LSAT Blogs

In any Reading Comprehension passage, it’s vital to keep an eye out for the author’s opinion. Stated opinions will often be used for main point and inference questions. However, there are some questions that concentrate more on the author’s tone than the content itself.

These questions, which typically ask for the author’s attitude, are a nuisance to many test takers. However, they can be more easily managed by utilizing one of the fundamental strategies of Reading Comprehension: locating keywords. Words such as "sadly," "fortunately," and "helpful" give explicit clues to the author’s feeling on any given subject. While reading the passage, these words should stand out to test takers, who should then underline or circle them for later reference. This will make the tone easier to discover, turning author attitude questions from undesired challenges to quick, welcome points.

Here are three examples taken from recent exams that will hopefully shed some light on how to answer these questions:

*One passage included a question asking for the author’s attitude toward a particular philosophy. A quick glance at the first paragraph turns up a claim that the philosophy’s followers have a point of view that "appears unnecessarily narrow." Right away, that opinionated comment knocks out answers that suggest "neutrality" and "ambivalence." Also, the negative vibe gets rid of the answer that suggests "respect." Once the author makes a more formal argument later (using a "however" to start the contrasting opinion), out goes "thoughtless disregard," leaving "reasoned dismissal" as the correct answer.

*Another passage included a question that tries to exaggerate the author’s view – a classic trap that should be anticipated. In the passage, the author describes a new discovery as "medically significant because it raises the possibility" of treatments. The author then discusses how it "could potentially help." Possibility? Potentially? Those are qualified terms. So, when the question asks about the author’s attitude toward that discovery, the answer suggesting that the author is "certain" that benefits "will be realized" should be recognized as too extreme. Instead, the answer that touts "optimism" about "potential applications" is more in line with the author’s positive, but not entirely certain, outlook.

*A third passage discusses a particular method of teaching. Starting off with an "although," the author admits that the method "can be valuable." However, as is expected with the word "although," there’s another side to the story. The author goes on to bemoan that the method "contributes little" to students’ understanding. Despite the author’s ultimately negative stance, the mere mention of the potential value immediately eliminates all three answers that suggest the author disapproves of "all of its effects." And since the author clearly has an opinion, "clinical indifference" doesn’t work either. That leaves the one answer that mentions the author’s "partial disapproval of the method" and the "partial approval of some of its effects."

"I can usually narrow down the answers to two choices. Then, I always pick the wrong one."

If this sounds like something you say, you’re not alone. This is one of the most frequent complaints among test takers. The good news is that your performance on these questions is better than you might think. The great news is that there are ways to approach this situation to further improve your odds of getting those questions right.

Let’s start off by understanding why this perception is often flawed. To help, let’s present it as a Logical Reasoning argument:

In reviewing the questions she got wrong on a recent LSAT, a student observed that, on 90% of those questions, she had the answers narrowed down to two choices – the correct answer and the incorrect answer. She concluded that, when she was able to narrow down the answers to two choices, she usually chose the incorrect answer.

So, what’s the flaw? The LSAT would possibly word it as so: the student fails to consider the number of questions she got correct when she was able to narrow down the answers.

Since students are usually so focused on reviewing their wrong answers, they tend to overlook all of those 50-50 questions they actually answer correctly. If you review your entire exam, rather than just the questions you get wrong, you may be surprised that you’re doing better on those questions than you might expect.

What’s more important though is this: how can you get even more of those questions correct? The answer involves attacking the answers from a different angle. Most people view the two remaining answers as two good answers; one is just better than the other. This is the wrong way to view them. The correct way is that, of those two remaining answers, one is correct and the other is wrong – explicably, demonstrably wrong.

Stop trying to convince yourself that one answer is better than the other. Instead, focus on looking for common LSAT wrong answer traps. Is one of the answers a little too extreme? Then it’s wrong. Does one of the answers approach the logic of the argument backwards? Then it’s wrong. Does one of the answers use the author’s words, but not quite in the way the author used them? Then it’s wrong.

If the two answers you’re left with are remarkably similar, look for the subtle difference. Usually, the one or two words that differ will break the wrong answer. If one answer says "people need…" and the other says "people can use…," then eliminate the one that isn’t consistent with the author’s tone.

No matter what, stop looking for the best answer. Instead, change your approach and start recognizing the many different ways the LSAT has to create subtle wrong answers. By developing an eye for these patterns, you should start to miss fewer 50-50 questions.

A vast majority of questions in the Logic Games section ask for basic information such as "which of the following must be true?" or "which of the following could be false?" However, once in a while, the LSAT throws a curveball and asks a question that requires extra analysis to determine how to answer it. Here are two such examples (disguised a little so as not to spoil the games should you come across them in your practice):

1.) The ranking of the participants is completely determined if which one of the following is true?

The rules of any logic game will never provide a complete picture of the end result. A question like this is looking for one additional piece of information that will provide a definitive solution to the game. If you add an answer to the rules and something is still uncertain, then the answer is wrong.

For this question, let’s say we’re asked to rank five participants (A, B, C, D, E) in order of their performance in a race, and are given these three rules:

* A is ranked immediately higher than B.
* B is ranked second highest.
* C is ranked higher than D.

We know that B is ranked second highest. By the first rule, that makes A ranked highest. However, we’re still not entirely certain about C, D and E. We need something that would confirm their rankings.

If an answer said that C is also ranked higher than E, then we’d know that C is ranked third highest, but we still wouldn’t know if D ranks higher than E or vice versa. That answer would be incorrect. However, if an answer said that C is ranked lower than E, then we would know that the last three participants would be ranked E (third highest), then C (fourth highest) then D (lowest). The rankings would be definite, making this the correct answer.

2.) Which of the following could replace [a specified rule] and produce the same effect in determining the ordering of the participants?

It’s not entirely uncommon for the last question in a logic game to remove one of initial rules and replace it with a new rule. This question adds a new twist to the concept by asking us to provide the new rule – one that will result in same exact setup we had with the old rule. Basically, it boils down to figuring out which entities were impacted by the initial rule and finding a new rule that will impact those entities in the exact same way.

For example, let’s go back to ordering the five participants we talked about above. Say the question asked: Which of the following could replace the rule that B was ranked second highest and produce the same effect in determining the ordering of the participants? This removes the second rule which affects the direct placement of B and, in effect, the placement of A. The correct answer would have to re-establish both entities in the positions we had determined. So, an answer that claimed A was the highest ranked participant would do the trick. That would re-place A as the highest ranked participant. Then, in conjunction with the first given rule, B would be re-placed as the second highest participant.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

When you come across questions like these, it’s usually a good idea to make them the last questions you tackle in the game. They can be more time consuming, so stick to the standard questions first and solidify as many points as you can. However, when you come back to these questions at the end, take a few seconds to truly understand what’s being asked of you. If you approach it strategically, you can earn another point without getting rankled by an anomaly.

The Logical Reasoning section of the LSAT contains a number of frequently repeated argumentative structures. One of the most common involves an author using the given evidence to reach a definitive conclusion without considering alternative factors. Here’s an example of such an argument:

Last night, I planted a bed of roses in my front yard. This morning, I noticed that the roses had been dug up and spread around the yard. My next-door neighbors have a dog that enjoys digging up flowers, so it must have been their dog that dug up my new roses.

In this argument, the author discovers a possible factor in the flowery destruction: a dog with a penchant for digging up flowers. While it sounds like a reasonable explanation, the author unfairly concludes that this "must" be the only explanation. Such extreme wording often indicates that the author has failed to consider alternative possibilities – and that’s certainly true in this case.

With this kind of argument, there are a lot of questions the LSAT could ask. For starters, the LSAT could ask you what the "error in reasoning" is or what makes the argument "vulnerable to criticism." In these questions, you merely have to point out the flaw. The answer could be presented in a fairly straightforward manner (e.g., the author fails to consider that some other animal could be responsible for digging up the roses) or may be dressed up in slightly abstract wording (e.g., the author treats one possible explanation for a particular occurrence as if it were the only explanation for that occurrence).

The LSAT could also ask you to weaken or undermine the argument. Since we know that the author is overlooking possible alternatives, a quick way to weaken the argument is by offering another explanation. For example, a correct answer may suggest that the author lives next to another neighbor who owns a rabbit known for digging up flowers.

Finding the correct flaw or identifying information that could weaken the argument stems from recognizing the author’s primary assumption: that the neighbor’s dog is the only animal that could be responsible for the roses being dug up. This assumption is just one more piece of information the LSAT could ask for. However, like with flaw questions, you have to be prepared for multiple variations on wording the correct answer. On less difficult questions, the assumption could be written clearly (e.g., no other animal could have dug up the roses). On more difficult questions, the correct answer could consider a specific alternative and deny the possibility of that alternative happening (e.g., the property surrounding the author’s home is not inhabited by gophers, which are known for digging up flowers).

These answers are the most difficult to spot because they often bring up information that wasn’t provided in the original argument. It wouldn’t be unusual for your first reaction to be, where did the gophers come from? The argument was talking about a dog! However, if the author’s home was near flower-digging gophers, that would weaken the argument by providing a possible alternative explanation. Therefore, the author must assume that these gophers aren’t in the area.

As you study for the LSAT, you will come across many arguments in which the author overlooks alternative explanations. The more easily you recognize them, the more efficiently you’ll be able to answer the questions based on those arguments. Also, remember to be flexible when evaluating the answer choices; the LSAT can present you the correct answer in many different ways.

Ideally, every person who takes the LSAT goes into the testing center, takes the test, and leaves feeling confident that great results will follow. However, it’s inevitable that some test takers will succumb to the pressure of Test Day and walk away feeling anxious and uncertain.

The LSAC offers test takers the opportunity to cancel their scores. Before making that decision, one should know a few facts about canceled scores:

1.) If you choose to cancel a score, nobody will ever know your actual results on that test – not law schools, not the LSAC, not even you. It will be as if you never took it.

2.) You’re only allowed to take the LSAT three times in any two-year period. Even though you won’t get a score if you cancel, it still counts as an exam taken. So, you will only be allowed to take the exam twice over the next two years (unless you contact a law school that is willing to send a written approval to the LSAC on your behalf).

3.) While admissions officers won’t see your score, they will still see a note in your file indicating that you took the exam and canceled the score. In some cases, schools will request that you provide an addendum to your application explaining the canceled score.

Knowing all of that, how do you decide whether or not to cancel? Cancellation should typically be an obvious decision. If something drastic happens on test day (e.g., severe illness), cancellation is a clear option. When it’s not as obvious, the decision can get a little harder. However, a good general rule is that the more uncertain you are about canceling your score, the less likely it is that you should choose that option.

The anxiety of Test Day tends to skew people’s assessment of their performance. Often times, people will feel as if they performed inadequately when, in reality, they performed just as well – if not better – than they originally expected. It’s true that the stress of Test Day leads many test takers to receive slightly lower scores than they achieved on their final practice exams. However, that’s hardly a universal occurrence and one that is very hard to predict with certainty.

What’s more important to consider, should you decide to retake the exam, is how a relatively lower score differs from a canceled score in the eyes of admissions officers. Also, do the admissions officers consider your highest score or do they average your scores? The answers to these questions vary from school to school. Your best course of action is to contact the admissions officers of the schools to which you’re applying and ask these questions. That information will be most helpful in making your final decision.

After all, let’s say a school considers the higher of two scores (which is reportedly the case with most, but not all, law schools). In that case, if there’s even a chance you’ll get the score you wanted, then it’s not worth canceling. If you get the score you wanted, you’ve taken the test once and you’re done. If you don’t get the score you wanted, you can take the next few months to study again and go into the next test confident that you’re going to get an even higher score, which is what the school will be considering.

One last thing to consider: if you choose not to cancel your score and you took the test under standard conditions, your test results will come with a copy of the exam along with your response sheet and a list of the credited responses. By not canceling your score, you’ll be able to review the test and see what mistakes you made. This way, if you do decide to take the exam a second time, you’ll be able to analyze what you could do better and how you can achieve the highest score possible the next time around.

Test Day is right around the corner! This is when tensions get high and the pressure of taking the exam can start to take its toll on test takers. That stress, however, can only impede your final preparations. That being said, here are a few don’ts to avoid as game day approaches.

1. Don’t take a full-length exam every day from now until the day before the test.

This leaves less time for a more analytical approach to studying. Simply taking exams and looking at the scores will do little to improve your performance. Instead, you need to spend time reviewing each test you take to understand what you did wrong and what you need to do to get better. Without that understanding, your score is unlikely to get better on the next test.

Even if you do review your test every day, that’s still about six or more hours of studying in one day. That can get exhausting and potentially lead to burnout. Plus, it leaves little or no time to focus on practicing on any specific concepts that troubled you on the exam. If you know what’s giving you trouble and you don’t take the time to work on it, then it’s probably going to give you trouble on the next exam, too.

You can’t always assume that problems will just fix themselves from one test to the next. That’s why you need to take an extra day or two between tests to work on concepts individually – whether it be specific question types or improving pacing within one particular section.

2. Don’t work on only the most challenging questions.

The more challenging the questions, the more likely you are to get those questions wrong. Sure, it’s great when you get those questions right. However, getting them wrong is still frustrating – even if they are more difficult. And, if you get too many wrong, you lose sight of what’s important – all the questions you would get right.

You have to remember that your score is dependent on getting questions right, not just getting hard questions right. If you focus only on the stuff giving you trouble, you’ll have a hard time building momentum and you’re more likely to enter the test discouraged about your weaknesses rather than encouraged by all the progress you’ve made. Spend some time reviewing your strengths and make sure that you end your studying on a positive note. Nobody wants to go into Test Day having blown the last question in practice.

3. Don’t study hard the day before the test.

It’s okay to take some time early in the day to get in some last minute review or work on a few strengths to give yourself a confidence boost. However, by the time dinner is done, the books should be hidden and all you should be worried about is making sure you have everything you need for day ahead – your pencils, your admissions ticket, directions, etc. Don’t let the day before the test be stressful in any way, shape or form. Relax. You’ve put in a lot of hard work. Let it all pay off with a great score the next day.

Good luck to everyone taking the exam. And, on behalf of all Kaplan instructors, please e-mail us after you’ve taken the exam and when you get your scores back. We really look forward to hearing from all of you.

One of the most common complaints about the LSAT is the perceived lack of time to complete a section. This is especially true for Reading Comprehension. Many test takers cite being a "slow reader" as the reason it’s so difficult to complete all four passages.

However, the key to success in Reading Comprehension has nothing to do with being able to read quickly. Instead, mastering Reading Comprehension depends on reading strategically. That means reading with a purpose: to actively find the most important information – the kind of information the LSAT will ask questions about. Ultimately, that results in more correct answers and a higher score.

The most important information will often be indicated by certain keywords – words that provide structure to the passage. When reading strategically, it’s a good idea to underline or circle these words to make important statements stand out. It also helps to make a note in the margin so that you can find that piece of information later should a question ask about it. For example, if you find a phrase that indicates the author’s main point, circle the appropriate keyword and make a note in the margin that reads, "Author’s point."

The trouble a lot of test takers have is underlining too much or highlighting the wrong words. Take this sample sentence:

  *The results of the experiment indicate that, contrary to traditional scientific theories,
   hepadnaviruses are capable of replicating after mutation.

If you had to underline one word in the entire sentence, what would it be? Replicating? Experiment? Hepadnaviruses? While some of these are okay to note, none of them really indicate the structure of the passage or give any indication why this particular sentence is so important. The real keyword is "contrary." Consider what would happen if you removed that middle phrase from the sentence:

  *The results of the experiment indicate that hepadnaviruses are capable of
   replicating after mutation.

So what? These viruses can replicate. Why do we care? It just seems like some random result of some random experiment. However, compare that to the previous version. In that sentence, the phrase "contrary to traditional scientific theories" tells us why this result is so important and why we want to pay attention to that sentence. This is not just some ordinary run-of-the-mill result; this is a result that goes against the theories that scientists have traditionally adhered to.

In fact, once you recognize this as important, wouldn’t you be less surprised (and more prepared) for a question like this:

  "The passage most supports which one of the following about traditional theories
   of hepadnaviruses."

Being prepared to answer questions more efficiently is what reading strategically is all about. Keep practicing and it will get easier.

Given a statement in "if X, then Y" format, most people are perfectly comfortable writing it down in shorthand (X → Y) and forming the contrapositive (No Y → No X). However, there’s one formal logic keyword that distracts and confuses more test takers than any other: unless.

While some people continually struggle with "if" vs. "only if" (remember, "if" indicates a sufficient condition; "only if" indicates a necessary condition), "unless" is a virtually universal stumper. However, like with any concept on the LSAT, dealing with this issue comes down to understanding it.

To help, let’s use an analogy from the world of politics: Unless you were born in the United States, you cannot become President of the United States.

So, what does that mean? Just like on the LSAT, the word "unless" indicates a necessary condition; a person needs to be born in the United States. What is that necessary for? It’s necessary to be the president. However, does being born in the United States guarantee one becoming president? Of course not.

Remember that necessary conditions are just that – necessary. They will not guarantee results. However, what happens if a person was not born in the U.S.? That guarantees something: that person cannot be president. So, how does this translate into formal logic? Like so:

Not born in U.S. → Not president
President → Born in the U.S.

Many people will offer the following quick tip: cross out the word "unless" and replace it with "if not." Then, start with that "if not" and go from there. It works perfectly because you’re negating the necessary condition. And when you don’t have the necessary condition, you can’t possibly have the condition for which it’s necessary.

Take one more quick example for practice: The television show will be canceled unless viewers draft a petition.

In this case, drafting a petition is necessary to save the television show, but even the best petition isn’t guaranteed to save it. However, change that "unless" to "if not," and you have a definite statement: if viewers don’t draft a petition, the show will be canceled. And, by the contrapositive: If the show is not canceled, then viewers must have drafted a position. (Note how drafting a petition is the necessary condition in this logic.)

Now, go find your hardest "unless" statement and don’t let it stump you again.

Anyone familiar with Kaplan’s Method for Logical Reasoning knows that we recommend reading the question stem before reading (or untangling, as we like to say) the stimulus. This isn’t just some arbitrary decision; it’s a reasoned recommendation that merits justification.

1. Many people who read the stimulus first will then read the question stem, realize what the question is looking for, and have to read the stimulus a second time to pick up anything they missed. That means reading up to a dozen or more lines of text twice. If you know the question ahead of time, you can read the stimulus just once, gather the information you need, and answer the question in less time.

2. When you read the stem first, you know what to expect and can attack the stimulus appropriately. For instance:

* "Undermine the argument"? The stimulus will have a full argument with a conclusion and supporting evidence, and you want to determine how you can make it worse.
* "What can be properly inferred"? Chances are there won’t be a conclusion — just a string of facts that you can combine to form logical deductions.
* "Resolve the paradox"? There will be information with an internal discrepancy that you’ll need to explain, rather than the standard evidence-conclusion argumentative structure.

When you know what you’re looking for, you can take a more strategic and ultimately more efficient approach to the stimulus.

3. Occasionally, the question stem comes with helpful information that makes it easier to recognize the answer. For example, there have been flaw questions that read "the argument is vulnerable to criticism because it ignores the possibility that." Without even reading the stimulus, you already know the flaw! Now you can read the stimulus looking for that overlooked alternative.

Some people complain that reading the stem first causes you to overlook important information in the stimulus because you’re too focused on finding specific information. However, complaints such as this frequently come from a misunderstanding of the method or from people unfamiliar with the reasoning behind the method. Knowing that you’re looking for a conclusion and back-up evidence is no excuse for ignoring critical keywords such as "however" or "despite." Reading the stem first is meant to provide guidance, not serve as a reason to ignore potentially vital information.

There’s a reason for every method Kaplan recommends. However, it’s up to each test-taker to understand how the method works and apply it properly.

The LSAT is a meticulously constructed exam that tests one’s ability to analyze arguments, follow rules of logic, and separate fact from opinion. The test includes 35 minutes devoted to playing games, reasoned cases showing the absurdity of illogical claims, and passages on topics ranging from artificial intelligence to mind-reading pigeons. How can you not love it?

Still, year after year, people study for this exam chanting an all-too-familiar mantra: "I hate this test." Unfortunately for these people, that line of thinking leads to frustration and, ultimately, an inability to perform well on the test. Lower performance leads to even more frustration, which leads to even lower performance. It’s a vicious cycle.

It’s time to drop this mentality. To borrow a line from the great Stanley Kubrick, it’s time we learned to stop worrying and love the LSAT. Accept the test for what it is: a fascinating exam that requires one to strip away knowledge in favor of pure, unadulterated logic. It’s that kind of unbiased thinking that will make people the best lawyers.

In the upcoming weeks, I look forward to discussing skills of the test (how do you translate logic with that annoying "unless"), section strategies (why do we recommend reading the question first in Logical Reasoning), and test day issues (what happens if you’re waitlisted for a test site). I welcome all comments and questions and look forward to many weeks (months? years?!) of LSAT conversation.