Blog - LSAT Hacks

Two amazingly detailed explanations from the LSAC

April 24, 2014 by Graeme Blake 1 Comment

Two LSAC responses worthy of philosophers (photo credit: Todd Lapin)

Ever see one of those “item removed from scoring” notices on an LSAT preptest? That means the question had some kind of flaw. The LSAC doesn’t release information on why the questions were flawed, but presumably more than one answer was right, or the stimulus didn’t lead to the credited answer.

You can challenge a question yourself if you think it’s flawed. Back when I was a teacher for one of the major LSAT companies, they had an ongoing project that searched for potentially flawed questions.

I’ve challenged a couple myself. In both cases, LSAC has sent me a multi-page letter explaining why the question is not, in fact, flawed. One response convinced me I was wrong. The second response I’m not certain about, but I didn’t think the question was flawed in a major way.

LSAT Preptest 43, Section III, Question 26

The first question I challenged was from preptest 43. I wrote this on March 29th, 2011:

Hello,

I’m an LSAT tutor, and have been working with the LSAT for several years. I’m writing you because I believe I have found an error in one of your questions. In general I find the logical consistency and correctness of your questions quite remarkable, which is why this particular question struck me as off.

Here is the text of question 26:

26.

[Graeme’s note: I have removed the text to avoid infringing copyright. Please find a copy of Preptest 43]

E is the credited response. A common enemy is not mentioned in the stimulus. Presumably it is an unstated assumption that allies will face a common enemy. I do not believe this assumption is warranted. Many alliances have existed without common enemies. NATO presently has no common enemy, for example. During the cold war it was also difficult to identify a single and consistent common enemy for each block of allied countries. USA vs. USSR is the cliched answer, but the actual situation amongst and between NATO and Warsaw pact countries was considerably more nuanced and fluid.

As such, I don’t believe such an unstated assumption is warranted. It may seem like nitpicking, but usually I’ve found LSAT logical reasoning questions to be absolutely above reproach, and I don’t think this meets that standard.

Further, there is some merit to answer choice C. I believe it is a warranted assumption that there is a military commitment between countries which are allies. According to general usage the word of alliance almost invariably refers to military matters when used to refer to nations. In the context of the Cold War, it is an irrebutable assumption.

The second part of answer E

“enabling them to ignore

economic tensions that would otherwise be

problematic.”

is of course much stronger than the second half of answer choice C. But I believe that the first half of the answer choice makes the answer problematic. Though I can clearly see the intended reasoning, I do not feel it makes for a valid question, on par with other LSAT questions. I recognize that the question stem merely says “conforms most closely”, but I do not feel this resolves the issue either.

This is surely a small matter, and I apologize if my explanation has been rather lengthy. But I know the LSAC takes it’s questions seriously, and has pulled questions in the past. I hope you find this information useful, and that you will consider reviewing the question.

Sincerely,

Graeme Blake

LSAC Reply, Preptest 43

They sent me the following response on May 11, 2011. I find it convincing. It’s an interesting view into how the LSAT uses outside knowledge:

Dear Mr. Blake,

This is in response to your inquiry about Question 26 in Section 3, of The Official LSAT PrepTest 43 (Form 5LSN67). Members of the Test Development staff at LSAC have carefully reviewed this question and determined that the credited response is the best answer. We are flattered that you believe that we maintain high standards of logical consistency and correctness, but we must disagree with you that this question does not meet those standards. The instructions for the Logical Reasoning sections of the LSAT indicate: “For some questions, more than one of the choices could conceivably answer the question. However, you are to chose the best answer; that is, the response that most accurately and completely answers the question.”

Question 26 reads:

In the aftermath of the Cold War, international relations between Cold War allies became more difficult. Leaders of previously allied nations were required to conduct tactful economic negotiations in order not to arouse tensions that had previously been overlooked.

The situation described above conforms most closely to which one of the following propositions?

The credited response is:

(E) A common enemy contributes to a strengthened bond between nations, enabling them to ignore economic tensions that would otherwise be problematic.

The passage of Question 26 describes a particular state of affairs following the Cold War and each of the responses is a general statement. You are asked to identify the general proposition to which the particular case most closely conforms. The situation is that, following the end of the Cold War, leaders of nations that had been allied in the Cold War had to conduct careful economic negotiations to avoid tensions that had been previously (during the Cold War) overlooked.

This situation in the passage conforms closely to the generalization in (E). The nations are described in the stimulus as Cold War allies. As such they were united in opposition to the opposing coalition, either the East Bloc or the West Bloc and its dominant power. In each case that opponent was the common enemy that was the raison d’être for the alliance. The passage suggests that while the Cold War was going on that alliance allowed the allied countries to ignore economic tensions that otherwise might have arisen. However, following the Cold War, the former allies were no longer so strongly united by rivalry with their former common enemy. In that case the economic tensions among the former allies could no longer be overlooked. Thus, (E) provides a reasonable account of the situation described in the passage.

You argue that response (E) is not a satisfactory answer because the stimulus does not mention a common enemy. For this reason you believe that the credited response requires the assumption that an alliance must have a common enemy and you argue that this assumption is unwarranted. However, this question is not about any or every alliance. It is specifically about Cold War allies. And it is common knowledge that the Cold War was a bilateral rivalry between two major powers and their respective alliances. Since this rivalry was generally hostile and sometimes escalated to the brink of violence, it is fair to characterize the members of each bloc as sharing a common enemy. You claim that “during the cold war it was also difficult to identify a single and consistent common enemy for each block of allied countries.” But this seems to us to mischaracterize the situation and is at odds with the way it is commonly described. Writing and discussion about the cold war ordinarily takes for granted this presumption that each side regards the other as a common enemy. You aver that identifying the US or the USSR as the common enemy is clichéd and that the actual alliances were more nuanced and fluid. But, while it may be the case that the memberships of the alliances might shift and that many countries might drift in and out of the orbit of one or the other major powers, playing one against the other, this does not undermine the fact that the Cold War was a confrontation between two major powers, the US and the USSR, and their military, political, and economic alliances. Thus, it is both commonplace and sensible to describe the members of each Cold War alliance as being united against a common enemy, even though the level of hostility might heat up or cool down over the course of the years and the relationships of many nations to the two alliances and the leading nations in them might often be complicated.

As a result, the credited response to Question 26 does not depend on an unstated assumption that every alliance has a common enemy. Rather it trades on the common understanding that the Cold War was a period of rivalry and confrontation between two opposing blocs, and that it is fair to say that the members of each bloc regarded and treated the opposing bloc as a common enemy. Moreover, as you acknowledge, the second half of the credited response fits the situation described in the stimulus very well. So, the credited response is the best answer to the question.

You further argue that response (C) has some merit as an answer. Response (C) reads:

(C) When there is a military commitment between countries, fundamental agreement between them on economic matters is more easily reached.

You argue that “it is a warranted assumption that there is a military commitment between countries which are allies.” We do not dispute this. However, as you concede “the second part of answer E…is of course much stronger than the second half of answer choice C.” Indeed, the second part of response (C) is not really conformed to by the situation in the passage. The situation in the passage is not about fundamental agreement, but about economic tensions that can no longer be overlooked. The passage does not indicate that the Cold War allies were in or negotiated to reach fundamental agreement on economic matters, but only that they overlooked economic tensions, which is a much different state of affairs. Indeed, overlooked economic tensions would seem to be incompatible with fundamental economic agreement between parties. The passage indicates that after the Cold War the allies “were required to conduct tactful economic negotiations in order not to arouse tensions…” This does not indicate that they reached or were trying to reach fundamental economic agreement. So there is nothing in the passage to indicate that they were trying to or able to reach fundamental economic agreement either during or after the Cold War. There is, then, considerable disparity between the general statement in response (C) and the case described in the stimulus. On the other hand, the situation in the passage conforms very closely to the credited response (E), given only the general and commonplace understanding of the Cold War as a bilateral rivalry between opposing blocs of allies the members of which regarded the opposing bloc as a common enemy.

We hope that this addresses your concerns regarding this question. Thank you for your high regard for the standards of the LSAT and for endeavoring to help us maintain them.

Sincerely,

Stephen W. Luebke

Principal Test Specialist

LSAT Preptest 64, Question 25, Section 3

My second (and final) challenge was to question 25 of preptest 64, section III. In this case, I am still not entirely convinced by the response. But, I don’t think the issue I raised is particularly damning to the question, either. Whether you accept my view or the LSAC’s view is a matter of tendencies the test has shown, nothing more. There’s nothing per se incorrect about their reasoning. I just didn’t think they’ve done things like this in the past.

My original question is below. You can find more details on this thread I made at Top Law Schools: http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=209540

Original question:

Hello,

I believe I have found a flaw in LSAT 64, section III, question 25. The one about the trade union strike. The stimulus says arbitration would avert a strike. This is a sufficient condition.

The argument then shows that arbitration is unlikely. So it has proven that one sufficient condition for averting the strike is unlikely.

However, the argument then concludes that the strike is unlikely. This is incorrect. The planned strike could still be averted for other reasons, such as government intervention, an excellent offer on the part of the employer, etc.

The credited answer, D, parallels the stimulus in its probabilistic conclusion. However, the argument in D is a good argument. It has shown that Lopez is unlikely to be hydrated by his team. Thus he is unlikely to win.

I do not believe that a good argument can parallel a flawed argument. Thus I believe the question is flawed, and should be withdrawn from future prints of LSAT 64.

Please let me know whether you agree with my reasoning.

LSAC Reply, preptest 64

The LSAC sent a very detailed response. You can see it in it’s original format in this pdf:

http://lsathacks.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/LSAC-Response-LSAT-64.pdf

Here’s the text of the reply:

Dear Mr. Blake:

This is in response to your email communication dated May 13, 2013 regarding question 25 in Section 3 of The Official LSAT PrepTest 64. Members of the Test Development staff at LSAC have carefully reviewed the question and did not find it to be defective.

Question 25 reads:

Journalist: The trade union members at AutoFaber Inc. are planning to go on strike. Independent arbitration would avert a strike, but only if both sides agree to accept the arbitrator’s recommendations as binding. However, based on past experience, the union is quite unlikely to agree to this, so a strike is likely.

Which one of the following arguments exhibits a pattern of reasoning most similar to that exhibited by the journalist’s argument?

The credited response is option (D):

(D) Lopez will run in tomorrow’s marathon. Lopez will win the marathon only if his sponsors do a good job of keeping him hydrated. But his sponsors are known to be poor at keeping their athletes hydrated. So it is probable that Lopez will not win the marathon.

While you appear to agree that option (D) is the best answer to the extent that, compared with the other options, the reasoning in (D) is the most similar to that in the stimulus argument, you contend that the stimulus argument is flawed whereas the argument in (D) is not, rendering the two arguments fundamentally non- parallel. Thus, you believe that the item itself is flawed.

Your contention that the stimulus argument is flawed appears to be based on the assumption that the journalist’s argument can be adequately analyzed as simply a deductive argument. You suggest that whereas the argument demonstrates that one sufficient condition (arbitration) for a particular outcome (no strike) has been shown unlikely to hold, the argument does not establish that the outcome itself is unlikely since there may be other conditions under which that outcome could hold. Thus, you maintain, the argument’s conclusion does not follow deductively from the given premises (it is not a valid modus tollens argument, as you take the argument in (D) to be).

However, the journalist’s argument cannot be adequately analyzed as simply a deductive argument. It is an example of a reasonable informal, nondeductive argument that draws a conclusion about the probability of an outcome based largely on probabilistic reasoning. In analyzing this argument, there are certain features that should be taken note of. First, the argument is made by a journalist. In the context of journalism, it is a reasonable application of the “principle of charity” in argument interpretation to presume that the information provided by the journalist constitutes a relatively complete picture of the relevant facts. While there might be other conditions under which the strike could be averted, the journalist apparently does not think them important or likely enough to mention. The argument is not about them. Second, the argument begins with the statement: “The trade union members at AutoFaber Inc. are planning to go on strike.” In informal, everyday English, an unqualified assertion of the form ‘X is planning to do Y’—Sam is planning to leave work at 4:00 today, The teacher is planning to give an exam next week, The mayor is planning to run for reelection—invites the inference ‘It is likely that X will do Y’. Accordingly, in the case of the journalist’s argument, it is reasonable to infer from the first statement in the argument that a strike is likely. Note that this inference is reinforced by

subsequent use of the word “avert” in relationship to the strike: ‘to avert an outcome X by doing Y’ suggests that X is likely unless some positive action Y is taken to prevent X.

The argument identifies a sufficient condition under which a strike would be averted: a strike would be averted by independent arbitration, provided that a necessary condition holds, namely, that both sides agree to accept the arbitrator’s recommendations as binding. It is argued, however, based on past experience, that this necessary condition is unlikely to hold. Thus, the argument concludes, a strike is likely. The pattern of reasoning in the argument can be characterized as follows:

S is likely.
If A, then not S.
A only if B.
B is unlikely.
(So, A is unlikely.) Therefore, S is likely.

implication of first statement

[based on past experience]
implicit inference, intermediate conclusion

S = union members will strike

A = arbitration

B = both sides accept arbitrator’s recommendations as binding

Notice that the journalist’s argument is not invalid or a bad argument. It does not, as you suggest, require one to infer that a strike is likely merely from the claim that arbitration is unlikely (a sufficient condition doesn’t hold). The conclusion that a strike is likely is inferred from this claim together with the fact that union members are planning to strike. The journalist’s argument contains a pattern of reasoning like a deductive modus tollens argument (lines 3 through 5), but its conclusion does not follow from that reasoning alone. It is based on an additional non-deductive inference that is reasonably well-supported.

Your observation that a strike might be averted for some other reason—”government intervention, an excellent offer on the part of the employer, etc.”—has no bearing on the issue of whether the argument, as given, is a cogent one. The argument is not strictly deductive and the mere possibility of other conditions sufficient to avert the strike does not by itself undermine the nondeductive evidence that a strike is likely.

Finally notice that the pattern of reasoning in lines 3 through 5 of our analysis of the journalist’s argument is highly similar to the pattern of reasoning in response (D). The argument in (D) concludes that Lopez is unlikely to win the marathon based on the observation that a necessary condition for Lopez’s winning is unlikely to hold:

A only if B.
B is unlikely. [based on past experience] So, not-A is likely. (A is unlikely.)

Although it is true that response (D) does not contain all the elements of reasoning found in the journalist’s argument, it does exhibit a pattern of reasoning that is highly similar to the reasoning exhibited in a central portion of the journalist’s argument. No other response exhibits a pattern of reasoning as similar to that exhibited in the journalist’s argument. Thus, (D) is the best answer.

We hope that this answers your concerns. Thank you for your interest in the LSAT.

Sincerely,

Stephen W. Luebke Principal Test Specialist

I found the bit about the journalist interesting. The LSAC is asking us to apply outside knowledge of what a good journalist would do. I find this specific application tenous, but the “principle of charity” is good advice. I sometimes see LSAT students twist arguments into crazy interpretations. Don’t do that. Assume the speaker isn’t a complete idiot. Take the sensible interpretation of what they say. You should be precise about what they say, but don’t give their words a silly interpretation.

Don’t take these responses too seriously

I posted these just for your own curiousity. A few important points:

1. If you think a question is wrong, it is *waaaaay* more likely that you are wrong. Check with other people first before writing LSAC.

2. You *don’t* need to think at this level of detail to get questions right. Don’t worry if the LSAC responses don’t make sense, particularly the second. I’m posting these for your own interest, and also to show you what depth is present in even a single LSAT question.

LSAT Forums

March 28, 2014 by Graeme Blake 1 Comment

Forums can help you prep for the LSAT

LSAT forums are thriving communities. They have guides based on the experience of students who made significant improvements. Top LSAT instructors participate on a daily basis. And you can connect with thousands of LSAT students who are going through exactly what you’re going through. If there’s something you’ve been wondering about, you can get precise, useful answers. In my own research I use LSAT forums – the answers really are good.

Read first, then participate

All forums have their own culture. Before jumping in and posting, you should take the time to see how things work. Top Law Schools, in particular, is an aggressive forum. You might find replies shocking until you get used to the tone.

Take note of which forum posts produce useful answers, and frame your question in the same way. Asking a better question gets better results.

Don’t get sucked in

Forums can be addictive. Many students spend a LOT of time on LSAT forums. It feels like studying. But in most cases, it isn’t. Use forums for their useful information, but don’t pretend that spending two hours on a forum every day will get you a better score.

Best LSAT Forums

There are about a dozen LSAT forums I could name, but there are three major ones worth mentioning.

Top Law Schools: The biggest and best LSAT forum, bar none. Top Law Schools is a very active forum, and you’ll find very good information here. The guides are worth checking out.

Apart from the LSAT, Top Law Schools has information on all other aspects of law school.

http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/index.php

Reddit’s LSAT forum: If you’re a Redditor, you should subscribe to /r/LSAT. It’s not as big as Top Law Schools, but it’s still quite active. I’m the mod there, and I’m quite proud of what the place has grown into. Along with questions on the front page, you’ll find lots of guides on the sidebar. As with Top Law Schools, there’s a crowd of LSAT tutors and regulars who hang around with advice.

http://www.reddit.com/r/lsat

Lawstudents.ca: This is for the Canadians. Lawstudents.ca is a surprisingly good forum on the LSAT and Canadian law school admissions. You should definitely check it out if you’re going to law school in Canada.

http://lawstudents.ca/forums/

Note: Some prep companies run forums too. If you’re taking a course with a company, then using their forum can be a good idea as students will be familiar with the company’s methods.

About Graeme + Free LSAT email course

Graeme Blake scored a 177 on the LSAT, and has taught hundreds of students all over North America. He’s the creator of LSAT Hacks, a site of free explanations for the LSAT.

Graeme has a free five day email course on the LSAT, which will walk you through all aspects of preparing for the test: http://lsathacks.com/email-course/

Five things I’ve learned writing thousands of LSAT explanations

February 19, 2014 by Graeme Blake Leave a Comment

Over the past three years, I’ve written explanations for LSAT preptests 19-38, 66-70, and a few others. I’m working on preptests 65 and 71 at the moment, and also posting them for free on LSAT Hacks. The LSAT is a deep test, and writing a few thousand explanations for LSAT questions has given me a new perspective on it. I decided to step back and write about what I’ve learned in the process. You can find it in a guest post I wrote for Lawschooli. Enjoy!:

http://lawschooli.com/five-things-learned-writing-thousands-lsat-explanations/

Free LSAT 70 Explanations (October 2013 LSAT)

November 16, 2013 by Graeme Blake Leave a Comment

LSAT 70 is now officially released, it was the October 2013 LSAT. I’ve written explanations for every question of this LSAT Preptest. They’re free.

I’m an author. I write books of LSAT explanations; Hacking The LSAT is the best selling series of LSAT explanations on amazon.com

I’ve decided to try something new this time. That’s why I released all of my explanations for free. If this goes well, I’m going to release my other explanations online as well. I hope to eventually have explanations for every LSAT on this site.

I need your support on this project. It’s hard work letting people know that something new exists. So if you like these explanations, tell people about them. Post on your Facebook, twitter, or make a post on Top Law Schools if you’re an active member there.

Good luck on the LSAT!

http://lsathacks.com/explanations/lsat-preptest-70/

Best LSAT Prep Books

November 11, 2013 by Graeme Blake 19 Comments

LSAT Books photo by Shane S, CC

This are a LOT of LSAT prep books. It’s overwhelming. I’m going to highlight the best books.

Note that this is a list of LSAT study guides. For a list of LSAT preptests (which are essentially), go here: LSAT preptests

The LSAT Trainer

The three big names in LSAT Guides are Powerscore, Manhattan LSAT and The LSAT Trainer.

The LSAT Trainer is my personal favourite. The author, Mike Kim, co-wrote the Manhattan Guides. His guide is different is that he covers everything in one volume. He has a straightforward approach and doesn’t give you a bunch of confusing jargon. Instead he offers clear advice for every section, and reinforces what he teaches with extensive drills. I’ve spoken with Mike, and I think the LSAT Trainer will become the new standard guide. It costs $40.

Get the LSAT Trainer here: LSAT Trainer

Manhattan LSAT Guides

The Manhattan Guides are also excellent. A lot of students swear by them. You can buy them as a set of three, or individually:

Set of three Manhattan LSAT Guides ($73.95)
Manhattan Logical Reasoning guide ($27.57)
Manhattan LSAT Logic Games guide ($27.53)
Manhattan LSAT Reading Comprehension guide ($28.50)

Manhattan LSAT also runs classroom courses, and they have excellent teachers. They gave me a discount code to pass on to my readers. Use this code for $100 off any Manhattan LSAT course: HACKS100 <– $100 Manhattan Discount Code

Use it here –> Manhattan LSAT

Powerscore LSAT Bibles

The Powerscore Bibles are extremely popular, and have worked for many students. Personally, I prefer the style of the LSAT Trainer, but I think that’s due to taste. These books have worked for many students. The logic games bible tends to be the most popular, followed by the logical reasoning bible. You can save money by buying them in a set of three.

LSAT Explanations

LSAT Hacks in print

Finally, I’ve written a series of explanations for recent LSATs. They’re the same explanations you can find on this site, though I haven’t yet gotten around to putting all the explanations from these books online. If you like the explanations on this site and want paper copies or explanations for older tests, you should get these:

Explanations for PT 62-71 and 29-38

Explanations for PT 72-76

Manhattan LSAT Course Discount

Manhattan LSAT discount

My favourite LSAT classroom course is Manhattan LSAT. They also have an online course. I’m working on reviews of both programs, but in the meantime you can find discounts for Manhattan’s courses:

Discount code: HACKS100 Manhattan LSAT

How to use the discount

Copy the code: HACKS100
Go to Manhattan LSAT: Manhattan LSAT
Under live course, enter your zip code.
Choose a class. Live online is the most popular.
Click enroll. On the price page, paste HACKS100 in the discount field on the left. Hit apply.

The code works for LSAT Interact as well.

Labor Day Sale – 46% off LSAT Books!

September 1, 2013 by Graeme Blake Leave a Comment

46% off LSAT Books!

I know, I know. The October LSAT is in a month. That’s SOON. Faster than you thought, right?

Don’t worry. I know you’re serious about getting into law school. That’s why I want to give you the tools you need to get the LSAT score you’re capable of.

For the labor day weekend only, I’ve heavily discounted the e-book versions of my LSAT explanations. You get:

30% off any purchases
46% (!) off if you buy all five books.

The five books are normally $69, and you’ll get them for $37 with the discount….How much is even a single point on the LSAT worth in scholarships or a higher salary?

The discount is good until September 2, 8 pm EST. Tomorrow night. You can get the books here.

Explanations For 1300 Questions

These books explain every single question from LSATs 29-39 and 66-68. 1300 questions in total. They cover more tests and come in pdfs you can use offline or print.

My students have used these to fix their mistakes, and finally feel like they know what LSAT questions are talking about. They come with a 100% money back guarantee. If for some reason you’re not satisfied, just email me and I’ll refund you.

The discount is good until 8 pm EST on Monday, September 2 (labor day).

What are you waiting for? –> 46% off LSAT Books!

Graeme

p.s. In case you haven’t seen the explanations on my site, here’s what you get in the books:

Full setups for every logic game + how to apply the diagrams to questions
Paragraph summaries for every RC passage and line references for every answer
Appendices with lists of each LR question by type
The question type of every LR question
The conclusion and reasoning of every logical reasoning argument
Explanations for the right AND wrong answers
Over 1300 questions explained in total

The explanations are written in plain English. Students have said they’re so much easier to understand than other LSAT books.

–> Get full diagrams for 52 logic games.

What Others Are Saying

Still not convinced? Check out these amazon reviews:

Taking the LSAT means fighting for every extra point, since the difference between a 170 and a 169 can mean admission to your school of choice, or thousands of dollars in scholarships.

This book is different from most LSAT systems in that it explains the thought process of an expert test taker, question by question. Even someone like myself with high diagnostic scores was able to learn tricks and tips to get to the correct answer faster and more accurately. I heartily recommend it.

– Simon, reviewing LSAT 69

This book is different from most LSAT systems in that it explains the thought process of an expert test taker, question by question. Even someone like myself with high diagnostic scores was able to learn tricks and tips to get to the correct answer faster and more accurately. I heartily recommend it.

I have used numerous LSAT explanations from various sources and by far Graeme’s is the best. I previously used Hacking the LSAT 29-38 and had amazing results and this one does not disappoint. Graeme goes to great lengths to tell you why the incorrect answers are incorrect and why the correct answers are correct.

Graeme explains the conclusion, the premises/reasoning behind the conclusion and analysis about the argument as a whole very well. Graeme also does an amazing job on showing why the answers are incorrect and correct. After using this book I’ve been able to see patterns in certain logical reasoning and reading comprehension questions and have been able to quickly eliminate wrong answers.

– David, reviewing LSAT 67 and 68

–> Get explanations for 1300 questions for $37, labor day weekend only.

LSAT Explanations Update

August 20, 2013 by Graeme Blake Leave a Comment

LSAT 66 explanations are coming soon. I’ve been teaching an LSAT class full time this month, so I haven’t had time to work on this site.

With this month’s work, I’ll have made enough money that I can spend time working on this site full time. So look forward to lots of new explanations starting in September.

7Sage LSAT Proctor iPhone App Review

August 1, 2013 by Graeme Blake Leave a Comment

Timed practice LSATs are incredibly important. Timing on test day is strict, and you need to practice using accurate timing methods so that you’re ready.

If you’re like most LSAT students, you suck at this. Maybe you take breaks. Or maybe you check time on your phone rather than an analog watch. Or you practice in a pristine, soundless room with no distractions.

On test day, you get one break. You can only check time on a watch. You get a five minute warning. And in the test room, people will cough, shuffle chairs etc.

7Sage has a new iPhone LSAT proctor app to help you time yourself accurately. I’ve had a chance to try it, and there’s nothing better on the market. Best of all, it’s free.

With this app, you can:

Get the exact instructions and timing from test day
Add distractions and background noise to simulate test day
Do 33 minute sections to overtrain speed
Take a five section test to train stamina

The best part is that this app holds you accountable. If you’re timing yourself, you’ll be tempted to take breaks. With the app, you can set it in a different part of the room, turn it on, and start. Just let it play the whole way through, and it will be just like taking a timed test.

The only downside I can think of is that this is only available for iOS at the moment. But it’s a new app, so there may be versions for other devices in the works.

Get the app here!