Breaking the Logician’s Code: The Secrets Behind LSAT Tricks (Part 1)
The LSAT is out to trick you, and we’re out to warn you about those tricks before you fall for them. In this series, we’ll break down how to recognize certain LSAT tricks…and how to beat them at their own game.
I’ve developed a philosophy when it comes to learning the LSAT.
Well, over the years, I’ve developed many (some good, some bad, some contradicting others…). But the one I’m thinking of today is this:
You get into the 150s by learning the tricks of the LSAT.
You get into the 160s by learning why those tricks work.
You get into the 170s by learning when those tricks don’t work.
This does make the LSAT sound like it’s all about tricks. But here’s the secret – through those tricks, you learn logic by seeing how they work to get you the correct answer.
As an example of this, let’s look at a simplified Sufficient Assumption question (simplified because it’s easier to dissect the concepts when there’s less going on). I’m also going to tell you a trick for these questions up front – for Sufficient Assumption questions, look for a new term in the conclusion. If one appears, it has to show up in the correct answer.
Sample question:
Dave is tall. Therefore, Dave is good at basketball.
Which one of the following, if true, allows the conclusion to be properly drawn?
A) Most tall people are good at basketball.
B) Dave has practiced basketball every day for the past fifteen years.
C) All tall people are good at basketball.
D) Dave is a starting player for an NBA team.
E) All tall people are good at all athletic endeavors.
In this simplified argument, take a look at the conclusion. “Good at basketball” is a concept that shows up in it, but not in the premises. For a Sufficient Assumption question, I’d look at the answer choices and quickly narrow it down to those that mention “good at basketball.” That gets me down to A and C. While B mentions basketball, it doesn’t mention being good at it. Ditto D – maybe this NBA team is trying to tank its season for some reason, a la Major League, so being a starter isn’t enough to guarantee skill. (If you are arguing for E, hold up – I’ll get to that later). At this point, you could use another trick for Sufficient Assumption questions (the correct answer is generally at least as strong as the conclusion) to pick C, but I’m going to punt on that today. But the important thing is this is a 150-level understanding of the test.
Why does this work?
In order to reach a conclusion about a topic, you need to have information about it. If I want to convince you that Transformers is the best cartoon ever (I have a disgustingly large collection of these toys, so it’s something I feel strongly about), I need to tell you something about Transformers. If I don’t give you any information about this particular show, I’d never be able to convince you it’s the best show. Same with any argument – topics in the conclusion must be introduced in the premises in order to be valid. This understanding of why the “trick” works elicits a 160-level understanding of the test.
Now, back to answer choice E. I’m sure some of you wanted to pick it along with C. And you’re absolutely correct to do so. But this seems to fly in the face of the “trick” we just learned about – this answer choice doesn’t mention being good at basketball.
However! It does talk about being “good at all athletic endeavors.” Basketball is, by definition, an athletic endeavor (i.e., it’s not an assumption to call it one). While this answer choice doesn’t explicitly talk about the new term in the conclusion, it does so implicitly, and so it can serve as a correct answer. Understanding this will get you those tricky questions that try to confuse those whose understanding of the test comes just from memorizing tricks. These are the 170-level questions.
Tricks are great for understanding the basics of the test, and, once you understand them, for applying to narrow down your answer choices more quickly. However, they can’t get you a top score – learning how they work and when they break down is necessary for that. In future blog posts, I’ll break down some more of these tricks, why they work, and how the LSAT works around them to create super tricky questions. Until then, don’t get tricked by the LSAT! ?
Don’t forget that you can attend the first session of any of our online or in-person LSAT courses absolutely free. We’re not kidding! Check out our upcoming courses here.
Matt Shinners is a Manhattan Prep instructor and jdMission Senior Consultant based in New York City. After receiving a degree in Biochemistry from Boston College, Matt scored a 180 on his LSAT and enrolled in Harvard Law School. There’s nothing that makes him happier than seeing his students receive the scores they want to get into the schools of their choice. Check out Matt’s upcoming LSAT courses here!