HELPFUL TIP TO IMPROVE OVERALL LSAT PERFORMANCE

[casino]

take the logic class, it can't hurt you.  but, study your azz off.  i, for one, do not believe too much that reading the ny times or the economist every day can help you significantly -- at least not in two or three months.  i subscribe to the economist and the ny times is my internet homepage; no RC passage i have ever seen resembles either one of those.

take every prep test you can, study your answers, identify your weak spots, and make sure you get good at the games section.  read, yes, but there is no substitute for RC passages.  those are special.

casino

[aboynoir]

I just picked up the Princeton Review "cramming for the lsat" book. I paid an extra $15 for the version with the CD. It has it setup like an 8 week program. I will give it a wirl... hopefully the results are significant.

[zxcvbnm]

IMO, a logic course is either going to be too little or too much; to my knowledge, there isn't a logic course that would be helpful enough for the LSAT to warrant taking it for that purpose alone. If it's one of those lightweight "Introduction to Critical Thinking" courses (aka "Reasoning for Dummies"), where you do things like spot the fallacy or pick out the bias in an argument, then probably anyone taking the LSAT is beyond this stuff and wouldn't stand to gain much. On the other hand, any course in formal logic would be serious overkill. I did a lot of analytical philosophy in college and had my fair share of formal logic, and only perhaps the first two weeks of Intro to Symbolic Logic, which include conditionals, truth tables, DeMorgan's Law, etc., is at all useful for the LSAT. The rest of the stuff -- formal proofs of validity, polyadic quantifiation, etc. -- isn't going be of much use. Philosophy of Logic is even worse; no way is discussion of undecidability and imcompleteness going to do anyone any good. I'd suggest just taking a few interesting looking, traditional philosophy courses. Reading and trying to understand Hume, Kant, Locke, Descartes, et al. will do wonders for one's reading comprehension and logical reasoning abilities. After four years of that, nearly everything in the LR sections is intuitive to me, and I attribute it much more to difficult readings in philosophy than any formal logic I've done.

[LSATGuru]

Your opinion about the reading material may be true, but I can produce a litany of examples of LR questions that have the contrapositive as the correct answer.  Simply put, knowing the basic structure of formal logic and being able to reflexively produce the contrapositive, transitive, etcetera along with knowing sufficient/necessary trigger words, is going to help pretty much anyone immensely on the Logical Reasoning.

The years of highly detailed and complex reading takes just that: years.  The Formal Logic methods stated above can be mastered with diligent practice in a few weeks.  I don't think any of these people are willing to put off law school for 2 or 3 years so they can peruse Kant and Decartes anthologies to up their comprehension.

IMO, a logic course is either going to be too little or too much; to my knowledge, there isn't a logic course that would be helpful enough for the LSAT to warrant taking it for that purpose alone. If it's one of those lightweight "Introduction to Critical Thinking" courses (aka "Reasoning for Dummies"), where you do things like spot the fallacy or pick out the bias in an argument, then probably anyone taking the LSAT is beyond this stuff and wouldn't stand to gain much. On the other hand, any course in formal logic would be serious overkill. I did a lot of analytical philosophy in college and had my fair share of formal logic, and only perhaps the first two weeks of Intro to Symbolic Logic, which include conditionals, truth tables, DeMorgan's Law, etc., is at all useful for the LSAT. The rest of the stuff -- formal proofs of validity, polyadic quantifiation, etc. -- isn't going be of much use. Philosophy of Logic is even worse; no way is discussion of undecidability and imcompleteness going to do anyone any good. I'd suggest just taking a few interesting looking, traditional philosophy courses. Reading and trying to understand Hume, Kant, Locke, Descartes, et al. will do wonders for one's reading comprehension and logical reasoning abilities. After four years of that, nearly everything in the LR sections is intuitive to me, and I attribute it much more to difficult readings in philosophy than any formal logic I've done.

[Matthew_24_24]

I don't think a logic class is overkill for anyone minus those taking the October exam.  For anyone else, the things learned in that class will be invaluable.

As for the LSAT not using anything learned past the 1st two weeks...we learned categorical propositions 2 months in...and those rules of logic come in very helpful for parallel the reasoning questions. 

What i see people do is applying logical inferences to these when they are not valid.  The logic sections of Kaplan, Princeton and even Master the LSAT do not give you enough logic practice to master the principles IMO.

Matt

[cnkis]

I´m taking it in December, just thought I´d share that with you

[sluan]

Do you think I have a mild form of ADD even though my attention seems to improve after I masturbate?  If so, maybe I can score myself some medication -- pun intended.

[jsonlaw]

Greetings everyone:

I took the June 2004 LSAT and I don't care to mention my pathetic grade, however, what I wanted was to be evaluated as to what specficially I am lacking in.  The suggestions I have received are as follows:

1) I should take the test in December so that I have more time for more practice tests, reviewing every aspect of my strength and weakness.


2) READ THE NY TIMES every single day, focusing on the editorials and Sunday book review. 

Since I started doing this, I have noticed that when I first started reading the NY Times, I struggled to understand what I was reading. So now that I am on Straterra, a GREAT MEDICATION for ADD, I am improving in my reading comprehension abilities.  By practicing to read an analytical and prestigous newspaper, I am training my mind to read and think in a manner similar to what the LSAT test makers are looking for.  This is why I have struggled with the LSAT, but I have renewed determination here.

For alot of people, it is the technical structure of the exam. For me, I just had a hard time grasping the "language" of the exam. I don't know if this helps anyone, but it sure helps me so I thought I'd share it.

Is anyone else taking it in December?

Regards,
Rebecca E.

Im not taking the test in December I will be taking it next year (June).  I am going to follow your advice on reading technically structured material.. I took my first practice test and I was like "wtf" am I reading!?!?!  I also feel you on the ADD thing.  I think I might have a case of adult ADD...:-(

[Trevor]

IMO, a logic course is either going to be too little or too much; to my knowledge, there isn't a logic course that would be helpful enough for the LSAT to warrant taking it for that purpose alone. If it's one of those lightweight "Introduction to Critical Thinking" courses (aka "Reasoning for Dummies"), where you do things like spot the fallacy or pick out the bias in an argument, then probably anyone taking the LSAT is beyond this stuff and wouldn't stand to gain much. On the other hand, any course in formal logic would be serious overkill. I did a lot of analytical philosophy in college and had my fair share of formal logic, and only perhaps the first two weeks of Intro to Symbolic Logic, which include conditionals, truth tables, DeMorgan's Law, etc., is at all useful for the LSAT. The rest of the stuff -- formal proofs of validity, polyadic quantifiation, etc. -- isn't going be of much use. Philosophy of Logic is even worse; no way is discussion of undecidability and imcompleteness going to do anyone any good. I'd suggest just taking a few interesting looking, traditional philosophy courses. Reading and trying to understand Hume, Kant, Locke, Descartes, et al. will do wonders for one's reading comprehension and logical reasoning abilities. After four years of that, nearly everything in the LR sections is intuitive to me, and I attribute it much more to difficult readings in philosophy than any formal logic I've done.

What kind of Philosophy of Logic course goes from truth tables to incompleteness in one course!?  It took me a solid year to work through that stuff (phil 159, 160A, 160B).  Reading 'regular' philosophy is a good idea if you've got the time, but trying to figure out what Kant means by "transcendental idealism" probably won't help if you're taking the test this year. 

[cascagrossa]

i say dont waste your time reading the ny times when you have tons of real lsat passages you could be reading instead.  buy the 3 "10 real" lsat books and the few extra tests just recently released and you will have something like 136+ passages to practice with.

besides doing those, there really isnt much you can do to improve in the rc section since its the least standardized.  get the logic games bible and sign up for a testmasters class.

and i think taking a logic class is a waste of time/money if you are only doing it in hopes of improving on the lsat.  the lsat only makes use of a few specific areas in formal logic, all of which are better learned in a prep class geared specifically towards the lsat.  learn what you need to know for the lsat and how to apply it in the context of the test, dont waste your time with the other stuff.