Lawyers work long hours. But what works for lawyers doesn’t necessarily work for LSAT prep. The guys recommend one-hour per day is all you need to study for the LSAT.
Erik and Cole discuss how to set an appropriate goal score and when to adjust your expectations. Cole, being a First-Generation applicant, he leaned on the Demon for advice, help and guidance throughout the process to hit his goal score, adjust his goal score and then hit his newly adjusted high score based on his improvements on the test. Because of this approach, Cole is now in a position to receive multiple offers from his "dream" schools.
Listener Adam considers postponing his LSAT study. Nathan and Erik provide advice regarding studying and if people are not paying for your law school then you don't need to listen to them.
Nathan and Ben break down the multiple phases of predicting answers on the LSAT. Try it for yourself on Prep Test J, Section 3, Question 6. Need more help predicting? Check out this lesson by Ben to learn more.
Anonymous student asks Nathan and Erik if they should prioritize accuracy, speed or both. Accuracy and speed are conflicting priorities. You can only choose to focus on one. Still not convinced? Check out Owen's success focusing on accuracy!
What does it take to score 170 on the LSAT? A mastery of the English language, sharply honed reasoning skills, and a strong work ethic. But with the increasing trend of scores surpassing 170 in recent years, maybe we should now ask: What does it take to score 175? This week, Nathan and Ben explore the habits and traits of those who excel at the highest levels on the LSAT. The guys also contemplate the future of Logical Reasoning, delve deeper into law schools’ unjust pricing, and consider an unconventional transfer plan. As an aside, check out previous podcasts by Ben and Nathan on Breaking into the 160's and Breaking into the 170s
Ben and Nathan advise LSAT Demon student Harry on his LSAT study plan. Nathan advises to start out with Demon Live for a month and see for yourself the progress you can make in just one month.
No need to spend valuable study time going down the rabbit hole of logical contrapositives. Here’s a quick, easy breakdown of what they are and why you don’t need them on the LSAT. What’s a contrapositive? A Contrapositive is the logical equivalent of a conditional (“if–then”) statement that you get by switching the sufficient and necessary conditions and negating both of them. Here’s a simple example: Conditional: If A, then BContrapositive: If not B, then not A And another one: Conditional: If it’s raining, then the grass is wet.Contrapositive: If the grass isn’t wet, then it’s not raining. A conditional statement and its contrapositive say essentially the same thing—they’re like two sides of the same coin. Where does the concept come from? Contrapositives didn’t come from the LSAT—the term never even appears on the test. Contrapositives have a long history in formal logic and mathematics. Both math and logic use contrapositives to prove the validity of concepts or theorems, for example, in geometry proofs. Should you use contrapositives on the LSAT? Many LSAT courses and prep books teach contrapositives. Some even claim they’re “essential” to mastering Logic Games and Logical Reasoning. But contrapositives by themselves can’t simplify games or increase understanding of arguments. More often, they confuse students and waste time. Conditional statements are easier to grasp when you have an intuitive understanding of sufficient and necessary conditions. And while the LSAT doesn’t explicitly test contrapositives, sufficient and necessary are some of the most commonly tested LSAT concepts. Many students use contrapositives as a crutch, needlessly diagramming without actually understanding the original statement. There’s an easier way to unlock conditionals in LSAT Logical Reasoning—ditch the diagramming, and go for real understanding. Let’s look at an example (Test J, Section 3, Q22): If the price it pays for coffee beans continues to increase, the Coffee Shoppe will have to increase its prices. In that case, either the Coffee Shoppe will begin selling noncoffee products or its coffee sales will decrease. But selling noncoffee products will decrease the Coffee Shoppe’s overall profitability. Moreover, the Coffee Shoppe can avoid a decrease in overall profitability only if its coffee sales do not decrease. The question then asks us to find what Must Be True. This setup is overcomplicated and unhelpful when looking at the answer choices. A) If the Coffee Shoppe’s overall profitability decreases, the price it pays for coffee beans will have continued to increase. B) If the Coffee Shoppe’s overall profitability decreases, either it will have begun selling noncoffee products or its coffee sales will have decreased. C) The Coffee Shoppe’s overall profitability will decrease if the price it pays for coffee beans continues to increase. D) The price it pays for coffee beans cannot decrease without the Coffee Shoppe’s overall profitability also decreasing. E) Either the price it pays for coffee beans will continue to increase or the Coffee Shoppe’s coffee sales will increase. The quickest way to the correct answer is to understand the passage in commonsense terms. If the bean price increases, we know that coffee prices will too, which leads to selling non-coffee products or sales decreasing. Either of those things leads to profitability decreasing. Once we can simplify the passage down to this relationship, we don’t need to worry about contrapositives to figure out the answer. A and B are out—they get the relationship backwards. D is out because the passage doesn’t mention anything about the price of beans decreasing. E is out because the passage doesn’t mention coffee sales increasing. That leaves us with the correct answer, C, which captures the chain of events simply and correctly. If the price of beans increases, we know the final result will be profitability decrease. Boom. On Logic Games, use worlds to deal with conditional rules. If the game says, “If A is fifth, then B is sixth,” make one world where A is fifth and B is sixth. Then, make another world where A is not fifth and so the rule doesn’t apply. Bam. The rule is now fully incorporated into your setup, and you never have to think about it again. Common sense trumps gimmicky diagramming strategies every time. If you’re ready to ditch the dogma and learn the LSAT the easy way, start drilling questions from every official LSAT.
A misunderstanding of conditional statements is the most common source of error on the LSAT. Conditional statements are at the heart of logical reasoning. They’re also at the heart of how human beings make arguments in regular, day-to-day discussions. Here are some examples of conditional statements at work in daily life: If I increase my LSAT score by a handful of points, I’ll be able to go to law school for free. I want to go to bed early tonight; I don’t want to be too tired tomorrow morning. If I fail this exam it’ll hurt my GPA. He agreed to get us a table if he arrives at the restaurant first. If you’ve never studied formal logic, or if you hate it with a passion, don’t worry. Conditional statements are common sense. You just don’t know it yet. What Is a Conditional Statement? A conditional statement is just an if-then statement like this one: If you drink that poison, then you will get sick. The if-clause is called the “sufficient condition,” and the then-clause is called the “necessary condition.” If nothing else sticks from this lesson, remember this distinction. What Is a Sufficient Condition? LSAT test-writers refer to the if-clause as the “sufficient condition.” It’s sufficient because it’s enough to guarantee that the then-clause will happen. You don’t need anything else. If you drink that poison, then, according to this rule, you will get sick. In real life, we might think of cases when people drink the poison and don’t get sick. There are always exceptions in life. But when you read an if-then statement on the LSAT, you have to take it at its word. It didn’t say that you might get sick or that most people get sick; it said that you will get sick. Remember: Accept premises, but attack conclusions! The if-clause is sufficient for triggering the then-clause. If the if-clause is triggered, then the then-clause has to happen. See what we did there? Examples In the following samples conditional statements, the if-clause is italicized: If the sun spots continue to grow, then we will lose all our crops this year. If the car costs more than $2,000, don’t buy it with cash. We can sell all our spiders if we clean out their cages. Take a moment to try and come up with your own examples. What Is a Necessary Condition? Test-writers refer to the then-clause as the “necessary condition.” Above, you learned that if the if-clause is triggered, then the then-clause must happen. The then-clause is necessary. If you drink the poison in the example above, you necessarily will get sick. There is no world in which you drink that poison and don’t get sick. Notice, however, that the reverse is not true. If you get sick, we can’t say for sure that you drank the poison. You could have. But you also could have gotten sick for some other reason. The then-clause is not a sufficient condition because it does not guarantee that anything happened. For the same reason, the if-clause is not a necessary condition because it doesn’t always have to happen when something else happens. Keep reading to learn about how to avoid confusing a necessary condition with a sufficient condition. Examples In the following sample conditional statements, the then-clause is bolded: If the sun spots continue to grow, then we will lose all our crops this year. If the car costs more than $2,000, don’t buy it with cash. (Note: The word “then” doesn’t need to be explicitly stated. The word “if” is enough to signal a sufficient condition in the first clause, so the second clause must be the necessary condition.) We can sell all our spiders if we clean out their cages. (Note: The sufficient condition doesn’t always come first! Again, focus on the word “if.”) Confusing Necessary with Sufficient This is one of the LSAT’s most common flaws, so make sure to learn it inside and out. Now that you understand the difference between a sufficient condition and a necessary condition, you should be able to spot instances when an argument confuses the two. The names “sufficient” and “necessary” are important because most people think about if-clauses incorrectly. Consider the following silly if-then statement: If you eat at Chipotle, then you will get a special tax credit. What do you need to do to get that “special tax credit”? If your gut reaction is “eat at Chipotle,” you’re not alone, but you’re misinterpreting the word “need.” Eating at Chipotle is the sufficient condition—eating there guarantees that you’ll get the special tax credit. But is that the only way to get the credit? Eating at Chipotle might be the only way to get the credit, but there could be any number of other ways. Maybe you can get the credit by eating at McDonald’s or by just calling the IRS. There is not enough information in the argument to know. All you know for sure is that eating at Chipotle is one guaranteed way of getting the credit. So, what do you need to do to get the credit? The short answer is that it’s unknown. The rule doesn’t tell us what’s necessary to get the tax credit. It tells us only what is sufficient to get that credit. Eating at Chipotle is sufficient for getting the tax credit. But the reverse is not necessarily true. Eating at Chipotle might not be necessary for getting the credit. You might be able to get the credit some other way. If you initially answered “eat at Chipotle” to the question above, you mistakenly turned the sufficient condition into a necessary condition. Known Unknowns When faced with a conditional statement, it’s important to be as aware of what you don’t know as you are of what you do know. What you do know: You know what is sufficient to trigger the necessary clause (eating at Chipotle is enough to get the credit). You know the guaranteed result (getting the tax credit) of the sufficient clause (eating at Chipotle). What you don’t know: You don’t know what is sufficient to trigger the sufficient clause. Try to fill in the blank: “If ____, then you will eat at Chipotle.” You can’t! There might not even be a sufficient condition for eating at Chipotle. If you tried to fill the blank with “you get a special tax credit,” you mistakenly turned the necessary condition into the sufficient condition. You don’t know what is necessary to trigger the necessary clause. Try to fill in the blank: “If you get a special tax credit, then ____.” Again, you can’t fill in this blank! If you tried to say, “you ate at Chipotle,” you mistakenly turned the sufficient condition into the necessary condition. Want to learn more about this topic? Watch Ben discuss the difference between sufficient and necessary here. Pop Quiz Using the rule below, answer each question: If you sell your soul to a big law firm, then you will wallow in misery. What is a sufficient condition for wallowing in misery? What is a necessary condition for wallowing in misery? What is a sufficient condition for selling your soul to a big law firm? What is a necessary condition for selling your soul to a big law firm? Which clause—if-clause or then-clause—is necessary for the other clause? Which clause—if-clause or then-clause—needs the other clause to happen? Answers: Selling your soul to a big law firm. This condition is a sufficient condition because if it happens, then you will definitely wallow in misery. (In the real world, of course, this is not true for every attorney—just, well, the vast majority.) We don’t know. The rule never says what is “necessary” for wallowing in misery; it only tells you what is “sufficient” for such wallowing. The if-clause is a sufficient condition. And although it could be a necessary condition as well, you simply don’t know because there might be other ways to get yourself to wallow in misery. We don’t know. The rule never says what is “sufficient” for selling your soul to a big law firm; it only tells you what is “necessary” for such a sale. The then-clause is a necessary condition. And although it could be a sufficient condition as well, you simply don’t know because the fact that you’re wallowing in misery does not guarantee that you sold (or will sell) your soul to a big law firm. Maybe your significant other just broke up with you after saying, “It’s not you. It’s me.” Wallowing in misery. This condition is a necessary condition because it has to happen if you sell your soul to a big law firm, at least according to this rule. Then. The then-clause is a necessary condition. It has to happen if the if-clause happens. The if-clause, however, doesn’t have to happen if the then-clause happens. If. This is tricky. Because the if-clause guarantees that the then-clause will happen, it needs the then-clause to happen. If you eat at Chipotle, then you have to get that credit. If you don’t get that credit, there’s no way that you could have eaten at Chipotle. The then-clause, however, doesn’t need the if-clause to happen. You could get the tax credit some other way.
Congratulations, you’ve completed your first practice LSAT. There are 90-something more of them available. Most students will do at least 10 tests before they’re ready for their first crack at the real thing. (Many students will do 20 tests, or 40 tests, or more.) You’ve dipped your toe in very big water. Nice job! Let’s start by talking about what your diagnostic test is not. Your diagnostic, no matter how high, is not a guarantee of success in law school or in a legal career. My own diagnostic was right around 170. This indicates an aptitude for the LSAT, for sure. But I was miserable in, and sucked at, law school. I was never cut out to be a lawyer, despite my high LSAT diagnostic. Your diagnostic, no matter how low, is not a limitation on your potential. It does not indicate that the school of your dreams is impossible. It does not preclude you from getting a full-ride scholarship. Your diagnostic is not grounds for discouragement. Students can improve by 10 or 20—sometimes even 30—points from their initial score. Your diagnostic, critically, tells us nothing about your capacity for work. Work ethic is handsomely rewarded on the LSAT, in law school, and in legal practice. Your LSAT diagnostic is just a snapshot, one single data point. It tells us nothing about what gains you might achieve if you work your ass off—which you will if you were ever meant to be a lawyer in the first place. Your diagnostic is not an excuse to immediately do another practice test, pulling the lever on the LSAT slot machine in hopes of a different result. Students who “study” this way, hammering test after test after test, don’t actually learn anything. It’s magical thinking and a waste of time. Okay, so what is it then? Your LSAT diagnostic is an extremely useful jumping-off point. It’s a critical first step. The benefits are manifold. Your diagnostic is the first in a long line of data points that will allow you to track your progress over time. If you follow my advice, there’s near-limitless upside from here. The LSAT Demon will keep track of your progress automatically. Do all your tests in the Demon if you’re a subscriber. If you’re not studying in the Demon, use a spreadsheet. It will be gratifying to see your scores improve over time. Your diagnostic gives you a glimpse of your strengths and weaknesses. Most students need to work on all three sections of the test—Logic Games, Logical Reasoning, and Reading Comprehension. If you have a glaring weakness in one of the sections, you’ll want to spend more of your study time on that section. No shit, right? Yeah, but you wouldn’t even have known about that weakness if you had not done a diagnostic test. So congratulations on sucking it up and doing your first practice test. We can make progress from here. Your diagnostic, most importantly, offers jumping-off points for improvement. Every mistake you’ve made is a golden opportunity to understand more of the test. Why is the answer you chose wrong? Why is the right answer, the one you didn’t choose, right? The LSAT repeats itself. Certain flawed patterns of reasoning, like confusing sufficient for necessary, show up on every test. If you missed any of those questions on your diagnostic, you need to figure out why—otherwise you’ll miss them again next time. I can’t stress this enough: Go deeper on each mistake. The LSAT makes perfect sense, and the vast majority of your mistakes at this early juncture come from simply not reading carefully enough. But Nathan, what does score X mean, really? First, please stop asking this question. Instead of focusing on your 120–180 score, you need to ask about individual LSAT questions that you failed to solve correctly. (By the way, I love the word “solve” in reference to the LSAT. The test makes perfect sense, and the correct answers are right there on the page. When you miss a question, you have failed to do the work of a lawyer and figure that shit out. You should expect to solve each question. When you can’t solve a question, you should figure out why. That’s where your teachers can really help—tell them what you don’t understand, so they can help you!) If you really must ask, “What does this score mean?” it doesn’t mean that much. But in broad strokes, it does indicate something about your level of understanding: If you’re scoring anywhere in the 120s, it means you’re understanding almost nothing. You’re sitting there for 35 minutes—or 53 or 70 if you’re accommodated—thinking you’re doing the questions, but you’re really not. If you’re scoring anywhere in the 120s you are adding almost zero value for the time you’re spending. Random guesses would lead to the same result. At this level, you need to slow way, way down and start getting the first five questions in each section right. If you solve just the first five questions and randomly guess on the rest, you should see your practice tests break into the 130s immediately. If you’re scoring anywhere in the 130s, you’re starting to understand some of the questions—you can’t score in the 130s via random guessing—but you’re still not understanding very much. Students at this level have no business doing any question higher than number 15 in each section. In fact, you should probably reach only question number 10 or so. If you solve just the first 10 questions and randomly guess on the rest, you should break into the 140s. If you’re scoring in the 140s, you’re starting to understand the easy ones. Keep focusing on accuracy. Get the first 15 in each section correct and you should break into the 150s. In the 150s, you’re getting most of the easy ones and some of the harder ones. But you still have no business trying to finish the section. Focus on accuracy on the first 15–20 questions in each section until you reach the 160s. In the 160s, you’re getting almost all of the easy ones—and starting to realize that they’re all easy if you just slow down and carefully solve each one. You should still focus on accuracy, not speed, even at this level. If you can just nail the first 20 in a row on each section, you’ll already be in the 170s. In the 170s, you’re understanding that the LSAT makes perfect sense. You can’t half-ass your way to this score. You’ve realized that every question has one correct answer and four wrong answers. If you take your time, you can get every one right. At this level, you still don’t need to worry about speed. You just need to steadily solve each question, one at a time, while getting paid for your work. But Nathan, when should I start worrying about speed? Never. Lawyers don’t rush. If you focus on accuracy and think about solving each question before moving on, the test will get easier and easier. As that happens, you’ll steadily progress deeper into the sections without even trying. From here, all you need to do is carefully review every mistake you make. The test makes perfect sense, and we’re here to help you make sense of it. I promise I can show you how easy the LSAT can be. What do you think about this lesson? Email us at help@lsatdemon.com.
Get LSAT strategies in your inbox.
© 2024 LSAT Demon, LLCTerms of Service