The LSAT is a test of logic before anything else.  It asks you to dissect arguments, make deductions, and pick apart flaws.  Why then does so many of the questions seem to stump even the most logical thinker?  Mostly, it’s because the LSAT goes out of its way to make sure that all the facts you’ve learned before the test don’t help and may even hurt you.

For a moment, imagine yourself in the place of the test makers.  You would have to come up with a way to evaluate the thinking of each test taker, without favoring people who have expertise in a particular subject matter, all with an 100 question multiple choice test.  Sound tough? You bet.

The only way to take away the subject matter bias is to remove the need for any background information.  In theory, you could know not one single fact about the world around you and still score a 180 on the test if you have the English and logic skills.  However, it’s not possible to write a test that deals in practical situations such as those posed in the logical reasoning section without dealing in specific facts.  The test makers thus find themselves with a problem.  Background knowledge is both necessary and absolutely forbidden.

So here’s the solution they came up with.  The facts are directly given.  It’s like being given an open book test, if only you know where the book is hidden.  Consider this completely made up argument:

A dog will always chase a cat it discovers in its territory.  My neighbor’s dog, Spot, saw my cat, Kit, lurking about his doghouse.  Therefore, Spot will try to bite Kit.

For the moment, ignore the argument itself.  Instead, find the “facts” that the LSAT makers have created.  First, they provide the fact that dogs always chase cats discovered in their territory.  Clearly, this isn’t actually true.  My cat is much more of a bully than any dog she meets.  But that doesn’t matter; that knowledge is a fact that I’m bringing in from the outside world, which the LSAT works to make sure isn’t relevant.  Instead, we need to believe that all dogs in this situation will always chase cats.  It doesn’t matter if it’s a four pound wisp of a dog and a seventeen pound alley cat.  That dog WILL chase that cat.
Read more

Happy Friday! Here’s another weekly roundup of law school news:

The Upside of Law School (Inside Higher Ed)

A new report tells a very different side of the recent tales of law school. It suggests that earning a law degree will, in fact, pay off.

Law School Enrollment Plummets, But Not at Harvard (Bloomberg Businessweek)

The crisis in the law school economy, long predicted, is devastating third-tier and some second-tier institutions, not the super-elite.

Debating, Yet Again, the Worth of Law School (DealBook)

DealBook presents some interesting stats and addresses the recent debate about whether law schools is worth what it cost students.

ABA May Ditch Law School Student-to-Faculty Ratio Rule (The National Law Journal)

The American Bar Associations’ rules governing the size of law school faculties may soon be a thing of the past.

Ten Competencies Law Schools Should Teach—But Don’t (Associates Mind)

Associates Mind reviews ten competencies that are essential for new lawyers to possess, yet are undervalued or just not taught in law school.

Did we miss your favorite article from the week? Let us know what you have been reading in the comments or tweet @ManhattanLSAT.

Across the board on logical reasoning questions, it’s important to know what kind of argument you’re dealing with:

(1) What is it arguing?

(2) How does it go about it?

(3) Is there a problem with it?

When it comes to (1), it’s often not enough simply to identify the conclusion of the argument and note its substantive components. You should get into the habit of characterizing the conclusion in terms of precisely what its arguing, and to do that, you should always look around the verb–that is, to the action of the sentence.

I took a moment to write down the categories that I personally put conclusions into in my head as I read. This isn’t an exhaustive list of conclusion types or one that I’m suggesting you apply as gospel, but it’s an example of how you might characterize conclusions for yourself as you read:

Judgmental conclusions: These are conclusions that, yep, cast some kind of judgment. They usually contain words like “should” (or “should not“), or justifies/is justified (or doesn’t).

Statements of fact: These are conclusions that state facts. Something is/are true, will happen, do/does occur, shall occur. (Notice that I don’t separate between “is” in the present and “will” in the future since both still say what is true.)

Likelihood: Distinct from the previous category, these conclusions don’t argue that something definitely will or does happen but that it might, and they sometimes give a likelihood. They include words like “might,” “may,” “could,” “probably,” and “likely” or “unlikely.”

Comparative: You guessed it–these are conclusions that X is no worse than Y; X is better than Y; X is more likely to happen than Y. On these, they key thing to remember is to note exactly how the two components are being compared; X “is no less bad” than Y is not the same as saying that X is better than Y. (Can you think of why? It’s because if X is no less bad than Y, X and Y could still be equally bad.)

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

7/17/13 – Online- Zen and the Art of LSAT with Patrick Tyrrell– 8:00PM- 10:00PM (EDT)

7/17/13 – Washington, DC – Free Trial Class– 6:30PM- 9:30PM

7/18/13 – Dallas, TX – Free Trial Class– 6:30PM- 9:30PM

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

Happy Friday! Here’s this week’s roundup of great tips and news about law school and the legal profession:

LSAT Sanity: I Didn’t Get the Score…(Part 1) (jdMission)

Still bummed about your June LSAT score? Manhattan Prep instructor, Stacey Koprince, answers what you should do if you did not get the score you wanted.

14 Reasons Law Schools Must Teach Tech (Information Week)

As technology reshapes both the way law firms run and the law itself, Information Week shares why law schools must also morph.

Law School Grads See Increases in Salaries and Jobs (Birmingham Business Journal)

The law school Class of 2012 found more jobs and had higher starting salaries, but the large class size hurt the overall employment rate for those new graduates

Perfectionism and the Myth of the Law Student Superhero (Survive Law)

Are you a perfectionist? Here is some great insight from a law school grad who debunks the myth of the law school superhero.

How I’m Going to Law School for Free (The Billfold)

One current law student talks about how he is earning his JD on a 100% scholarship.

Did we miss your favorite article from the week? Let us know what you have been reading in the comments or tweet @ManhattanLSAT.

1. Thinking that if you underline it, you’ll remember it. Annotating passages works very well for many people, and I usually encourage it, or at least that people try it. But I like to suggest alternative annotation methods to underlining for two reasons: (1) underlines (particularly in pencil) are harder than circles and squares and scribbles to spot later on, when you need to return to the passage to re-read a portion of it, and (2) underliners have the liberty of being less choosy about what they underline. If you are a circler, you have to choose which words to circle. If you are an underliner, you could–and many people do–underline a whole paragraph if you wanted. Since the purposes of annotating are (1) to help you understand the passage better as you read it, and (2) to make yourself a “map” to use later when you have to return to it, don’t fall for the trap of believing that if you underline, you’re safe. You probably aren’t optimizing your annotation practice.

2. Believing that if you don’t look at the time, it’s not passing. How many times have you thought, “If I just had thirteen minutes on this passage, I could get them all right!” Sometimes, we can become so determined to “get them all right” that we turn off our sense of time passing. It’s a form of stubbornness: I’m not moving on until I get this one, because I know I can! This attitude is an asset to a certain extent; it keeps you motivated to push forward on the hard ones, and it indicates a healthy confidence. But there’s a time to cut bait, and you won’t know it if you’re determined not to look at the clock. If it’s been two minutes and you’re not making progress (or maybe not even that long, depending on how the section is going for you), bid the doozie adieu and take a guess, wild or educated (or infuriated). There are more, faster points to be had.

3. Mistakenly focus on what you don’t know on hard passages. You’ve reached the third paragraph of “the hard” passage, and all you can think about is how little of it you’ve understood so far. You’re so focused on what you haven’t understood, you’re not at all thinking about what you have understood. In my experience, this is where many students become their own worst enemies in reading comp; they don’t realize that they actually understand more than they think, and that if they focus on what they do get, they’ll not only be more likely to answer some questions correctly, they’ll be less anxious, which will make their overall mental state stronger for the rest of the passage, the section, and the test overall. Sure, hard passages stink, and knowing all that you don’t know is terrifying. But there is some that you can get: what is the general subject matter, and what does the author think about it–is she pro, con, or neutral? Who disagrees? What are a few key terms, and are they defined? Ask yourself these questions, arm yourself with the basic answers, and move forward.

The LSAT is an exam uniquely suited to make studying difficult.  Despite the fact that you’ve successfully made it (or almost made it) through college exams, many people find that they study and study but don’t improve their LSAT score.  The simple reason behind that is the LSAT is designed to test how you think, not what you know or even how you apply what you know.  Beware of failing into these very common, and very useless, studying strategies.

1.       Taking every test you can find

I have to admit, when I first started studying for the LSAT, I started by buying a book with 10 LSATs in it and plowing through them all, one every other day or so.  My score on the last test was virtually identical to my score on the first test.  The reason this strategy fails so completely is that the LSAT is designed to monitor whether and to what extent you can think logically.  Repeatedly measuring this is just like stepping on the scale every day and not understand why you’re not losing weight.

2.       Cramming the night (or month) before

Logical thinking is not something that can be learned quickly.  It requires significant analytical skills, both about the argument and about your own thought processes.  Because it is a difficult and complex skill set, it’s not something that can be learned quickly.  You can certainly pick up a few tricks and improve your score somewhat in a short time span, but to really excel, you need to invest a large chunk of time.  Think of this process as similar to learning a physical skill.  You can’t become a pro basketball star by practicing non-stop for the month before a game.  The skills build gradually and with concentrated effort over time.

Read more

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

7/8/13 – Online- Free Trial Class– 8:00PM- 11:00PM (EDT)

7/9/13 – Boulder, CO- Free Trial Class– 6:30PM- 9:30PM

7/9/13 – Los Angeles, CA – Free Trial Class– 6:30PM- 9:30PM

7/9/13 – La Jolla, CA – Free Trial Class– 6:30PM- 9:30PM

7/10/13 – Irvine, CA – Free Trial Class– 6:30PM- 9:30PM

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

Enjoy the holiday weekend!

Happy Fourth of July weekend everyone! We hope everyone who took the June 2013 LSAT received their scores and are excited to take the next step in the law school application process. Here are some law school tips and news that could help you out!

Smart Ways to Leverage Law School Forums (U.S. News Education)

Prospective students should review a school’s website before the forum to better tailor questions for representatives.

The Panic and the Madness…It’s OCE Time! (Ms. JD)

Ms. JD shares some helpful tips and strategies for acing the On Campus Interview.

The LSAT Retake Dilemma (Law School Podcaster)

June 2013 LSAT scores are finally here and maybe you’re not satisfied with your score. This podcast that features Manhattan LSAT’s Noah Teitelbaum addresses your questions about retaking the exam.

A Summer Associate Interview (Above the Law)

Want to learn more about summer associateships? Above the Law talks to a current associate about what it’s like to work in Biglaw.

VIDEO: Bar President: 3Ls Should Get Paid for Internships (Bloomberg Law)

John Thies, president for the Illinois State Bar Association, talks about his organization’s report on the impact of law school debt on the delivery of legal services.

Did we miss your favorite article from the week? Let us know what you have been reading in the comments or tweet @ManhattanLSAT.

There are several benefits to creating a study group: accountability, companionship, people to bounce things off of when you’re not sure you understand them. But there is another benefit that isn’t as obvious, and education writer Annie Murphy Paul writes about it in this week’s edition of her newsletter The Brilliant Report. Teaching others material actually helps you learn it better:

“Students enlisted to tutor others work harder to understand the material, recall it more accurately and apply it more effectively. In a phenomenon that scientists have dubbed “the protégé effect,” student teachers score higher on tests than pupils who are learning only for their own sake … A pair of articles published in 2007 in the journals Science and Intelligence concluded that first-born children are more intelligent than their later-born brothers and sisters and suggested that their higher IQs result from the time they spend showing their younger siblings the ropes.”

Read the rest of the article if it interests you–she discusses some fascinating projects underway at several universities to harness this phenomenon. But when it comes to your LSAT preparation, this research presents a great opportunity to take your learning to the next level. Some ideas:

1. Find a partner or group to study with, and teach other the material. Don’t just wait for confusion to arise naturally (I mean, you can, but why when you don’t have to?); design sessions around having to teach each other hard questions.

2. Teach your little brother, or the kids you babysit. Can’t find a study partner? Really challenge yourself by taking on the task of convincing a child in your life that you’re going to play a fun game called “lessons in logic.” This may be too hard.

3. Teach a parent. If (2) doesn’t work out, teach a loved one who is old enough to drive. When I was auditioning to teach for Manhattan LSAT, I practiced on my mom and was impressed with how quickly she learned the material–and how preparing to teach her forced me to learn the question inside and out. (She also was impressed with herself. At the end of our lesson she said, “Maybe I should go to law school!”).

Now when your teacher put you into groups and asks you to teach each another, you won’t be surprised. More importantly, you’ll know why.