Most LSAT books tend to define “sufficient” by using the word “necessary,” and then define the word “necessary” by using the word “sufficient.” This is shitty teaching, plain and simple, because a student would never be able to understand one term without already understanding the other term. Don’t worry, this concept is a lot easier than you might think. It’s really just common sense.
Just got a frightening alert from one of my LSAT students. Please spread the word if you know anybody taking the June 2013 LSAT!
You may want to tell your students to check their LSAC accounts frequently. I just logged on to mine, and found out I had been unregistered for the LSAT. Luckily it was an LSAC mistake and I was able to re-register. I wouldn’t want that to happen to someone else and have them not realize until it’s too late!
Wow. Thank God this student was on top of things.
My sixth excerpt from “Introducing the LSAT” talks about a huge difference between LSAT experts and LSAT novices. Folks who are bad at the test usually spend way too much time comparing all five answer choices against one another. It’s an understandable mistake… the answer choices have to be a good place to look for the answer, right? Well, not really.
No matter what type of question you’re looking at on the LSAT’s Logical Reasoning, it’s critical that you argue with what you’re reading. But that’s only half the battle. Once you’ve argued with the speaker, and made sure you’ve comprehended what they’re saying, it’s critical to figure out what kind of question you’re dealing with. There’s no point in looking at the answers until you know what you’re looking for.
Commandment Four is the second-most valuable thing I can teach you about the Logic Games… the critical importance of answering the questions with 100% certainty.
Commandment Three is the most important thing I can teach you about the LSAT’s Logic Games. If you’d just do this one thing, I am certain that your scores on the Games would dramatically improve.