Section 3, Question 17 of the June 2007 LSAT is easy if you argue, and impossible if you don’t. Let me show you what I mean:

When exercising the muscles in one’s back, it is important, in order to maintain a healthy back, to exercise the muscles on opposite sides of the spine equally.

Oh reeeeeeeeeallllllly?!?! You might be right about that, but you also might be completely full of shit. Maybe I like working out just one side of my back, and maybe my back is in perfect shape. What’s your evidence for your assertion that I need to exercise both sides equally? Huh buddy? Let’s hear it.

Continue reading ‘June 2007 LSAT, III, #17’ »

Section 3, Question 16 of the June 2007 LSAT contains an incomplete argument:

Philosopher:  Nations are not literally persons; they have no thoughts or feelings, and, literally speaking, they perform no actions. Thus they have no moral rights or responsibilities. But no nation can survive unless many of its citizens attribute such rights and responsibilities to it, for nothing else could prompt people to make the sacrifices national citizenship demands. Obviously, then, a nation _______.

It’s not an easy argument to swallow, so I’ll do my best to nibble at it piece by piece.  Continue reading ‘June 2007 LSAT, III, #16’ »

Section 3, Question 15 of the June 2007 LSAT presents this stinker of an argument:

A consumer magazine surveyed people who had sought a psychologist’s help with a personal problem. Of those responding who had received treatment for 6 months or less, 20 percent claimed that treatment “made things a lot better.” Of those responding who had received longer treatment, 36 percent claimed that treatment “made things a lot better.” Therefore, psychological treatment lasting more than 6 months is more effective than shorter-term treatment.

Ideally, you’ll be able to poke holes in this one before proceeding to the answer choices. This isn’t the only way to do the test, but it’s the best one. Can you tell me why the above argument is bullshit?

Continue reading ‘June 2007 LSAT, III, #15’ »

Section 3, Question 14 of the June 2007 LSAT is a reading comprehension question in disguise. The argument provided is a beast, and the first, most important thing to do here is simply to stay awake and pay attention. Ready?  Here it comes:

Continue reading ‘June 2007 LSAT, III, #14’ »

LSAT arguments frequently don’t make sense, but sometimes they can be made to make a bit more sense by rearranging them slightly. Section 3, Question 13 of the June 2007 LSAT is a good example. Here’s the argument as it was presented on the test:

Therapist: Cognitive psychotherapy focuses on changing a patient’s conscious beliefs. Thus, cognitive psychotherapy is likely to be more effective at helping patients overcome psychological problems than are forms of psychotherapy that focus on changing unconscious beliefs and desires, since only conscious beliefs are under the patient’s direct conscious control. 

That’s probably not how I would have structured my argument. Continue reading ‘June 2007 LSAT, III, #13’ »

Onward through the June 2007 LSAT. Section 3, Question 12 very simply asks us to identify the main conclusion of an argument. Like this:

Which one of the following most accurately expresses the conclusion drawn in the argument? 

Shouldn’t be too tough.

Continue reading ‘June 2007 LSAT, III, #12’ »

Section 3, Question #11, of the June 2007 LSAT presents yet another ridiculous argument. “Feathers from birds stuffed in the 1880s contain only half as much mercury as feathers recently taken from living birds, and mercury comes from fish, therefore today’s fish must have more mercury than they did in the old days.”

No, your results do not indicate what you think they indicate. STFU… I will be back to deal with you in a minute.

Continue reading ‘June 2007 LSAT, III, #11’ »

Onward through Section 3 of the June 2007 LSAT. Here, we’re presented with an incomplete argument. It basically says “people are more likely to change their mind about something they dislike if they are linked in advertisements with pictures, rather than just prose, to things about which they have positive attitudes.  Therefore, advertisers are likely to ________.”

The question says “Which one of the following most logically completes the argument.” So our task is to fill in the blank. Hmm. Let’s think for a second. What’s something people dislike? Well, some people dislike Obama. Others dislike Romney. So what would an advertiser do, if he was trying to change your mind? Fairly straightforward, according to the argument above. All you have to do is this:

Continue reading ‘June 2007 LSAT, III, #10’ »

I hope you’re not tired of reading it, because I’m not going to stop saying it: You must argue with the speaker, and you must try to predict these answers in advance. The arguments are largely bullshit, and your job is always to figure out why they are bullshit. You must cultivate an adversarial attitude. Put a chip on your shoulder, and try your best to disagree with the speaker.

Continue reading ‘June 2007 LSAT, III, #9 — or, Curt Schilling is a douche’ »

If there’s any Logical Reasoning question that should teach you how to properly call “bullshit,” it’s this one. The key is the very first word:  “Advertisement.” If you can’t learn to argue with ads–which everyone knows and expects to be bullshit–you simply might not be cut out to be a lawyer. You must argue!

Continue reading ‘June 2007 LSAT, III, #8’ »