Yesterday, I offered a definition of the word “assumption” using a very simplistic mathematical example. Today, I’m going to dig a bit deeper into the Assumption category by using another super-simple bit of math. Don’t panic! If you passed third grade, you’ve seen this math before.

If this kiss-ass can understand it, then so can you.

Read more »

Carolyn makes no conclusion, but she implies one. If it’s true that Marc Quinn has put DNA fragments behind glass and called it a “portrait” of Sir John, and if it’s also true that to be a portrait, something must bear a recognizable resemblance to its subject, then it’s a short leap to “DNA doesn’t look like Sir John, therefore Marc Quinn’s ‘portrait’ is not actually a portrait.”

Arnold disagrees. He calls the work a “maximally realistic portrait.” His rationale is that “it holds actual instructions” for creating Sir John.

Okay, so what have these two disagreed about? Make sure you make a prediction before looking at the answer choices. (By the way, we’re on Section 3, #3, of the  June 2007 LSAT.)

Read more »

I came up with this example today while working with a private tutoring student. Consider the following argument:

A equals two. B equals two. Therefore, A plus B equals four.

Sounds pretty good, right? Yeah, I think so too. But believe it or not, for LSAT purposes, something’s missing. That missing piece is called an assumption.

Read more »

In my last post I created a setup for the third Game in the  June 2007 LSAT. I didn’t make any huge brilliant inferences, but that’s okay… I don’t need to crush every game in order to finish four games in 35 minutes. I did crush Game 1, and I did well on Game 2. So if Game 3 ends up taking me a little longer, that’s okay. I have plenty of time in the bank.

Question 11 is a list question, which will enable me to check to make sure I understand all the rules properly. What I’m going to do here is test all the rules, in order, to eliminate answer choices. After testing all the rules, if I’ve done it correctly, I should be left with one and only one answer. If I am left with two answers, or if I eliminate all five answers, then that means I don’t understand something properly. So I’m going to use this question to my advantage, to doublecheck that I’m on the right track.

Read more »

Onward with the most learnable section of the LSAT–the Logic Games. Take a couple deep breaths if this section is currently causing you panic. Everyone can improve on this section. Yes, it’s the most frequently tanked section. But it’s also the most frequently crushed section. I recently had a student get three questions correct on the Logic Games on her first diagnostic LSAT–and by the end of the 8-week class, the student was scoring perfectly (22 to 24 questions correct). It’s simply not possible to improve by 20 points on any other section. It’ll take some practice, but the payoff will be huge. We can do this.

Also: Don’t try to run before you can walk. The earlier games in any section tend to be the easier games. So before you tackle Game 3, you probably want to make sure you understand Game 1 and Game 2.

Read more »

Section 3 of the June 2007 LSAT offers a mystery:  Why the hell would Jimmy’s gas bills increase after installing a new, “highly efficient” gas water heater? Seems like his gas bills should go down, right? Well, no. Not necessarily. Not if you’re arguing properly.

Read more »

It’s been a while since I’ve done a Logical Reasoning explanation on this blog. Over the past month or so, I’ve been working on Logic Games, Frequently Asked Questions, and LSAT Fundamentals. If you can believe it, I realized that I actually missed writing about Logical Reasoning. It’s fun for me! See if you can have fun with it as well–it certainly can’t hurt your score.

Section III of the June 2007 LSAT starts off with a novelty. (I’ve done many thousands of LSAT questions, but I’m not sure I’ve ever seen one exactly like this before.)

Read more »

Having answered all the questions in Game 2 of the June 2007 LSAT, a few final notes:

1)  This game was a bit harder than Game 1. On average, the first game in any section of Logic Games is the easiest, and each subsequent game is harder (sometimes a little harder, sometimes a lot harder) than the last. (This is true on average–occasionally a section will throw you a curveball, but most of the time it’s true. Trust me, I’ve done every section of games that’s ever been released.) This implies two things:

Read more »

Final question in Game 2 of the June 2007 LSAT. Here’s the basic setup for the game. Question 10 asks “If Limelight is shown exactly three times, Harvest is shown exactly twice, and Greed is shown exactly once, then which one of the following is a complete and accurate list of the films that could be shown on Thursday?”

Since the question is giving me new information, I’m going to answer this one just like I did Question 8 and Question 9–I’m going to make a new diagram.

Read more »

Onward through Game 2 of the June 2007 LSAT.  Last week, I created a setup for the game. Question 9 adds three new rules that apply only for this question: 1) Greed is shown exactly three times; 2) Harvest is shown exactly twice; 3) Limelight is shown exactly once. The question asks “Which one of the following must be true” but I’ll start with the new rules before looking at the answer choices.

Read more »