We are very excited to announce that the Manhattan LSAT 4^th Edition Strategy Guides for Logic Games, Logical Reasoning, and Reading Comprehension, are now available. Sold individually, or as a set, the new edition sets itself apart from others with enhanced curriculum, including new and innovative drills and exercises based on feedback from our students. While the 4^th Edition of our books teaches the same overall, tried-and-true Manhattan Prep LSAT strategy, it breaks the process down into more detail and provides more in-depth instruction than ever before.

What are the 3 LSAT Strategy Guides (4^th Edition)?

Offering a streamlined and innovative approach to the LSAT, the Set of 3 LSAT Strategy Guides (4^th Edition) includes both real LSAT questions from real LSATS and drills designed and written by the world’s best 99^th-percentile scoring instructors. Created and field-tested by Manhattan Prep’s expert curriculum team, they are a must-have resource for any student preparing to take the exam.

What do you get?

The set of 3 LSAT Strategy Guides includes:

• All three of Manhattan LSAT’s strategy guides (Logic Games, Logical Reasoning, and Reading Comprehension)

• Three free LSAT INTERACT™ Lessons – Called “the best self study method out right now”, our dynamic digital learning platform will help you kickstart your studies.

• Full access to Manhattan LSAT’s proprietary analysis tool, the LSAT Tracker, which allows you to watch your progress and pinpoint your strengths and weaknesses to improve testing performance.

Who should use the LSAT Strategy Guides?

The Strategy Guides are designed to teach you the LSAT from start to finish. They are a perfect way to begin your LSAT preparation if you’ve never laid eyes on an LSAT before. That said, they also make great supplements for those who have already been studying but struggle with certain areas or tasks. For example, if you find that you have a difficult time choosing between “similar answers,” the Similar Answers drill in our Reading Comprehension guide is just what you need. 

Where can I get the LSAT Strategy Guides?

You can buy the 3 LSAT Strategy Guides as a set or individually (Logic Games, Logical Reasoning, and Reading Comprehension) on Amazon or on our website starting today!

Let us know what you think in the Comments section below. Good luck and happy studying!

Myth #1: Just take as many tests as you can.

I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard this story:

“I knew a guy who just took, like, 40 LSAT in a row over 2 weeks. He hardly slept or ate, he just like, took LSATs, until he got a 180.”

You know what? I’d put money on it: Either that guy started at a 172, or he is an urban legend. (I’ll let you guess which I think is more likely.)

In general, you’ll hear Manhattan Prep teachers say over and over again, quantity does not trump—or match—quality when it comes to LSAT preparation. It is better to take 1-2 tests per week and spend twice as long reviewing them as you did taking them than it is to squeeze in 4 or 5 tests and rush through your review, if you even have time to review at all.

You will learn logic by studying logic methodically, systematically, and dedicatedly. Not by binging on logic problems, hoping that the sheer volume will somehow leak into your brain.

Myth #2: Memorize all the tricks and tactics, and you’ll get a 170+.

The LSAT, I’m sorry to tell you, does not boil down to a set of tips and tactics and “gotcha” solutions. While devices like mnemonics and rules of thumb such as, “The word ‘thus’ indicates a conclusion” are certainly useful, they should not be relied on to carry your score. They should be used as supplements to logical thinking, in other words, not replacements for logical thinking.

Be wary of study methods, people, and books that appeal to your wishful thinking—while tricks and tactics can be helpful, they cannot substitute for rigorous study of the actual concepts being tested, no matter how good they are.

Myth #3: Learn conditional logic, and you’re set.

Conditional logic—the kind of logic that goes, “If X, then Y,” and all its variations—is all over the LSAT. There’s no question about that. And for this reason, learning it is essential. There’s also no question, there.

But a common pitfall is believing that learning conditional logic and applying it across the board is the solution to breaking 170, and that’s just not the case.

Many questions on the LSAT not only don’t require conditional logic, they become more convoluted and even impossible to solve when cast through the lens of conditional logic. (And there is very little if any conditional logic on the Reading Comprehension section.)

The better plan is to learn condition logic backwards and forwards, yes, but then, learn how to recognize where it should be applied and where it should be set aside to wait for you while you use the other tools in your kit.

Now keep up the good work!

As you hit the home stretch of your preparations for the upcoming LSAT, you should be considering how to keep yourself in the best possible state of mind before and during the exam. One major area of consternation, confusion, rumor, and anxiety centers on the Experimental Section. To be perfectly frank, this section is something you just shouldn’t think about a great deal, but that’s easy to say and terrifically hard to do, so let’s break down the facts about this legendary section. Once you know what is true and what isn’t, make the choice to simply put it out of your head until the exam is finished!

Experimental Q&A

Q: Wait, there are FIVE sections?

A: While the published PrepTests contain four sections (2 Logical Reasoning, 1 Reading Comp, 1 Logic Games), all official administrations of the LSAT will contain a fifth section — the experimental section. This section will not count toward your score, nor will it be released if/when the exam is published. Remember, February exams are typically undisclosed (i.e., no sections will be available for review when scores are released).

Q: Why are they doing this to me?

A: Well, like so many irritating things in life, it’s not really about you. The LSAC needs data on the difficulty level of questions and sections they are currently writing and plan to use on future exams. Where better than to get that data, then from all of you willing test subjects! So, while your performance on the experimental has no affect on your score at all, the LSAC is still very interested in the results for their own construction of future LSATs. This is the way that the LSAC is able to “pre-equate” each administration of the LSAT and ensure that scoring is fair and even-handed across multiple administrations.

Q: Where will it show up?

A: The conventional wisdom used to hold that the experimental section would only appear in one of the first three sections. Up until a few years ago, that was true, and as a result test takers could sometimes use the ordering of their sections to determine (usually after the fact) which section must have been their experimental. At the very least, they could be certain that their final two sections would be scored.

However, beginning with the October 2011 exam, some test takers have received exams with an experimental section in one of the final two sections of the exam (sections 4 or 5). So you can no longer simply trust your section lineup to tell you which section is experimental. You need to give every section your best effort.

Bottom line: in the current LSATs, the experimental can potentially show up in any section!

Q: What will it look like?

A: The experimental could be an extra section of any of the sectional formats. So, you might find yourself with 3 sections of Logical Reasoning, or 2 sections of Logic Games, or 2 sections of Reading Comprehension. One of these may sound like a dream come true, and one may sound like your own personal nightmare, but unfortunately, you can’t sign up for your preferred experimental format–it’s randomly assigned and you may have a different experimental format than your neighbor. You need to be mentally prepared for any lineup.

The experimental section will look and feel just like any other scored section. It has to, or the LSAC wouldn’t be able to gather useful data from your performance on it. Occasionally test takers report seeing slightly different wording on questions, or unusual question types, but those things appear just as frequently in the scored sections, so they are not a reliable indicator of which sections will be scored and which one will not.

It may feel easier than other sections, or harder, or exactly on par. Experimental sections range the gamut in difficulty levels, as do scored sections. Also, a particular exam might have an above average difficulty Logic Games (scored) section, and a below average difficult Reading Comprehension (scored) section, or any other combination. Don’t assume in the middle of a particularly difficult section that it must be the experimental, and decide to not give it your all!

Q: So how am I supposed to figure out which section is the experimental??

A: Well, during the exam, you aren’t. Seriously, since the LSAC can’t just scan your brain (yet), they are very invested in you performing at your peak during the experimental. As a result, they aren’t interested in making it easier for you to figure it out during the exam.

And what would you do if you figured it out? Take a nap? First, that’s probably not a great idea even if you were able to identify it accurately–keeping yourself mentally limber and active is more valuable. But consider the absolutely devastating consequences that would follow if you incorrectly concluded a particular section was experimental and decided to take that nap. Those costs are entirely too high, and whatever minimal benefit you might have gotten from a break is not worth that risk.

Q: But I heard you can figure it out by….

A: Probably not. Whatever rule you heard has exceptions, and you might fall into them. Do you really want to risk your score on that?

Q: So, what’s the upside?

A: Well, the fact that the experimental section could be anywhere, and anything, can be a valuable psychological tool for test day in limited circumstances. Let’s say you just got the Logic Games section to end all Logic Games sections, and you are feeling downtrodden, demoralized, and discouraged. But the proctor is telling you to pick up your pencil and start the next section. You have to pick yourself up and brush yourself off and GET BACK IN THE GAME!

How do you do it? Lie to yourself. Tell yourself that the section you feel like you just bombed was TOTALLY the experimental, OBVIOUSLY. Make yourself believe it. And get back to business. Who knows? It might even turn out to be true!

Q: So, for the most part, I should just ignore the fact that there is an experimental, and treat this like an exam with 5 scored sections?

A: Exactly!

LSAT countdown week! When it comes to final tips, we’ve got you covered. Here are a couple of posts to check out before you freak out.

Last week I wrote about how to negate extreme answer choices, and this week we’re going to talk about mild statements that appear in answer choices.

The key with mild statements is, just like it was with extreme statements, to make them untrue but without seeking their polar opposite.
An example of a mild statement: “There’s some milk on the floor.”
How would we make this untrue? We’d say there’s no milk on the floor. There was some, and now there’s none. We mopped it up.
Mop up this:
“There might be a chance of rain tomorrow.”
How do you mop up that chance of rain?
There’s no chance of rain tomorrow.
Notice what I’m doing here? Think about it.
If I negate extreme statements by poking a hole in them, then it makes sense that you would negate mild statements by the inverse, that is, by using extreme language to mop them up. Try a few below and then check your answers. (And, as with all rules of thumb when it comes to the LSAT, please understand this a guideline only—as a way of thinking about negation—and not a hard-and-fast rule that will get you to 180. High scores don’t come by simply memorizing and applying rules; they come from learning the strategies, techniques, and concepts that enable you actually understand, analyze, and apply logic. Now I’ll get off my soapbox.)

Practice negating:

1. Jackson Pollock may be one of the best painters that ever lived.

2. On occasion, Jillian will take a nap between 3 and 5 or sometimes 3 and 6.

3. Often, but not always, Jim likes to take pictures of rainbows.

4. The early bird sometimes gets the worm.

Answers:

1. Jackson Pollock is not one of the best painters that ever lived.

2. Jillian never takes a nap between 3 and 6. [Notice this covers the 3-5 period.]

3. Jim either never likes to take pictures of rainbows or always does.

4. The early bird never gets the worm.

Bonus Round:

What if we wanted to negate just the standard saying, “The early bird gets the worm.” Would we say, “The early bird never gets the worm?” Think about it for a moment before reading on.
Done?
Okay, if you answered no, you’re correct. “The early bird gets the worm” is an “extreme” statement in the sense that we interpret it to mean the early bird always gets the worm. So, harking back to the last post, we poke a hole in it: The early bird sometimes doesn’t get the worm.
For much more in-depth explanation and practice, turn to the negation section of the Manhattan LSAT Logical Reasoning Strategy Guide.

I LOVE Beyoncé. I want to sing like her and be like her, and last month I was supposed to fly to Dallas just to go to her concert with my sister. But instead, my flight was canceled and I was stranded in Queens watching You Tube clips while my sister and brother-in-law tried repeatedly to Facetime me from the rafters of the enormous theater. My self-pity video marathon included “All the Single Ladies,” and later, when I was thinking about this series and how best to describe negation technique, I thought of the song. While putting a ring on it is what Beyoncé wants for all you single ladies, what I want for you is this: When you’re facing an extreme statement (“all” “none” “best” “worst”)—not unlike my adoration for Queen B, herself—what I want you to do is put a hole in it. 

For a quick refresher, we’re discussing how to “negate” an answer choice to a necessary assumption question on the logical reasoning section of the LSAT. You do this in order to test it. If negating the answer choice makes the argument fall apart, it is necessary. (If negating the answer choice doesn’t destroy the argument, or if you can’t tell what it does, look for a better answer.) Last week I wrote my first post of three on negation techniques. Today, we keep going.

What do I mean by “put a hole in it?”

If the answer choice reads, “All birds fly,” you negate it by poking a hole in it: not all birds fly. Or some birds don’t fly. Same thing. Either way, notice what we’re doing. If the statement were a big hot air balloon, we’d be pin-pricking it. We aren’t, in other words, trying to melt it down then mold it into something else completely: “No birds fly.” That’s not negation. That brings me to the DON’T of this post, what my friend calls roofing it.

Roofing a joke is when people are discussing a subject and someone takes it too far. A classic example is when someone calls you Hitler when you express your view that a local park needs a thorough mowing. Or when everyone is discussing how annoying skunks are, and someone suggests we just blow up all the skunks.

When it comes to extreme answer choices to necessary assumption questions, don’t negate the sweeping statement with an opposing sweeping statement—don’t roof it.

Suppose (A) reads, “Dr. Seuss is the best children’s author ever.” You could negate this by saying, “There was another children’s author who was as good as Dr. Seuss.” You wouldn’t say, “Dr. Seuss was the worst children’s author ever to walk on earth.” That would be roofing it.

Say (B) reads, “Dr. Seuss wrote faster than any other writer in history.” Negate it: He didn’t. Or, someone wrote faster than him. Yes, and yes. Roofing it: He wrote as slow as your granny backing out of her driveway. Too far.

In sum, when it comes to extreme statements in answer choices, poke it, don’t roof it.

Next week we’ll be discussing my rule for negating mild statements, courtesy of Destiny’s Child.

Read Advanced Negation Techniques: Part I of III.

You’re several minutes into the logical reasoning section and on question five. It’s a necessary assumption question. Great! You know how to do those. You read the argument and boil the core down to:

Premise: Richie hates snails.

Conclusion: Richie will stomp on that snail over there.

You are relieved to spot the assumption immediately: If Richie hates something, he will stomp on it.

Reading through the answer choices, you look for one that matches. You get rid of C, D, and E easily. A and B remain, and they both look pretty good because they’re both about stomping and hating snails. Luckily, you know what to do at this point: Negate each answer to see what happens. If negating (making it untrue) wrecks the argument, that means it’s necessary, i.e. your answer!

But wait. B reads, “If Richie hates something, sometimes he kills it.”

You’re at a loss on how to negate that. Do you say, if Richie doesn’t kill something, he doesn’t hate it? Or if he doesn’t hate it, he’ll kill it? Or if he does hate it, he won’t kill it? How do you negate an “if” statement?

To negate a conditional, negate the necessary clause. Leave the conditional clause (the “if” clause) alone. In this case the correct negation would be the third one above: If Richie hates something, he won’t sometimes kill it (or he’ll never kill it, same thing).

What happens to our argument when we put it that way? Destroyed! Answer choice B is correct.

Come back to the blog next week for Part II of Advanced Negation Techniques.

You aren’t allowed to take into the LSAT a cheat sheet of key rules, but what if you were? I made one for you.

Don’t sneak it in (not that you could—my bike map was confiscated), but maybe give it a read the morning of, or print out a copy to review at stoplights on the way there.

Better yet, use the idea as inspiration to make your own. Remember when as a kid you’d be assigned flashcards, and you thought the point was the set of cards, itself, when really it was making the cards that taught you the material (clever teachers!)? Creating your own one-pager can be a great study tool during the final few days before the test.
Here’s mine:

1. On matching questions, principle questions, and assumption family questions, be sure to characterize the conclusion of the argument you’re trying to match, find a principle to support, or analyze. I boil conclusion characterization down to two categories: room for doubt, and no room for doubt. “Room for doubt” conclusions rely on terms like: may, could, likely, probably, possibly. “No room for doubt” conclusions rely on stronger language: will, must, should, is, does. The right answer choice will respond correctly to the type of conclusion you’re dealing with.

2. On weaken and strengthen questions, be suspicious of terms in the answer choice that make it vague: some, sometimes, often, many. (Because remember, “many” just means “some,” and “some” just means “more than one.”) Also be wary of any answer choice that could “go either way”—that in one interpretation strengthens, but in another arguably valid interpretation, could weaken.

3. Only, the only, and only if. Only dogs bark = It barks only if it’s a dog = The only thing that barks is a dog = If it barks, it’s a dog. All are diagrammed: B –> D

4. Unless is “if not.” Don’t go unless I tell you to = If I don’t tell you to, don’t go, i.e. ~Tell you –> ~Go
Read more

While in general on the logic games section, game types can be divided into two categories–grouping and ordering–there are the occasional “hybrid” games. These are the ones that, like mutts, are the sweet little offspring of both.

A hybrid game might look like this:

Over the next week, Miley Cyrus will have three performances, one in Boston, one in New York, and one in Washington, D.C. Her repertoire of dance moves includes twerking, gyrating, shimmying, and lunging. She will perform at least one of these moves during every performance, and every move will be included at least once. Her performances meet the following conditions:

She performs in New York sometime before Boston.
Her New York performance includes at least three dance moves.
She doesn’t lunge when she twerks.

Do you recognize why this is a hybrid game? Think about it before reading on.
Read more

The other day I was working with a student on an Inference question (PrepTest 57, Section 3, Question 13) and as I was describing the strategy for this question type, she said, “Oh, so it’s like Reading Comp!”

Well, isn’t that true.

In this particular question, the LSAT tells us a few things: that still-life painting is best for artists whose goal is self-expression, that this is because the artist can “choose, modify, and arrange” the objects, and that therefore the artist has “more control over the composition” than she would in painting a landscape or portrait. From this we’re asked to infer what’s most likely to be true. In other words, we’re basically being asked what’s most reasonably inferred from the stimulus. That does sound a lot like Reading Comp.

Moving through the answer choices, I then noticed that the wrong answers were, indeed, wrong for Reading Comp-like reasons:

(A) “Most” isn’t supported = TOO EXTREME
(B) “Only” = TOO EXTREME
(C) “Nonrepresentational painting” = OUT OF SCOPE
(D) Correct Answer.
(E) “Rarely” and “background elements” = UNSUPPORTED

These are, of course, also often reasons why answer choices are incorrect to Inference questions. Certainly the comparison between Reading Comp questions and Inference questions in Logical Reasoning isn’t anything extraordinary (or even all that surprising to some of you), but it does seem worth noting for those of you for whom the Inference question strategy still hasn’t entirely clicked. Try treating them like an Identification or Inference question on Reading Comp. They’re essentially the same thing.