Pulitzer Prize-winning playwright David Mamet’s recent gun control rant in Newsweek drew ample criticism for making no sense whatsoever, disappointing some (including me) who like his plays. It’s an illogical essay–not illogical by nerdy LSAT standards, but nonsensical by pretty much everyone’s real world standards, regardless of your views on gun control. (Read his paragraph on arming criminals so they’ll accidentally shoot themselves–then read it again, and again.) So it’s not really fair that I’m about to shred his logic–in the sense that it’s kicking a guy when he’s down, or a sick puppy. But as it’s a puppy with several Tony and Oscar nominations who is apparently packing heat, I think he’s fine.

Find the flaws in these arguments of Mamet’s.

1. “As rules by the Government are one-size-fits-all, any governmental determination of an individual’s abilities must be based on a bureaucratic assessment of the lowest possible denominator.”

Core: One size fits all → Lowest possible denominator

Flaw: This argument expects we have any idea what a “one size fits all” rule is and what a “lowest common denominator” person is, but as we do in logical reasoning, let’s accept these terms on their face. What’s being assumed?

The gap that jumps out to me is the assumption that something made to fit everyone is going to be something tailored to the person at the extreme end. But think about what “one size fits all” actually means–not XXXXL, because that’s not “fitting.” Those OSFA tags you only see, in fact, on average sizes. Think about trying on a hat in a store, or a pair of gloves, or a t-shirt. It’s not a great fit for most of us. It’s not a horrible fit for most of us. It’s designed to fit the average person. If “one size fits all” actually meant the smallest person or largest person, it would in fact fit very few of us.

2. “Violence by firearms is most prevalent in big cities with the strictest gun laws. Cities of similar size in Texas, Florida, Arizona, and elsewhere, which leave the citizen the right to keep and bear arms, guaranteed in the Constitution, typically are much safer. More legal guns equal less crime.”

Core: Cities with stricter laws have more violence + cities with less stringent laws have less → More legal guns equals less crime

Flaw: Makin’ it easy for us, Mamet! Just because everyone with big feet is smarter than everyone with little feet doesn’t mean that big feet make you smarter. It means we’re adults and educated; five-year-olds are still eating glue and pooping in their pants. In this particular argument of Mamet’s (which may also be flawed empirically, but again we’re concerned with his logic), reverse causation could very well be in play. Maybe the cities with more violence have stricter laws because they are more violent and need them?

3. “Will increased cosmetic measures make anyone safer? They, like all efforts at disarmament, will put the citizenry more at risk. Disarmament rests on the assumption that all people are good and basically want the same things.”

Core: Disarmament rests on the assumption that people are good and basically want the same things → Increased gun control will increase risk

Flaw: This argument assumes that if people are not good or don’t basically want the same things, increased gun control will increase danger.

However, say we aren’t good and don’t want the same things (I certainly don’t want to shoot innocent people, but others apparently do), and a particular “effort at disarmament” makes it hard enough for the “bad” people to arm themselves such that it leads to less total gun violence? Mamet would say this is impossible, but that’s a convenient (and necessary) assumption.

In conclusion, the man probably shouldn’t teach the LSAT. I’d say he won’t ever have to, but you never know.

Here are some of our favorite articles on legal education from the week. Happy Friday and Happy February!

Ms. JD’s Pre-Law Prep Guide: Selective Hearing: Weighing the Pros and Cons (Ms. JD)

Still trying to decide whether to attend law school? This week Ms. JD asks some thought-provoking questions to help you determine if law is the right path for you.

Law School Applications Crater (Above the Law)

The top news in the law school world this week is how applications are down 38% from 2010. Above the Law’s Elie Mystal has an interesting analysis on the matter.

Law Students Should Hang Out With Judges (Lawyerist)

Ever consider shadowing a trial court judge? Lawyerist explains why they will help you see how the law really works.
Read more

Nice Guys Finish Last

We’ve all had a friend (or even a really close friend… so close they’re just like us, same name and same height and everything) who breaks up with someone and says, “But he’s/she’s so nice! I must not want to date nice people–what’s wrong with me?”

Whenever I hear this, it strikes me as an opportunity to give a short logic lesson, which I sometimes do, to mixed results.

Recall our classic illustration of a conditional sentence: if you’re in Canada, you’re in North America. We symbolize this as:

C -> NA

From this, there are other conditional statements that may be tempting to infer but are incorrect. One is that if you’re in North America you’re in Canada (not true–you could be in Minnesota):

NA –> C (FALSE!)

The other is that if you’re not in Canada then you’re not in North America (now you’re in Mexico–Minnesota was too cold):

~C –> ~NA (FALSE!)

The one inference we can make from that first statement is that if you’re not in North America, you’re not in Canada:

~NA –> ~C (TRUE.)

How might “omigosh-I-must-only-have-crushes-on-horrible-humans-since-I-find-one-decent-human-boring” fit this model?

Pause here to think about this on your own. When you’re ready read on. (It’s more useful to practice yourself than to go straight into reading the answer.)

Ready? Okay.

While it’s true that if you aren’t interested in nice people, you won’t be interested in this nice person:

~Nice People –> ~This Nice Person

… the omigosh statement would be broken down as:

~This Nice Person –> ~Nice People

How do these compare? It’s the same as flipping Canada and North America and saying that if you’re in North America you’re in Canada. It’s false.

There are many nice fish in the sea, and not liking one of them doesn’t mean you don’t like all of them.

Note: this particular pep talk may draw yawns, eye rolls, or expressions of concern (“Jim, please stop studying for the LSAT, you’re not behaving normally”), but it’s true nonetheless. And your more logic-minded friends may appreciate it.

There’s not much left to be reported on the “law school applicants are on the decline” story line that hasn’t been said again and again. However coming across an article on Above The Law today, I read something that once again took me by surprise: law school applications are down 38% from where they were in 2010.

38% !!

While we’ve covered the decline in LSAT takers in the past, I (perhaps naively) never thought that the number of applicants would fall by 38% over the course of two short years. Elie Mystal’s take on why this is and the consequences of these numbers for some law schools is a worthy read if you’re interested in this new data.

Happy Friday everyone! Here’s a roundup of our favorite law school and legal-related articles from the week:

Top 10 Ways to Save Money When You’re a Law Student (The Law Street Journal)

There is no getting around the fact that law school is expensive. Here are a few easy things you can do to help you save money while earning your J.D.

The Short On Long-Term Planning: Be Nice to Everyone All the Time (jdMission)

Here’s a friendly reminder from our friends at jdMission to always remember your manners when speaking with people at the law school admissions office.

ABA Committee Recommends Keeping LSAT Requirement (ABA Journal)

ABA Journal reports that the Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar’s Standards Review Committee voted to recommend keeping the LSAT requirement.

Ms. JD’s Pre-Law Prep Guide: Get the Scoop: Going Directly to the Source (Ms. JD)

Trying to figure out if law is the right path for you? This post from Ms. JD explains why it’s important to speak with professionals in the field to help you make your decision.

Ten Tips to Thrive in Your Legal Career (The Girl’s Guide to Law School)

Earning a high score on the LSAT and getting into a top law school may be your main priority right now but keep these useful tips in mind for when it comes time to enter into the legal profession.

Don’t see your favorite article here? Let us know what you read this week in the comments or tweet @manhattanLSAT.

Perhaps if he were a Reading Comp answer choice....

A couple of years ago, Lori Gottlieb’s MARRY HIM! The Case for Settling for Mr. Good Enough (like the accompanying essay she’d written for the Atlantic several years before) ruffled feathers. Everyone I knew seemed to have a strong reaction to the idea, even if they didn’t actually read the book. Settle! Don’t settle! Maybe settle! Don’t settle now but settle later!

The concept of settling implies that you’re picking a person who isn’t your ideal. You’re willing to compromise because maybe you’re just too dang picky. (I recall telling one friend who’d just gotten engaged and was on the Gottlieb side of the debate that she might want to avoid the actual term “settling” around her fiance. Call me crazy.)

It’s a controversial concept.

It’s not, however, so controversial when it comes to reading comp. In fact, it’s a useful way of thinking about reading comp. At Manhattan LSAT, we teach that you should “work wrong to right”–eliminate wrong answer choices in order to get to the right one (as opposed to searching for the right answer). “Not you. Not you. Not you. Not you. Okay, you’re fine.” You’re the best of the bunch, (E), even though your breath is bad and you should really pluck your eyebrows, at least your left one.

Settle for right answers in Reading Comp. Don’t reach for your ideal. It’s already had an affair with Angelina Jolie and adopted a seventeenth kid.

Manhattan Prep is offering special full tuition scholarships for up to 4 individuals per year (1 per quarter) who will be selected as part of Manhattan Prep’s LSAT Social Venture Scholars program. This program provides the selected scholars with free admission into one of Manhattan Prep’s LSAT live online Complete Courses (an $890 value).

These competitive scholarships are offered to individuals who (1) currently work full-time in an organization that promotes positive social change, (2) plan to use their law degree to work in a public, not-for-profit, or other venture with a social-change oriented mission, and (3) demonstrate clear financial need. The Social Venture Scholars can enroll in any live online preparation course taught by one of Manhattan Prep’s expert instructors within one year of winning the scholarship.

Details about the SVS program and how you can apply can be found here.

Here are the free LSAT events we’re holding this week. All times local unless otherwise specified.

01/26/13 – Washington D.C. – Free Proctored LSAT Practice Exam– 9:30AM- 1:30PM

01/26/13 – San Diego, CA- Free Proctored LSAT Practice Exam – 9:30AM- 1:30PM

01/26/13 – Santa Monica, CA- Free Proctored LSAT Practice Exam – 6:00PM- 10:00PM

01/26/13 – Irvine, CA- Free Proctored LSAT Practice Exam – 9:30AM- 1:30PM

Looking for more free events? Check out our Free Events Listings Page

Happy Friday all! Here are some of our favorite law school and legal-related articles from the week:

Law School Students Increase Legal Skills with Professor Interactions (JD Journal)

A new survey reveals that interacting with professors and peers in law school has a wealth of benefits—better critical and analytical thinking and improved writing and research skills, just to name a few.

The “Collaboration Generation” and the Legal Profession (My Case)

My Case speculates on how the current generation’s knowledge of digital platforms will influence the legal profession and business at large.

Ms. JD’s Pre-Law Prep Guide: So You Want to Go to Law School; What Law & Order Doesn’t Tell You (Ms. JD)

Two Assistant Directors of Admission at Michigan State University College of Law take a look at the differences between the mediated lawyer and the real-world lawyer.
Read more

If you’ve been studying for the LSAT for very long, you’ve encountered the old correlation-causation issue: just because two things are correlated (say, use of umbrellas and rain) doesn’t mean one is causing the other (the umbrella is causing the rain?). Correlation simply means that as one “thing” changes, so does another “thing”.  I stumbled on a TED talk this week that I think presents the issue in clear (and meaningful–to your health) terms. It’s also an interesting lesson in medical research and reporting. If you have a few minutes, give it a watch.