We incorporate the latest discoveries in learning science into our LSAT course to maximize the efficiency and effectiveness of your prep. Want to see? Try the first session of any of our upcoming courses for free.

Lately, I’ve been getting asked a lot about notating “unless.” I figured that with the LSAT so close, it might be helpful to write up a quick-and-dirty how-to designed specifically for those of you who need to lock it in last minute. Read more

No, that’s not an order, but it is a great idea. Here’s the problem; there’s a limit to how many tests you can work through without completely tuning out and not getting anything out of it. The good news is you can study the LSAT everyday while minimizing your exposure to the actual test.

Quick disclaimer: this is NOT a recommendation to ditch practice tests or strategies. This is a way to supplement your test studying so you are always in LSAT mode.

That said, consider what the LSAT is actually testing. It is a test that evaluates your ability to think logically. You are presented with chances to think logically all the time (though if you’re like me, you may not always live up to the potential). If you identify and use those opportunities, they become excellent chances to study.

Start with reading comprehension. Whether you’re in school or at work, you have to read, probably pretty often. We read for content – to find out what the article is saying. Start reading for perspective as well. As you go through your books and articles, ask yourself these questions: Read more

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.)

In flaw questions, you’ll often see an answer choice that reads, [the argument ignores the possibility that] “even if [blah blah blah], X will happen.” How to understand this sentence?

The “even if” in an answer choice to a flaw question is referring to a premise. The part that comes after the “even if” is going to be a premise of the argument. Think about it–“even if” is a way of saying, “we accept that this is true.” What do we accept as true in assumption family arguments? Premises!

Since “even if’s” often appear after question stems that read, “The argument ignores the possibility” or “The argument fails to consider,” note that these phrases are referring to the part of the answer choice that the “even if” is not modifying.

So if you have the argument:

It’s sunny outside –> Samantha won’t take her umbrella today

… and one of the answer choices is, “The argument ignores the possibility that, even if it’s sunny outside, Samantha could still be carrying an umbrella.” The part that’s being ignored is: that Samantha could still be carrying an umbrella. The premise is: it’s sunny outside.
Read more

You’ve seen this type of question on recent tests. It offers a Principle followed by an Application of that Principle. The question stem then asks you something about the relationship between the two. Preptest 61, section 4, question 19 for example asks, “Which of the following, if true, justifies the above application of the principle?” Same with PT 65, section 1, question 14; PT 63, section 1, question 18; and PT 67, section 2, question 5 (not an exhaustive list).

Don't be fooled by clever LR disguises

Other questions accompanying the Principle + Application pairing have included, “The application of the principle is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that…” (PT 64, section 1, question 2) and “From which of the following sets of facts can the conclusion be properly drawn using the principle?” (PT 63, section 3, question 22).

How can we think about these questions?

First off, do you notice anything familiar about any of the question stems quoted above? You should–you’ve seen them all before. The question in the first paragraph–the one with the word “justify”–resembles a strengthen question. The latter two a flaw question (“vulnerable to criticism”) and sufficient assumption question (“can the conclusion be properly drawn”), respectively.

For this reason, one way to think about these Principle-Application questions is to view them as assumption family questions. There is a gap between the principle and its application; you’re asked something about that gap. Do you want to help close it (strengthen the relationship)? Identify it (find the flaw)? Or close it completely (find the sufficient assumption)? Thinking of these questions this way will enable you to be prepared for unexpected questions, too. What if you were told to weaken the connection? Or find a necessary assumption in the application? Approaching this type of question the way you already know how–because you understand assumption family questions–will also hopefully spare you “ah! Not a new question type!” anxiety.

Shortcuts are few and far between on the LSAT

LSAT students in our courses often come in asking for “rules” or “shortcuts” that will enable them to learn the “tricks” of the test. We don’t really do teach “tricks and gimmicks” at Manhattan LSAT, and I try to convey early on that this way of thinking about the test isn’t all that useful. The LSAT is teachable, but it’s teachable in a way that doesn’t involve foolproof rules that serve as substitutes for thinking, like “whenever you see the word ‘all,’ the answer is wrong,” or “a conclusion with the word ‘should’ will never be correct to this kind of question.”

Beware of people who give you categorical rules like these. Or at least beware of the rules (the people probably don’t bite). When it comes to the LSAT, rarely is there going to be an absolute rule that you can apply mechanically and still be 100% confident in its application.

That said, if you were to come across a flaw question, say on preptest 42, section 2, around question 15, and there were an answer choice that read, “contains a premise that cannot possibly be true,” and you were skeptical because you thought, “Wait, I don’t think we analyze the validity of premises on their own–we analyze the reasoning between them and the conclusion… so can an answer choice like this ever be right?” you’d be on to something.

Flaws in logical reasoning are reasoning flaws; they aren’t flaws in the plausibility of a standalone premise. So I feel confident saying it: don’t choose this answer to a flaw question. But I’m going to add this caveat: still think as you do it. If you find one I’m wrong about, let me know. I’ll buy you a beer.

Have you ever given birth to a baby? I have. And I did it along with some fellow LSAT geeks here at Manhattan LSAT. We are very proud to bring the world LSAT Interact! What the heck is LSAT Interact? In short, it’s a self-study course built on interactive videos (click on answer (D) and you go here, click on answer (B) and you go somewhere else). We are so incredibly excited for this to be done. But let me take you on a short trip down a timeline of how this all went down:

Read more

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.

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.

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.