LSAT Blogs

Are you considering taking a year or two off before applying to law school? Whether you plan to travel (I’m jealous already), or work, or both, I encourage you to do it, or at least be sure to look into it.

As you may be aware, as part of the application process, law schools ask that you submit a personal statement. I guarantee that the person you are two years from now who sits down to write this statement will not be the same person who would compose it in six months. You will have more life experience, depth, insight and maturity…all characteristics that law schools are looking for. Additionally, maybe today you are thinking about concentrating in corporate law, but after traveling around the world for a year, you may instead wish to study international law.

I am by no means suggesting that you must delay applying to school, but if you are thinking about it, please don’t rule it out.

Having said all that, I would recommend preparing for and taking the LSAT when you feel you have ample time to dedicate yourself to it. Scores are good for up to 5 years at many schools. One option is to prepare now while you’re already in "study mode." Then, whenever you do decide to apply, you can jump right into the rest of the application process: school selection, essay writing, identifying strong recommenders, etc. A second option is to wait until you’re ready to start the process because you may be more directed at that time, which could result in your earning a higher test score. If you find you need guidance with the more subjective aspects of your application, you may consider working with an admissions consultant. Kaplan’s admissions consultants include former admissions officers (like yours truly), advisors and experts who can help you successfully navigate the law school admissions process.

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.

You’re in luck. There are a plethora of opportunities available to help you explore potential law schools. Yes, you can read about the schools in publications and online, but I believe that the best way to really get to know a law school is to visit it, or at least speak with representatives from there. Two of the most valuable alternatives are listed below. Please, please, please take advantage of these valuable resources.

Law School Admission Council (LSAC) Law School Forums
The Law School Admission Council offers Law School Forums in nine cities around the country, and the good news is that admission is free. The majority of the law schools send representatives, and you have the wonderful opportunity to talk face-to-face with them and ask any and all questions you may have. If you live in New York, and you wish to look at schools in California, Florida, Texas and Washington, you can accomplish this without getting on an airplane. While you’re at the Forum, be sure to check out the LSAC-sponsored workshops on such topics as financial aid, the admissions process and the LSAT. For complete information about locations, dates, workshops and registration, see the LSAC website: www.lsac.org.

Law Schools Visits
Law schools provide a number of options to make it easy for you to visit the school, e.g., attending open houses and information sessions, taking guided tours and sitting in on first-year classes. Once again, visiting a law school provides you with a chance to speak directly with Admissions and Financial Aid Officers, faculty and students. Is the law school located on a campus or in the middle of the city? Near public transportation? Is it a modern or traditional facility? Are the people you pass in the hallway friendly and welcoming, or cold and aloof? Most likely you’ll need to make an appointment ahead of time, so be sure to look on each school’s website for full details.

You are going to be investing a lot of time and money pursuing your law school education. Do the utmost to ensure that the school is the right fit. We want you to enjoy the ride.

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.

If you’ve been admitted to law school(s), you’ve noticed that many of them require you to put down a second deposit to hold your seat. Hopefully you’ve been doing your research to determine which school best fits your needs. If you haven’t already done so, make every effort to visit the law school(s) you’re still considering. Now is the time to ask any further questions you may have.

Below are a few important notes regarding your second deposit:

• They are non-refundable.
• If you need an extension, contact the Admissions Office immediately to request it. There is absolutely no guarantee the law school will approve the extension, but you won’t know if you don’t ask.
• The deadline date is firm; you must get your payment in on time.
• Once you have committed to the law school you wish to attend, please notify the other school(s) that you will not be attending there. This will allow the law school to fill that seat immediately. Look at it from the other side: Consider that you are waitlisted at Your-First-Choice-School-A, and are waiting anxiously to hear a decision before submitting your second deposit at School B. Wouldn’t you appreciate it if an accepted applicant to School A had the courtesy to inform the school that he/she has opted to attend a different institution? Maybe the spot would then be offered to you.

Most importantly, you’ll be spending the next 3-4 years (depending on whether you’re attending full time or part time) at the school, and I want you to be very happy with your decision so you can enjoy pursuing your JD degree.

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.