When I was in college, my roommates and I used to go grocery shopping at 2 a.m. The reasoning behind these trips was some combination of a need of something to do when everyone else was asleep, the joys of riding shopping carts across empty parking lots and a desire to avoid the scornful looks of veteran shoppers. Maybe you’ve got your grocery shopping routine down, but I don’t. Even when I bring a list I constantly find myself having to double back to find things I’ve missed. During the day this earns looks I’ve learned to loathe from the queens of the aisles that mockingly ask, “You again? Weren’t you just here?” The accompanying smug smiles only make things worse. Late at night though, the only people noticing my lack of supermarket prowess are the night staff stocking the shelves, and in general they hate their jobs too much to notice much of anything.

So what do my late-night wanderings in search of frozen pizza and tortilla chips have to do with the LSAT? They answer the title question to this blog with a definitive no. In the reading comprehension you are presented with a vast amount of information. Specifically searching for the answers to 5-8 questions you want to answer while sorting through that information will undoubtedly lead to lots of doubling back. Also, focusing the search on individual bits of information will make it much more difficult to see the big picture and answer questions about the author’s main point. That’s especially important since global questions of that nature show up on almost every LSAT reading comprehension passage.

In hindsight, I would have been best served in my grocery shopping to start with getting an understanding of the basic layout of the grocery store. If I understood the logic behind how the store was organized, I could have quickly had an idea of where to find every item on my list. That’s exactly why Kaplan recommends that you start by strategically reading the passage, rather than reading the questions. Understand the big picture and you’ll be able to find the little details to pick up points as efficiently as possible.

Think about that the next time you’re at the grocery store. If your goal is to get what you need as efficiently as possible, you will benefit. But, if you’re goal is to accidentally run into your future spouse on aisle 7, that haphazard approach might give you the best chance. Then again, I met my wife in law school, so that more efficient approach that will earn you more points on the LSAT does pay off… happy studying!

Kaplan is proud to announce a new partnership with JD Oasis! Bookmark them at www.jdoasis.com.

Everyone does it differently, but at the end of the day, everyone still has to take it. That it is the LSAT. Seeing as it’s still relatively fresh in my mind, I thought it’d be something fun to discuss, especially for the prospective monkeys out there looking to go to Law School. The test itself has a total of 5 sections of Scantron Style answers to be filled in and a writing section.

The Scantron portion of the LSAT breaks down into three distinct areas:

1. 2 Sections of Logical Reasoning

2. 1 Section of Reading Comprehension

3. 1 Section of Logic Games

The final section, the experimental section, will be one of those three topics and will usually occur in the first, second or third section of the exam. Everyone has a section they personally find to be easy as all hell and one that they find to be the devil incarnate. Me, I loved the games and hated reading comprehension. I know others that took the test and were absolutely miserable with the games yet loved the logical reasoning. That said, lets deconstruct the LSAT.

Logic Games: Why Playing Tetris Actually Pays Off

I love playing Tetris. In fact, I still do play a lot of Tetris. That game is also the reason why I found Logic Games to be the easiest section on the LSAT. Logic Games are not quite what they sound like. They are not brainteasers or trivia, but sequencing games, much like Tetris. Some games are pretty straight forward and have only one variable and others are a little more interesting with up to 3 variables in a non-linear sequence using multiple groupings. The reason why I find the games to be like Tetris comes down to how you can manage the relationship between the falling pieces and the constantly changing board, much like how you can sort the variables of the game into much more manageable and organizable groups.

For Logic Games, the rules are simple. Take a given set of data and constraints and answer the questions about that set of data and constraints. There are three things to note here. The first is that your explicit data serves as your guidelines for what pairs work and don’t work. The second is that the questions will either ask you to solve for factual data (everything is defined by the constraints) or theoretical data (Say constraint X is in position Y). The final thing is that you can always find a way to group or order your data.

Logical Reasoning: Test Logic Trumps All

Logical Reasoning, while I disliked this area, was an immense challenge for me. LSAT logic is not like normal logic, and being a finance guy, it was definitely foreign to me. LSAT logic isn’t a matter of a basic Yes or No. For the LSAT, Yes or No becomes either Yes and Not Yes or No and Not No. Confusing right? While I don’t know why the LSAT logic is like this, once you understand the construct of logic, it becomes easier to understand how the questions are asked. Like the games, Logical Reasoning focuses on Facts, Theories, and Opinions. Facts are sets of data solely present. Theories are arguments from one person. Opinions are the two person conversation pieces.

The difficulty I had with this section came down to understanding the minutia within each question. I could be asked a question to strengthen the argument but it might fall under one type of subcategory of that question. This would have been the hardest section for me if not for reading comp, but it was difficult and required the most work for me. To prep for this, I was grateful I took a class. I spent hours going over the materials covered after class in order to understand the nuances of Logical Reasoning questions and did as many practice questions as I could get my hands on. I did 3-4 hours a night of Logical Reasoning Homework during the week and 7-8 hours on the weekends. As it reached the end of the course and closer to the LSAT, I did full logical reasoning sections in order to improve my time and ability. It definitely helped me out majorly.

Reading Comprehension

Ralph Wiggum wrote: Me fail English? That’s unpossible.

I don’t know how to describe Reading Comprehension better than this. Ralph Wiggum, the 8-year old classmate to Lisa Simpson, could not speak finer words when he uttered that quote. That’s how Reading Comprehension made me feel. It wasn’t overly difficult, per se, as the logical reasoning questions were the basis for reading comprehension questions. It was just a very time consuming section with materials that I honestly had no clue about. This is the same Reading comprehension that’s on the SAT. This is the same paragraph followed by questions structure we all know. Basically, it’s 4 passages and questions. One of the passages will be 2 different speakers on the same topic and the rest will all be 1 long passage.

Personally, I hated it. To quote Jay Sherman, “It Stinks!”

This February, we explore the section of the LSAT that counts most on test day: Logical Reasoning. From assumptions to inferences, flaws and more – we’ll cover some of the section’s toughest content throughout the weeks ahead. Check out more information, here.

Parallel Reasoning Questions have the remarkable distinction of being almost universally despised. Test Takers that actually find them enjoyable or look forward to them are few and far between. They are often quite lengthy and often contain fairly dense language. For these reasons, having a concrete and reliable approach to these types of questions is essential. To accomplish this, our focus must remain on the structure of the argument, as our task will be to find an answer choice that employs that exact same type of reasoning. The content is basically irrelevant, as the passage can be about metaphysics, cupcakes, or termite mounds and still have the exact same argumentative structure.

As we delve in, the first order of business is characterizing the conclusion. Our task is to determine exactly what function this conclusion serves. Is the author making a recommendation? Perhaps he is making a comparison? Our ability to determine the type of conclusion and to discard answers without similar types will be invaluable. Let us look at an example. The passage concludes, “Therefore, metaphysics should be studied…” We are given a recommendation, so that is what the answer must contain. Answer A states, “Therefore, cupcakes should be eaten…” Answer A is a recommendation, thus worthy of comparing evidence. Answer B on the other hand says, “Therefore, termite mounds should not be studied…” Here we must pay close attention, for what might immediately appear to be a recommendation is actually a recommendation against something. Just like the types of conclusions must match up, so also must the level of certainty (might happen and will happen are not the same) and whether the conclusion is positive or negative (should and should not are not the same).

Assuming you find multiple answers with the same type of conclusion, it becomes necessary to take the whole passage into account. Remember, just because an answer has the same type of conclusion as the passage doesn’t mean it must be right. It merely means it’s still up for consideration. Let’s say the passage presents a commonly held belief. It then provides a piece of evidence that contradicts that belief and concludes by recommending that belief be discarded. The answer that we seek will do the exact same thing. However, we must keep in mind that the order of the components is irrelevant. If the passage has the conclusion last but the answer has the conclusion first, this is perfectly acceptable as long as all of the pieces are correct.

There are slight deviations in Parallel Reasoning to be aware of. Often you will see Parallel Flaw Questions that will ask you to find an answer that commits the same logical flaw as the passage. Though the technique previously discussed works here as well, being familiar with common flaw types and spotting them quickly will be a more efficient approach. Something else to notice is answers with similar content. Personally, I am immediately suspicious of any answer that has very similar content matter. Test Makers are aware that similar content will tempt the untrained, and I strive to avoid such traps.

Though often a hindrance to Test Takers, Parallel Reasoning Questions are quite manageable. Familiarity with common conclusion types and common flaws will greatly expedite the process. Bear in mind though that Parallel Reasoning Questions are not one of the more common Logical Reasoning Question types and that they do tend to be rather long. For these reasons, they may merit saving until the end of the section. Regardless, by employing the Kaplan Methodology discussed here you will be more than ready to assault them as the need arises.

All of your applications ask for a resume, but you’ve just graduated and haven’t worked much at all, especially in your related field. Or have you?

"Work Experience" means something different to an admissions committee than it does to a potential employer. For purposes of your graduate or law school application, this isn’t exclusively referring to paid employment.

List relevant coursework you’ve taken. This shows academic experiences that are related to your chosen field, and have given you exposure to the vocabulary and subject matter you will be studying and, after graduation, pursuing as your career.

What about internships, or teaching/research assistantships? Be sure to list these and have bullet points for all of the duties you performed, computer skills you used/acquired, responsibilities you assumed. Let them see that in a small way you’ve already been doing the work you’ll be doing in both their program, and as your profession.

Have you done any volunteer work or community service? Even if it hasn’t been in your chosen field, list any details that illustrate leadership skills, compassion, being of service, ability to communicate with diverse groups and individuals, professional demeanor. Committees are impressed by these qualities.

If you have served in your related field, even though you weren’t paid, list this in the same format as if it were a professional experience and have bullet points for all of your duties, responsibilities, etc.

Your experiences make an even more positive impression when you have an anecdote about an aspect of them that you can write about in your personal essay. Being able to mention a person whose life you touched, or you shared a powerful moment with, will bring the experience alive in a way that makes your application more personal.

Also helpful would be to have a letter of recommendation from someone who can reinforce your relevant qualities and experiences. Once you’re seen as a person instead of merely paperwork, you’ve increased your chances for acceptance.

By making the most of any experiences you’ve had that in some way prepared or motivated you to pursue this field for advanced study, and a professional career, what at first may seem like a weakness in your application can actually be used to strengthen it.

This is a continuing series of blogs from our team of Admissions Consultants here at Kaplan Test Prep & Admissions, showcasing various facets of a candidate’s law school application. For the past few weeks, we’ve been focusing extensively on the personal statement. Click here for more information on Admissions Consulting from Kaplan, including our Personal Statement Review package.

Determining who to ask to write your letters of recommendation can feel as complicated as defining the rule against perpetuities. (That’ll be funny after your 1L property class.) Should you go with the professor with the big name but only knows you as face in a sea of 500 other students? Should you ask the president of the law firm where your mom practices? What about your rabbi who has known you since you were two? The answer to all three of these questions is probably not. Although each of these people would most likely write a lovely letter about you, they will not be able to give specifics about you or do so in a way that makes them sound objective and credible. So who is appropriate to ask?

Each school has its own set of requirements for how many letters of recommendation they require and accept. The first step is to find out what the law schools that you are applying to require. A quick resource for this is: http://lsac.org/jd/apply/services-required-by-LS.asp. As a general rule of thumb, you want to aim for three strong letters and then assign the proper number to each school as you apply. If you are currently a student, two academic references and a current or past employer is an excellent combination. If you have been out of school for several years, asking employers and co-workers makes more sense if you have not stayed in touch with any faculty. You want to try and choose people who can attest to different aspects of your experiences and who will highlight distinct strengths. Asking two professors from your legal studies major to write the letters will likely result in essentially two letters that both focus on the same strengths and skills. However asking for a letter from one professor in legal studies and one in psychology will give the law school a chance to learn about you and your strengths from two different viewpoints. In the end, the admissions committee will be able to learn what a well rounded individual you truly are!

When trying to figure out who is the best person to write your recommendation, you want to think about who knows you the best. A person’s reputation, status, or title is not nearly as important to the law schools as is what they have to say about you. A detailed letter written by a TA is much more useful than one written by a well known professor. In the same vein, having a letter written by the president of a company or organization is not helpful if it simply reads "John worked here as an intern during the summer of 2010 and was a useful addition to our staff. I recommend him for law school." Ed Tom, Dean of Admissions for U.C. Berkeley Boalt Hall School of Law, sums it up perfectly when he said that "letters from famous people whom you met once, friends of the family, or a judge for whom you babysat are not helpful." Choose people who know you as an individual, can write from a professional and/or academic standpoint, and who seem genuinely excited about writing the letter when you ask.

It is important to remember that the person writing the letter does not need to be connected to the practice of law in any way. If you spent a summer working as a camp counselor, your supervisor can attest to the characteristics that will make you a good law student and eventual lawyer. Some of the personality traits that admission representatives are looking for in a letter of recommendation include a willingness to take on responsibility, being a strong team player, having strong writing and speaking skills, a willingness to go above and beyond the basic expectations, being a fast learner, being a good listener, and having the ability to prioritize and organize tasks.

Hopefully you have a better idea as to who you want to ask to write your letters of recommendation. Your Kaplan consultant or pre-law advisor is a great person to discuss your ideas with before making a final decision. Once you decide, be sure to check out Jesse Borges’ blog from October 7th to learn more about what to provide each of these individuals with to make sure that they write as strong of letter as possible. In addition, LSAC has recently added a new form of recommendations called the evaluation which was written about back on September 22nd by Bill Corwin and is definitely worth a read or re-read!