual LSAT questions:
PrepTest 19 (June 1996 LSAT), S4, Q3 (p36)
PrepTest 35 (October 2001 LSAT), S4, S18 (p245)



Confusing a sufficient condition for a necessary condition:

The same video is also guilty of this flaw.

In summary, "extremists want to build more mosques, so if the people in question weren't extremists, they wouldn't want to build more mosques."

Evidence: Extremist -> Want to build mosques

(Flawed) Conclusion: Not extremist -> Not want to build mosques

This is the inverse of the original statement. Statements are logically equivalent to their contrapositives, not their inverses or converses.

Examples of the same flaw in actual LSAT questions:
PrepTest 31 (October 2000 LSAT), S1, Q10 (p121)
PrepTest 34 (June 2001 LSAT), S3, Q23 (p208)
PrepTest 37 (June 2002 LSAT), S2, Q3 (p296)



Failure to Obey Principle of Local Self-Government

(Failure to obey a general principle is not necessarily a flaw, but accusing someone of inconsistency in their positions makes for a compelling argument. It suggests some opponents are not always driven by the principles they claim.)

There's irony in that those who've never lived in NYC claim the right to determine what happens here. Of course, 9/11 is a national tragedy, but one could broaden it to include a general attack on the West. In that case, perhaps Europe and Canada would have a say as well...

Even in NYC, no one was talking about the planning of Park51 until a New York Post columnist publicized the story and Fox News picked it up. Prior to that time, both Jewish and Christian community leaders in NYC had met with proponents of the project and endorsed it. For quite some time, Muslims have been praying in the dilapidated building where Park51 will be with no problems at all.

What happened to the very conservative principle of local self-government?

Applying this principle to the Park51 situation, if you live outside NYC, and you're not related to any 9/11 victims, what happens in NYC isn't your business.

If one wants to support the general principle that local communities should decide things (rather than the 1st Amendment), take a look at the below-linked polls.

(Now, I know that, on the LSAT, polls and surveys are often flawed, but I have no particular reason to believe there's anything wrong with these two, so I'll throw them out there.)

While NYC as a whole opposes Park51, let's look at Manhattan in particular (since a population of 1.6 million is more of a "community" than a population of 8.4 million).

Both Survey 1 and Survey 2 show that Manhattan residents are in favor of it.



Failure to Obey Principle of Protecting Religious Freedom

Many of those who oppose Park51 usually advocate the practice and expression of religion in public space. (See O'Reilly's "War on Christmas" coverage.)

In fact, Republicans passed a Congressional bill back in 2000 to protect the establishment of houses of worship. It focused on local authorities who attempt to block them under the guise of zoning regulations. Of course, this inadvertently protects the establishment of Park51.

Notably absent from Park51 opposition are religious leaders of other faiths (at the very least, fewer than I might have expected). However, I've seen many express support.

I suspect this is because these religious leaders don't want to set a precedent for banning or discouraging houses of worship from a particular faith. They know that a wingnut from their own religion may commit a terrible act in the future. These leaders are concerned with the protection and promotion of their religions in the long-term. On the other hand, Fox News is more focused on the short-term (their ratings and the upcoming election).

***

Read on for Part 2, where I analyze the claims advanced by Park51 opponents and offer counterarguments.

***

For further watching:

Daily Show: The Parent Company Trap

Daily Show: Extremist Makeover - Homeland Edition

Daily Show: Mosque-Erade

Daily Show: Municipal Land-Use Hearing

Keith Olbermann: Special Comment: There Is No 'Ground Zero Mosque'

YouTube: "We've Got To Stop The Mosque At Ground Zero"

Daily Show: Michael Bloomberg


For further reading:

FactCheck.org: Questions About the 'Ground Zero Mosque'

NYC Mayor's Speech Supporting Park51

Top Religious Leaders Denounce Growing Anti-Muslim Sentiment; Express Support for NY Mosque, Community Center

The New Yorker: Park51, the proposed mosque near Ground Zero

Cracked: 3 Reasons the "Ground Zero Mosque" Debate Makes No Sense

AP: Behind the News: Describing the proposed NYC mosque

The Economist: Build that mosque

The Economist: Sense and sensitivity

Fareed Zakaria: Build the Ground Zero Mosque

Slate: Islam is Ground Zero

NYMag: The imbroglio over the ground-zero mosque

NYTimes: News Corp. Gives Republicans $1 Million

LSAT Logic and "Ground Zero Mosque" Arguments, Part 2

This is the 2nd part of a 2-part series on LSAT Logic and the "Ground Zero Mosque."

In the 1st part, I analyze some arguments opposing Park51 and their connections to logical fallacies tested on the LSAT.

In this part, I offer counterarguments to other claims advanced by Park51 opponents.

Reactions to Various Arguments Against Park51

Claim that Ground Zero has Privileged Status as Sacred Ground

The site itself being "sacred ground" is certainly fair. However, New York is a living city. Some people go about their day-to-day lives next to Ground Zero. Cheap souvenir stands and strip clubs are in the immediate vicinity. Park51's short distance from both a strip club and an OTB suggests its backers are tolerant people.

Many non-New Yorkers seem to believe all of Lower Manhattan is a memorial with a 24/7 prohibition on business as usual. Things actually went back to normal soon after it was safe to return.

If it's to be a "victory mosque," it'll have to be much taller than 13 stories. Maybe 13 stories sounds big to those outside NYC, but if you've ever been to Wall St. or Lower Manhattan, you'll know many buildings down there are dozens of stories tall.

If you're creating a brand-new building in Manhattan, you're probably not going to bother making it less than 10 stories if zoning allows you to make it a decent size.

Manhattan's a pretty small island, and real estate tends to be expensive, so builders need all the vertical space they can get to make purchasing land worthwhile.

Park51 won't even be visible from Ground Zero (and vice-versa).

Furthermore, how does being sacred ground mean that one can't have a mosque a few blocks away? 2 long blocks away (the equivalent of 6 normal city blocks) is a decent distance when one considers how tiny Lower Manhattan is. If the ground is too sacred to have a community center containing a Muslim prayer space nearby, perhaps it's also too sacred to have 2 churches within one block. (At the very least, maybe those 2 churches can "protect" Ground Zero from Park51 or "cancel out" its Muslim influence.)

After all, if we're committing the part-to-whole flaw by lumping together moderates and extremists within a religion of over 1 billion people, we might as well extend it and blame religion in general for 9/11. Should we ban all churches and synagogues from Lower Manhattan as well? Since all the 9/11 hijackers were men (and since they were all humans), should we ban all men (and humans) from Lower Manhattan? After all, it's an insult to women (and animals) to have them walking around freely as if it were business as usual.

Sure, it'd be an insult to allow members of Al Qaeda to hold parties there, but let's not forget that Al Qaeda doesn't represent the wishes of all 1.5 billion Muslims.

The First Amendment does not allow for exceptions based on national tragedies. As The Daily Show reminded us, Charlton Heston held the national NRA convention in Denver one week after the Columbine High School shooting. His excellent keynote address discussed the connection between tragedy and blame and the resulting need to defend the Bill of Rights.

The Catholic Church placed a "Center for Dialogue and Prayer" the equivalent of 2 blocks from Auschwitz, and their center actually sounds rather nice.



Claim that the Name "Cordoba House" Symbolizes Triumphalism

Opponents latch on to the idea that calling the Islamic community center by the name "Cordoba House" is meant to invoke the Muslim conquest of the Spanish city of Cordoba.

Rauf says he chose the name to invoke 8th-11th century Cordoba, Spain, a period in which Muslims, Jews, and Christians lived in peace.

I suppose that if we knew nothing about him, we wouldn't know which interpretation to believe.

However, given his background and track record, it seems pretty clear that we should take him at his word.

Furthermore, he appeased opponents on this issue and changed the center's name to the very neutral Park51 (the building's address), which indicates some desire to compromise and avoid confusion.


Concern that We Don't Know How the Imam's Financing It

Some keep raising the question of how Rauf got the ~$4 million for the current buildings, and how he'll get the $100 million for the construction of Park51 itself. They suggest he might get money from conservative Muslim countries.

First, getting ~$4 million from a congregation to establish a new house of worship in NYC probably isn't very difficult. In NYC, donors have money, and wealthy people often donate to their houses of worship.

Second, people involved in fundraising often don't know where their money's coming from until the check arrives.

Third, is it that surprising that some of the money for an Islamic community center might come from an Muslim country? Are there not ties between Jewish organizations in the U.S. and Israeli organizations? Are there not ties between the Catholic Church in Vatican City and Catholic churches in the U.S.? Are there not ties between Prince Al-Waleed of Saudi Arabia, the News Corporation, and the Republican Party? (Prince Al-Waleed has also donated to Harvard and Andover, and I don't see them preaching shari'a.) Has George W. Bush not held hands with, and kissed, Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah?



Argument by Analogy that Saudi Arabia Doesn't Allow Churches

That doesn't seem to stop all the hand-holding, kissing, and exchanging of money referenced above.

Fox News keeps pushing the following idea:

"Since Saudi Arabia doesn't allow churches or synagogues, why should we allow mosques?"

Since Fox News and its guests keep putting words in the mouths of 9/11 victims, I'd argue it's insult to 9/11 victims to suggest that we should become more like Saudi Arabia, especially near the site of the World Trade Center.

Discouraging Muslims from exercising their right to build a mosque on private property, based on the idea that neither Saudi Arabia nor Al Qaeda is big on religious freedom, suggests we should lower ourselves to their standard.

In other words, these Park51 opponents suggest we become more like religious extremists and discourage the free exercise of religion, making ourselves more like the people we find abhorrent, not less.



Claim that the Government Should Stop Them From Building

According to a recent Fox News poll, 34% of registered voters believe they do not have the right to build it. For those people, the issue is the legal right.

Just in case anyone's not clear on this, government is not in the business of deciding what sort of speech or religion is "right" or "wrong." It's in the business of allowing and protecting the free exercise of speech and religion.

People's opinions on what's morally right, good, decent, or offensive vary significantly, making opinions regarding decency an unreliable source of authority.

While laws are also open to interpretation, the text of a particular law is (relatively) fixed.

We can't make policy based upon what Newt Gingrich, Sarah Palin, or Fox News consider to be an acceptable distance from Ground Zero.

Apparently, a few blocks away isn't far enough for them, but at what distance does one say "new mosques can be built north of this particular street, but not south of it?" Where do we draw the line? For how long should that policy remain in effect? Should one's freedoms be dependent upon the popularity of their expression in a particular community?

Following that policy exposes everyone to the tyranny of the majority.



Concern that the Imam Has Not Condemned Hamas / Terrorism

This recent article in the New York Times pretty much covers it.



Claim that 9/11 Victims' Families Don't Want It There

Sure, some don't. But many do. Those who do might be offended if Park51 were not built. Whatever happens, some victims' families will be offended, so we can't satisfy everyone's desires.

And then, of course, there's the issue that the First Amendment does not allow exceptions for simply offending someone.



Claim that Islam is a Violent Religion

Opponents of Park51 often claim Islam is a violent religion, contrary to expressions of peace by many of its members.

Sure, the Qur'an says some things I don't care for, but the Hebrew Bible and New Testament also endorse plenty of hateful and backwards stuff. If you're going to apply strict scrutiny to the Qur'an (and assume that all members of a religion actively endorse every word of their religion's texts), you're obligated to do the same for other religions. Religion today is not the same as religion in the time these texts were written.

Since the texts of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all endorse violence against nonbelievers, one might reach the conclusion that it wouldn't be decent for any religion to establish houses of worship near Ground Zero. However, no one really follows most of the prescriptions of their religious texts. Furthermore, how many people do you know who actually read their own religion's text, let alone obey a majority of its commandments?


Claim that Building Park51 Lets The Terrorists Win

Imam Rauf's proposed Islamic interfaith community center presents one of the greatest threats to Al Qaeda. It proves that Muslims can happily and successfully live in American society, in peace with neighbors, without oppression from government or from non-Muslims.

All the vitriol against Park51 serves as a recruitment opportunity for Al Qaeda. (Yes, the rest of the world has heard about the controversy.)

On the other hand, Park51 were to be built, it'd serve as a great symbol of American tolerance - proof that America is not at war with the religion of Islam.


For further watching:

Daily Show: The Parent Company Trap

Daily Show: Extremist Makeover - Homeland Edition

Daily Show: Mosque-Erade

Daily Show: Municipal Land-Use Hearing

Daily Show: Michael Bloomberg

Keith Olbermann: Special Comment: There Is No 'Ground Zero Mosque'

YouTube: "We've Got To Stop The Mosque At Ground Zero"


For further reading:

FactCheck.org: Questions About the 'Ground Zero Mosque'

NYC Mayor's Speech Supporting Park51

Top Religious Leaders Denounce Growing Anti-Muslim Sentiment; Express Support for NY Mosque, Community Center

The New Yorker: Park51, the proposed mosque near Ground Zero

Cracked: 3 Reasons the "Ground Zero Mosque" Debate Makes No Sense

AP: Behind the News: Describing the proposed NYC mosque

The Economist: Build that mosque

The Economist: Sense and sensitivity

Fareed Zakaria: Build the Ground Zero Mosque

Slate: Islam is Ground Zero

NYMag: The imbroglio over the ground-zero mosque

NYTimes: News Corp. Gives Republicans $1 Million

LSAT Prep While Working or in College

If you have a busy schedule with work or school and a halfway-decent social life, it’s difficult enough to manage everything. Add in LSAT prep, and it's easy to feel overwhelmed.

For this reason, start studying for the LSAT earlier than you think you'll need to.

Your elementary school book reports probably took longer than you'd thought they would, due to both procrastination and underestimation of the project's enormity.

Same goes for LSAT prep.

It's a more difficult exam than those you took to get into undergrad, and it has higher stakes.

Because you likely have more to do now than when you were in high school, you really can't afford to procrastinate.

Give yourself extra time to prepare. I recommend a minimum of 3 months, but 4 months wouldn't be a bad idea if you want to give yourself a bit of a cushion.

The busier you are with work or school, the greater the number of months you'll need. This won't necessarily mean you'll be studying for a greater number of hours, of course. It simply means that you'll have to spread out your studying.

This is a good thing. You shouldn't cram your studying all at once anyway. The LSAT is not about memorizing material. Rather, it's about refining your thought processes to think more logically.

The more spread out your studying is, and the greater the number of months that you're thinking about this, the more you'll learn the LSAT mindset of skepticism, analysis, and improve your ability to interpret convoluted text.


The following are just some general suggestions for how and when to study. Of course, you'll have to adjust them for your specific needs, and your actual studying will vary week by week.


If you work full-time or go to school full-time, 15 hours per week of LSAT studying over the course of 4 months might be a good guideline.

Here's how you might fit it in over the course of the week:

-5 hours on Saturday
-2.5 hours per day, Mon-Thurs
-0 hours on Friday
-0 hours on Sunday


If you work part-time or go to school part-time, 20 hours per week of LSAT studying over the course of 3 months might be a good guideline.

Here's how you might fit it in over the course of the week:

-5 hours on Saturday
-3.75 hours per day, Mon-Thurs
-0 hours on Friday
-0 hours on Sunday


If you work full-time, you'll probably have a harder time fitting in your studying because you'll have less unscheduled (free) time.

Here's how you might fit in 2.5 hours on a weekday:

-.5 hours before starting the workday (may require getting to the office early)
-.5 hours during lunch
-1.5 hours



Now, I know 5 hours of LSAT studying is not your ideal way to spend a Saturday. Aside from killing a good chunk of a weekend day, it'll probably tame your Friday nights a bit.

(If it doesn't on the first Friday night you party while prepping, it certainly will on the second. You'll realize that the correlation between Friday night partying and Saturday morning hangovers may, in fact, be of a causal nature as well.)

However, the studying has to happen sometime. Unless you want to fit even more study time into your weekdays, or you want to study on both weekend days, 5 hours of studying will have to happen on one weekend day. (I'm not necessarily saying it's better to load your weekend studying onto one day, just that you may prefer it. Modify as desired.)

So, how do you study 5 hours on a weekend day?

First of all, waking up early is probably the way to go. This gives you the late afternoon/early evening to spend with family or friends.

However, don't study as soon as you get out of bed. It takes your brain up to 2 hours to fully wake up in the morning, so do other stuff before starting your studying for the day.

Here's how you might study for 5 hours on a weekend day:

8AM-10AM: wake up, brush teeth, eat breakfast, shower, exercise, check email/Facebook/news, etc.
10AM-12:30PM: study LSAT
12:30-1:15PM: lunch
1:15-3:45PM: study LSAT
3:45PM-???: fun stuff

Feel free to shift it all 2 hours later if you're on a different sleep schedule. Remember, though, that you're not supposed to party the night before.



If you're in school, you probably have a great deal of unscheduled (free) time, during which you have several things to do at undefined points during the week:

-Facebook
-Friends
-Extracurriculars
-Internship
-Job
-Exercise

Then, of course, there's class, which is at a defined point during the week. That (supposedly) makes you more likely to go each week because you know exactly when it is. It's scheduled in your planner/calendar.

I don't care whether you miss class sometimes. Professors ramble, and you can probably get a good GPA without going too often.

However, I do care whether you study for the LSAT.

If there are specific times each week that you're supposed to study, you're more likely to actually study. At the very least, it may make you feel guilty for doing other stuff during that time.

Guilt is a great motivator.

Since your classes aren't necessarily at the same time each day, the LSAT studying doesn't have to be at the same time every day either.

However, you should still treat it like a class (or two). It might be a good idea to take this into account when planning your classes and other responsibilities during the semester. If the norm at your school is taking 4 or 5 classes a semester, consider taking 3 or 4 classes during your LSAT prep semester instead. Consider not doing an internship that semester. There's a good chance you'll need the time.


Summary:

-Start your prep earlier than you think is necessary.

-Set aside specific times to study each day.

-Try to spread your studying throughout the week.

-Give yourself at least one or two days off from studying per week.

-Try to reduce other obligations during the period that you'll be prepping.

Photo by jackol

LSAT Diaries: LSAT Study, Logic Games, and Laziness

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

Leave Jake some encouragement and advice below in the comments!

Jake's LSAT Diary:

When planning a summer of studying, there are usually two major possibilities: either you stick to your studying out of willpower, or you lose motivation and stop studying. This oddly cool and drizzly summer in Santa Cruz has introduced the third outcome: pain-induced laziness. Four bouts with illness taking out nearly a full month of studying made me think I'd be set back, but bursts of intense studying may have ended up unlocking more ability.

My initially breakneck pace of studying continued after my first LSAT diary, as I knocked out Logic Games, and the gears in my head were clicking. My first PrepTest afterwards resulted in a promising 172, with -3 on Logic Games questions. Whatever excitement I had would be tempered as I was either sick or out of town for the next two weeks straight, resulting in me writing about 11 different revisions of a personal statement. I also got in a few moments reading about Logical Reasoning when in the New Jersey hotel room or in the few hours before Iron Maiden. I was able to fit in a PrepTest while under the weather that resulted in a 168. Of course, I wrote it off to my illness.

Having finished all of the non-PrepTest material, I moved on to start the SuperPrep. At this point Logical Reasoning had become my least predictable area, and I had become scared silly of the SuperPrep logic games after reading horror stories. So when I counted my PrepTest A games score and got a -1, with a 174 total score. I got excited, and had my first "LSAT Zombie" conversation. "DUDE I think I figured out Logic Games! Now I can just hammer out logical reasoning and reading comprehension!" "...what the hell did you just say?"

The next two weeks would be mostly destroyed by an ear infection, followed with a second ear infection in the other ear. Constant ringing and stabbing pains took me out of the moment every time I tried to study, and I'd give up after a question or two. During the two-day gap between each ear's infection, I saddled up for PrepTest B which again had a killer logic game or two supposedly. I could feel that it was difficult, and at the end of that section I had to educated guess three question in the final minute. My minus 1 in the games section, coupled with a -1 on LR and RC, gave me a 180 with a question to spare.

Needless to say, I freaked out a little. I don't know if beer feeds ear infections, but the next ear infection was worse than the last. I didn't care that much, since I just scored a one-bleeping-eighty. I realized when looking over the 180 that there were many things that I do out of habit now that have greatly helped me.

One is something I read and had since forgotten: keep your pencil moving. This is best in regards to Logic Games questions when I feel like I'm missing an inference. I used to freeze and try to think it out, but now I'll do hypotheticals to try and find the inferences, or just the answer if there are none.

Another is to circle any successful hypothetical. I used to not use previous hypotheticals since I would find myself confused as to which one was based on what rules. Of course, that doesn't matter unless it was for a question that eliminated or added a rule. This was one of the best time-saving mechanics that I found for the LG sections.

In regards to logical reasoning, the SuperPrep is probably the best tool I've seen. Being able to see the machinery of the LSAC's decisions are good not only for the questions you missed and had trouble on, but for all of them. There are parts of the argument that you may not consider important, but the LSAC does. Just knowing this language has helped immensely. Also, I naturally make up a small character every time there's a speaker. For example, if there's a "Critic," I imagine a posh british guy smoking a pipe in front of a fireplace making the statement. If it's a "manager," it's a yuppie staring out a skyscraper window. It makes the stimulus more memorable.

Lastly, I realized that I felt completely comfortable in the 35 minute format. I have never taken an untimed PrepTest or an untimed section, so by now I know how much time I have left naturally. Feeling comfortable with the time I have left has cut down on stupid mistakes. I read the question carefully, then use process of elimination on all of the answers. If I don't have the answer yet, I read it carefully again. If it's still not clear, I skip it for later. With this strategy, I usually finish LR sections in under 30 minutes.

While my law school dreaming did take hold for a couple days of arrogance, I decided I would not give weight to any score other than the official LSAT. Still slightly under the weather, I took my first proctored LSAT, earning a 173. From here on it's a grind to October 9, as I hope to become more armored and solid, avoiding stupid mistakes.

Photo by drurydrama

7-Month LSAT Study Guide / Schedule

7 months is more than enough time if you stick with a regular, but moderate, schedule. I've reviewed all books and PrepTests mentioned below in my best LSAT prep books post.

This 28-week schedule is intense. Follow it only if you're studying for the LSAT full-time, or if you're able to study for several hours each weekend. You might have work/school/life obligations that make this impossible. If that's the case, skip some of the "re-do" and "review" weeks, and complete the rest at a more relaxed pace.

Month 1:

Review my relevant articles on Logic Games and complete this list of Logic Games from PrepTests 52-61 ordered by difficulty during the first 4 weeks, untimed.

Week 1: Complete Pure Sequencing, Basic Linear, and Advanced Linear games. Review each game that gives you trouble.

Week 2: Complete Grouping: In-Out / Selection, Grouping: Splitting, and Grouping: Matching games. Review each game that gives you trouble.

Week 3: Complete Combination games.

Week 4: Complete any Logic Games in older exams of the types that give you difficulty. Complete a few timed sections of Logic Games. Review.


Month 2:

Week 5: Read A Rulebook For Arguments and complete a few more timed sections of Logic Games. Review.

Week 6: Review my articles on Logical Reasoning before completing LSAT questions of each type in PrepTests 52-61 using the LSAT Logical Reasoning spreadsheet (untimed). Complete a few timed sections of Logic Games.

Week 7: Continue Logical Reasoning work from Week 6 with additional question-types and complete a few timed sections of Logic Games.

Week 8: Continue Logical Reasoning work from Week 6 with additional question-types and complete a few timed sections of Logic Games.


Month 3:

Week 9: A brief return to Logic Games: Complete any Logic Games in older exams of the types that give you difficulty (untimed), then complete several timed sections of Logic Games. Review. Complete a few timed sections of Logical Reasoning.

Week 10: Complete Logical Reasoning work from Week 6 with additional question-types and complete a few timed sections of Logic Games.

Week 11: Complete several timed sections of Logical Reasoning from PrepTests 19-28. Review. Also complete some timed sections of Logic Games.

Week 12: Read my articles on Reading Comprehension and complete several sections of Reading Comp from PrepTests 52-61 (untimed). Complete a few timed sections of Logic Games, Logical Reasoning, and Reading Comprehension.


Month 4:

Week 13: Complete several timed sections of Reading Comp from older exams. Review. Also complete some timed sections of LG and LR.

Week 14: Catch-up and review week. Re-do the Linear / Sequencing games from PrepTests 52-61. Try to solve them more quickly and make new inferences. Complete timed sections of all types.

Week 15: A brief return to Logical Reasoning: Complete any Logical Reasoning questions in older exams of the types that give you difficulty (untimed), then complete several timed sections of Logical Reasoning. Review. Complete timed sections of all types.

Week 16: Catch-up and review week. Re-do the Grouping and Combination games from PrepTests 52-61. Try to solve them more quickly and make new inferences. Complete timed sections of all types.


Month 5:

Week 17: Catch-up and review week. Re-do the Logical Reasoning questions from PrepTests 52-61 that gave you trouble. Complete timed sections of all types.

Week 18: Complete the 3 tests in LSAC's SuperPrep (timed) and review the explanations. Although the explanations are technical, it's good to learn how the test-makers think. Identify weak areas.

Week 19: Re-read my articles on Logic Games, Logical Reasoning, and Reading Comprehension about question-types still giving you trouble.

Week 20: Use my Logic Games categorization to do question-types in older exams that still give you difficulty. Review. Complete some timed sections of LR and RC.


Month 6:

Week 21: Use the Logical Reasoning spreadsheet to do question-types in older exams that still give you difficulty. Review. Complete some timed sections of LG and RC.

Week 22: Do Reading Comp passages about your least-favorite topics in older exams using my Reading Comp passages categorization. Complete a recent LSAT PrepTest under timed conditions. Review.

Week 23: Complete a few timed sections of Logic Games, Logical Reasoning, and Reading Comp, and review. Complete a recent LSAT PrepTest under timed conditions. Review.

Week 24: For the remaining weeks, use these free Logic Games Explanations, these video explanations, and these other LSAT explanations after completing the relevant exam.

Complete 3 recent LSAT PrepTests under timed conditions as 4-section exams. Review each exam on alternating days.

Month 7:

Week 25: Complete 3 recent LSAT PrepTests (timed). Splice in sections from another to simulate experimental sections. Review each exam on alternating days.

Week 26: Complete 3 recent LSAT PrepTests (timed). Splice in sections from another to simulate experimental sections. Consider using one section to create a 6-section exam for extra practice. Review each exam on alternating days.

Week 27: Complete 3 recent LSAT PrepTests (timed). Splice in sections from another to simulate experimental sections. (Again, consider using one section to create a 6-section exam). Review each exam on alternating days.

Week 28:  Complete 3 recent LSAT PrepTests (timed). Splice in sections from another to simulate experimental sections. (Again, consider using one section to create a 6-section exam). Review each exam on alternating days. More thoughts on how to simulate the experimental section in this article.

***

Also check out my other sample LSAT study schedules and plans.

LSAT Diaries: The 22-Year-Old Repentant Slacker

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

Leave Jake some encouragement and advice below in the comments!

Jake's LSAT Diary:

I write you from beautiful Santa Cruz, California, a city built equally on surfing, liberal activism and weed. Having just graduated from UC Santa Cruz with a History degree, I found my job prospects in history to be what one might expect: either get more education, or put boxes into other boxes for a living. While this provides some good stimulation to seek more education, that is not why I am trying to go to law school.

Both of my parents were court reporters, and both of them complained about lawyers endlessly. "They're just so darn sure of themselves," my Mom would say. Despite this, they did have lawyer friends. My Dad would sometimes "ask" me to proofread some of his transcripts, largely to make me get off my ass and work, and I enjoyed reading these transcripts enough to be terrible at it. Psychology majors need not inform me that this entire law school thing is just an attempt at rebellion/acceptance, as I've already considered that and agree.

Here comes the confession: I have always, until recently, been a slacker. Not the traditional slacker, but rather someone who only does what is necessary to get by without making waves, with no attempts at excellence. I went to a community college to start and transferred to UC Santa Cruz, and in all my classes I completed all of the assigned reading in exactly one class, and completed none of it in more than half. I never failed to turn in an assignment, but I'd often turn in my first draft of a paper that I had banged out in a short afternoon's work. To say memorization and recitation is not my forte would be an understatement. Yet still my grades were decent enough (3.3 at community college, 3.47 at UCSC).

It wasn't until I took my senior exit survey on Hitler and Stalin that I realized what I was missing. In this class, a hilarious and incredibly wise professor led a 18-person class in what was essentially a confrontational book club. We all read at least 10 books and wrote at least 70 pages (one book per week + books for 20 page research paper). Everyone was impassioned and had come up with their own conclusions on the books, and for our last meeting we got together at a student's house and drank while talking about our individual research projects. In the next, last quarter, I got the best grades I have ever gotten. I was later told that the class sounded a lot like law school, and that's when my research began. And now, here I am.

My studying habits revolve around my job: I have a 9-5 type job, and as I said earlier, I put boxes into other boxes. Luckily there's only about four hours of boxing to do, so I have the other four hours to research law schools and get all my transcript/letter of recommendation/personal statement business done. Unfortunately, that work ran out quick, so now I've resorted to acting like a kid looking through a car magazine, except the cars in this magazine are law schools. "Ohh that looks cool. Too bad it's in New Jersey. Oh, that school looks cool. UGH I WISH I could afford that one." Etc. My GPA isn't great but it's good enough: getting into a top 20 school will require a great LSAT score, but it's at least achievable. I'm setting my sights at getting a solid chance at Boston College and Minnesota, even though I'd still be happy going to a University like St. Thomas in Minneapolis.

These are high hopes, but I am also a great test -taker. I started my LSAT studying two weeks ago when I ran into one of my UCSC professors on the bus downtown (he is also now writing me a letter of recommendation). He had with him a friend who was in law school, and since then I have been a law school freak. I took my first practice LSAT that day (the only one i have done untimed), not knowing what to expect. I scored 20 on the first section, which was reading comprehension. Second section had the games, and I scored a fantastic 4/24, which is slightly worse than if I had guessed. I didn't even total up my final score from my test, afraid of the answer.

After working through Logic Games, I took their practice test a week and a half ago and got a 157, getting 13 right on the games portion. This is and probably will always be my weakest portion, because one bad game will knock off good chunk of my score. My main problems surrounding logic games are my inability to make connections between the clues and the diagram, and the tendency to misread some clues. The questions around text and arguments somehow just make sense to me, probably because of my extensive experience arguing. "What can be inferred from your argument, Mom, is that you think my respect for you is proportional to the amount of time we spend together."

The problem with LSAT study plans is that they are built to get you to study. What I need is something to get me to stop studying. Last week I constantly had a book in my hands, something my roommates have come to hate. The only good studying space is the living room, where my roommate comes to break up my study sessions by playing death metal at full volume. I can say with confidence that when LSAT day comes, I will not be fazed by a student tapping their pencil.

Since that first scored and timed test, I've been doing Logic Games (and redoing them). I took my first "Actual Official" LSAT PrepTest yesterday, one from 1995 (yes, I wish I had found this blog before I bought my LSAT books). When I tallied my score from test 14, I knew I had done well, but I wasn't expecting the whopping 168/169 (my raw score split the two) to be staring back at me. I had gotten lucky, with four easy games on which I missed only one. Yet it also proved it's a possible score. If only I had been 22 in 1995. Don't worry, Steve, I'm getting the LSAT books you recommended.

If there's one thing I'm worried about more the LSAT games, it's my own willpower. I have been looking at LSAT and law related stuff for 4+ hours per day, every day, for two weeks. I say now that I will not stop until I master games, and master the LSAT. Yet I know I'm the type to burn out quickly. I only wish I could fall asleep on an LSAT book and wake up in October knowing everything. But I guess I wouldn't get to do the fascinating work of putting boxes in other boxes.

LSAT Prep: Logical Reasoning Tips

This LSAT Blog post lists all the Logical Reasoning-related blog posts you should read toward the beginning of your prep.

I've listed them in the specific order in which you should read them, along with a link to the categorization of Logical Reasoning questions you should complete from the Actual, Official LSAT PrepTests.

Here are complete explanations for Logical Reasoning questions in those PrepTests.

This is all meant to accompany the initial Logical Reasoning portion of my LSAT study schedules, in order to give you more specific guidance on when to read each Logical Reasoning blog post.

Enjoy!

Topics
Get a sense of what sorts of topics are covered in LSAT Logical Reasoning:
15 Common LSAT Logical Reasoning Topics

(And just for fun...25 Future LSAT Logical Reasoning Topics)


Before, or during, your LSAT Logical Reasoning prep:
Real Life Logic Examples


Vocabulary
Improve your vocabulary and understanding of words used in the Logical Reasoning section:
LSAT Logical Reasoning Vocabulary Words

LSAT Words: "Except" "unless" "until" and "without" mean...

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


Sufficient and Necessary Conditions
Learn the difference between them:
Words Indicating Sufficient / Necessary Conditions, and Time

LSAT Logic | Necessary vs Sufficient Conditions

Logical Reasoning: Necessary and Sufficient Conditions


Formal vs. Informal Logic
Get a sense of the difference between formal and informal logic:
Formal vs. Informal Logic in Logical Reasoning


LR Categorization by PrepTest
Use the following spreadsheet (and/or list at the end of that blog post) to identify questions of various types:
LSAT Logical Reasoning Spreadsheet


LR Question Types
Before completing Must Be True Questions:
Logical Reasoning | Formal Logic Inference Questions

Logical Reasoning: Inference Questions and the Contrapositive


Before completing Most Strongly Supported Questions:
Most Strongly Supported Logical Reasoning Questions


Before completing Necessary Assumption Questions:
Necessary Assumption Questions, Negation Test, and Must Be True Qs

Difference Between Necessary & Sufficient Assumption Questions

Arguments and Contrapositives | Necessary and Sufficient Assumptions


Before completing Sufficient Assumption Questions:
Logical Reasoning | Sufficient Assumption (Justify) Questions

Sufficient Assumption Questions | Tips and Categorization

Sufficient Assumption Questions and the Negation Test


Before completing Strengthen Questions:
5 Steps to Solving Strengthen Logical Reasoning Questions


Before completing Weaken Questions:
5 Steps to Solving Weaken Logical Reasoning Questions


Before completing Parallel Reasoning / Parallel Flaw Questions:
Logical Reasoning: Parallel and Parallel Flaw Questions



After learning about the various question-types:

LSAT Logical Reasoning Question Types: A New Approach

Necessary Assumption Question: The Rattlesnake Folktale

Negating Conditional Statements in Logical Reasoning




Miscellaneous (Simple):

7 Logical Reasoning Tips and Tricks

How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love LSAT Logical Reasoning

How to Ace LSAT Logical Reasoning | 7 Habits

Conditional Reasoning: Contrapositive, Mistaken Reversal, Mistaken Negation

The Logic of Real Arguments by Alec Fisher | Excerpt


Miscellaneous (Complex):

LSAT Logic: Neither Necessary Nor Sufficient

LSAT Logical Reasoning Flaw Questions with the Same Argument

2 Tough LSAT Logical Reasoning Flaw Questions

5 Hardest LSAT Logical Reasoning Questions, Explained

Sample LSAT Logical Reasoning Questions

Photo by telstar

LSAT Diary: Strategies and Tips to Ace the LSAT from 179-Scorer

This installment of LSAT Diaries comes from Brad, who followed my 3-month LSAT study schedule and scored a 179!

He's got tons of LSAT advice for you about how he did it.

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

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

Brad's LSAT Diary:

By the time I had made the decision to apply to law school, I realized that I had a bit of an uphill battle. My first year in college was horrendous, and had a large impact on my GPA. The following 3.5 years were much better and I graduated with a major GPA of 3.6, but a cumulative of 3.16. With a desire to attend a T14 school, I knew that the LSAT would be an incredibly important part of my application, and would possibly make or break my admission. I decided to devote myself entirely to the LSAT. When the results came in, I knew that I had made the right decision.

With that, my first words of wisdom to anyone reading this is to sit down, think long and hard about this test, and make the decision. If you are just starting to kick around the idea of taking the test, and the next administration is in 2 months, I would advise holding out a few more months. If you are set on taking the next administration, know what grit and commitment it requires. This test may in the long run have the largest effect on your future of any test in your life.

The test is not unbeatable, but you have to show a total commitment to beating it. I recently ran into an old acquaintance who told me that he had also taken the LSAT, but shortly before the test started seeing a new lady friend, and thus didn't devote any time to studying logic games. As you can imagine, he was not quite happy with his score.

I originally planned on taking the test in Feb. of 2010, but due to outside circumstances, work, etc. was not comfortable with the amount of studying I had achieved and put it off until June. I did some intermittent studying in the months leading up to and shortly thereafter Feb. but with about three months until the June administration, cleared everything that I could from my schedule and made the LSAT my number one priority. I felt lost, and a bit overwhelmed. I was doing early LSAT PrepTests, but my scores were erratic.

I stumbled across LSAT Blog, read through absolutely everything on the site that I could, and decided that his three month study plan was the best for me. Of all of the information that I found on various blogs and message boards, nothing seemed as comprehensive and structured as Steve's LSAT study plans. I cleared off my large desk calendar and wrote down everything that I needed to do, day by day, over the 3 months. I was about a week and a half behind when I got started, so the day by day breakdown allowed me to condense Steve's schedule a bit, and stay on track. Having a day by day guide kept my studying structured, and forced me to face when I was falling behind, and catch up.

Remember, the point of the study strategies, and of the studying in general is to find something that works for you. By the time you enter the testing center, you should recognize patterns, know there will almost undoubtedly be a question about unemployment rates, and have a good idea as to exactly what 35 minutes feels like. For those three months, I lived and breathed the LSAT.

One of the most important aspects of my studying was pinning down the variations of my mental state during each PrepTest. I'll write a bit more about state of mind when talking about test day, but for the prep work, I cannot stress its importance. I understand that everyone has to study when they can and how they can, but try to make the environment as realistic as possible. That means turning off the tv and the stereo, getting off the couch, and pretending every time that you put pencil to paper, that you are taking a test. I took my comfortable office chair out of the office, and used a kitchen chair.

When I was studying, I didn't smoke, didn't eat, didn't listen to music and turned off my phone. When doing a PrepTest, I used the online LSAT timer so that come test day I wouldn't be surprised to hear someone interrupt my train of thought by saying "5 minutes remaining in this section." (Sounds silly, I know, but the first time I used it I nearly jumped out of my chair I was so thrown off by a sudden interruption.)

On my two days off a week, after my morning routine, I would take a full PrepTest. I began adding on a fifth, and for endurance occasionally a sixth section. I would then take an afternoon break, and return to dissect the test. I began with writing down each problem that I answered wrong, and what type of problem it was so that I knew my weak spots. I would then go through any question that I answered wrong and any question that I answered correctly but had trouble with. For every question that I answered incorrectly I would dissect the question and explain why the right answer was right and the others not. It was through this very time consuming process that I noticed the greatest jump in my score. When I truly understood why a question was wrong, I would be much less likely to repeat a mistake.

My scores consistently hovered around 176 with two important happenings. At first, I realized I was dissecting the questions to an almost absurd degree while testing, so I needed to take a step back, and trust my gut a bit. The other was that the title of one of Steve's posts became my mantra of sorts. "How I learned to stop worrying and love the LSAT." I was at my absolute best when I viewed the test not as a source of frustration, but a puzzle, a code to crack, or a game. I cannot guess how many times I repeated those words to myself.

When I signed up for the testing center, being in a major city, I had my choice between a number of locations. I picked the most expensive private university in the list and am very happy I did. I ended up in a law classroom at Northwestern, a top 14 school with very comfortable amenities, as opposed to my undergrad school which was notorious for terrible classrooms with odd smells, awful florescent lighting, and a number of confusing noises.

So finally, leading up to test day, I took the two days before the test off of work to focus, and most importantly to relax. I did activities during the day that were not test-related, and wouldn't tire me out, ensuring a good night's sleep. I woke up the morning of the test, with my ziplock bag already packed, went through my normal morning routine, and headed out the door. I arrived at the testing center over an hour early, just to ensure that time would not add to my already existing nerves. I brought with me 1 Logic Game, 1 Reading Comp passage, and two pages of Logical Reasoning.

I found a secluded spot, and sat down to relax, calm my nerves, and do a few prep questions. I did not score my questions that morning, as I didn't need to shake my confidence with a few wrong answers immediately before heading into the test. One of the other important mental games was also mentioned by Danielle in her LSAT Diary. I ignored that other people were there to take the test, I didn't need to feel someone else's nerves, or let their casual attitude make me feel unprepared for being so nervous. Make the test about you, and simply focus on you and the test.

Seeing as people seem to be drawn to sports analogies in things like this, what's one more? I remembered watching basketball as a kid, specifically Reggie Miller at the free throw line, and was amazed that someone could be so intently focused with 35,000 screaming fans and millions more watching around the country. In taking the test, I tried to achieve a similar state of zen if you will. When I sat down at the table, I knew that I had done everything I could to prepare. Early mornings, late nights, 8-10 hour days of studying and test taking left me knowing every corner of that exam. When the time came, and the proctor told us to open our books, much like I imagine Reggie Miller did, I stopped thinking about the test, took a deep breath, and simply started to do the test.

Without the full support of my family, friends, and girlfriend, I would not have been able to achieve what I have. They simply had to understand that for three months, barring important obligations, I was off the grid. If that meant that on our one day off together, my girlfriend knew that I would disappear to the office for the majority of the day, that was the sacrifice I had to make, and luckily the sacrifice she was willing to make. It was a rough three months indeed, but I can say without a shred of doubt, absolutely worth it. I jumped 12 points from my first cold test to test day, and hopefully anyone reading this will realize that with the right preparation and resources, a few months of dedication can make a world of difference.

LSAT Logic: Analysis of Online Dating

LSAT Blog reader Jacqueline wrote the following LSAT-style analysis of a real-world situation.

She analyzed a Wall Street Journal article titled, Marriage-Maker Claims Are Tied in Knots.

Jacqueline's analysis:

Argument Analysis and Summary

* Claims that online dating leads to marriage for many Americans is disputed.

* Ex: eHarmony (2% of Americans married last year met on eHarmony), Match.com (12 marriages a day), Plenty of Fish (100,000~ marriages a year).

* Claims derived from unrepresentative surveys (online survey, “some survey”)

* Attention from marriage researchers because it claims to be more successful than traditional methods.

* Not all online dating websites are offering marriage statistics.

* Fewer than 2% of Americans marry each year

* Pew survey did not specify in its survey how many were marriages


Argument of online dating websites

* Online dating websites accurately individually claim that their services tend to end in marriages for their members.


How can we weaken this argument?

* Fewer than 2% of Americans use the internet (ha!)

* Businessowners of online dating websites have a history of reporting false statistics to attract paying members and are likely to continue.

* Individuals in marriages that report that they first met online cannot remember which online dating service they used, if at all.

* Owners of online dating websites pay individuals who meet online to marry and divorce several times a year and be counted for each time.

* Plenty of Fish has never had more than 100,000 members in a year and a person can only marry once in a year.

* Surveys conducted by and for these online dating websites only consist of their highest paying members who have more access to personal services.

* Individuals that are engaged and met online consider themselves to be “married” and answer as such when asked, even though this may not be official or listed in government registries.


How can we strengthen this argument?

* A new survey conducted by Gallup that is within 1% of error showed that over 50% of relationship that end in marriages started online.

* For those in a relationship and end in marriage who spend a significant amount of time communicating online, especially those in long-distance relationships, consider their relationship to have started online even if it did not.

* The statistic “fewer than 2% of Americans marry each year” is significantly outdated and higher in reality.

* A significant amount of people who met online on these dating websites and married are reluctant and fail to tell surveyors that they found their partners online.

* Released marriage statistics only survey heterosexual marriages, whereas online dating websites consider their members who become “life partners” to be the same as marriage.


What information would be helpful in evaluating the argument?

* What is the total amount of marriages, as defined by surveyors (heterosexual), of which the partners meet online?

* Are these individuals members of multiple sites? If so, do they attribute their success to one or all sites?

* Do non-heterosexual life partners count as marriages?

Photo by 23905174@N00 / CC BY 2.0