“If given the opportunity to do it all over again, would they?”

That’s the key issue in Ann Levine’s second book, The Law School Decision Game.  For many lawyers, the answer is yes.  But for many others—myself included—the answer is a resounding no. If I had read this book before attending law school, I wouldn’t currently be $150,000 in debt.

Read more »

Larkin Robson is a a fellow “boutique” LSAT teacher in New York City. I’m writing about him today because he’s just posted an amazing offer on his website.

On April 15, Larkin is going to announce a winner of a $2,000 one-on-one tutoring package. If you’re in New York, you can do this tutoring face to face with Larkin. But if you’re anywhere else in the country–San Francisco students, this means you–you can use Skype.

No matter where you are in your preparation process, this package is too good not to apply for. The application criteria are posted on Larkin’s site. I don’t see a deadline, but I’m guessing it’s on or about April 14.

Larkin is a great teacher and a great guy, so if you’re looking for help in NYC, he’s your man. Support small / local business!

I went to journalism school (M.A. Northeastern, 2004), which is a great way to turn yourself into a curmudgeon who can’t read anything without criticizing it. Which, in turn, is an almost ideal way to turn yourself into a badass on the LSAT’s Logical Reasoning. Anyway, I just read this “news” story, which seriously sucked in my opinion:

Harvard Cheaper Than Cal State (nbcbayarea.com)

Go ahead and read it, and ARGUE as you read. What’s the conclusion of the argument? What’s the evidence that supposedly backs up that conclusion? See any assumptions? See any flaws? How would you weaken this argument? How would you strengthen it? Go ahead, I’ll wait.

Read more »

Onward through the June 2007 LSAT. Section 3, number 7 presents a conversation between two people, Antonio and Maria. The question asks “Antonio and Maria disagree over,” so the task here is to figure out what Antonio and Maria are really fighting about. Are they fighting about the evidence? If so, which part of the evidence? Or do they agree about the evidence, but disagree about what that evidence means, i.e., the conclusion? Let’s see.

Read more »

Section 3, #6, of the June 2007 LSAT is about a car dealer who donates cars to driver education programs “because she wanted to do something to encourage better driving in young drivers.” This is just about the biggest load of bullshit I have ever heard. Car dealers do things for one reason, and one reason only: TO SELL MORE CARS. As it turns out, huge shocker, “some members of the community have shown their support for this action by purchasing cars from Jablonski’s dealership.” What a bunch of suckers.

calworthington.com -- you have to see it to believe it

Read more »

Just ARGUE. That’s all you have to do.

The conclusion in Question #5, Section 3 of the June 2007 LSAT is “the ants were not bringing food to their neighbors.” The evidence is “the ants were emptying their own colony’s dumping site.” The problem with this logic is that it’s possible that the ants were feeding their garbage to their neighbors.

That’s nasty, but it’s possible. If it were true, the argument would make no sense. Since I’ve identified the huge hole in the argument, I’ve already answered the question–even though I haven’t seen what the question actually asks yet.

Read more »

My LSAT classes and private seminars are heavily question-driven. Students can ask whatever they want, and I do my best to answer. I’ve always gotten a ton of questions that range away from the LSAT and toward the broader law school application process. (After all, the only reason to take the LSAT is to go to law school.) So I realized early on that my job wasn’t just LSAT preparation. It’s also to help people make good decisions about where to apply, when to apply, what to include in the application, and what offers to accept.

To that end, I just added a new book to my class curriculum. It’s called The Law School Admission Game, written by Ann Levine, former Director of Admissions at two law schools. I blew through it over the past two days–it’s a great read–and I decided immediately to give it to all my students from this point forward. It fills a huge hole in what’s offered by most LSAT prep programs, and I’m proud to offer it as part of my classes. In this post, I’ll give my thoughts (overwhelmingly positive, with a couple quibbles) about the book. But if you’re applying to law school you really should just buy yourself a copy, which you can do here:

I promise you’ll be very happy you did.

Read more »

Yesterday, I discussed one specific type of Assumption question–the “Sufficient Assumption.” Today, I’ll switch gears and talk about Necessary Assumptions. Warning: I’m going to use math again. And once again, if you passed third grade you’re going to do just fine.

This nerd is happy because he pre-emptively wedgied himself before school.

Read more »

Question #4, Section 3 of the June 2007 LSAT mentions motivational posters, which made me think of the far-more-awesome de-motivational poster, so I figured I’d make a de-motivational poster for my LSAT students. I proudly present you with this:

Which dude would you rather be?

Read more »

Onward through Game Three of the June 2007 LSAT. Here’s our setup for this Game.

Question #12 says “Which one of the following CANNOT be true about Freedom‘s schedule of voyages?” So the question is telling us that the four incorrect answers could be true. The single, correct answer must be false.

There’s really no way to predict this one in advance, because I haven’t been given any new information to work with. Instead, I’m just going to tackle the answer choices and see which one seems like it would be a problem.
 

The best example of "problem" you can find when you're too cheap to pay for stock photography.

Read more »