Zen of 180 - Outfox the LSAT

Reading Comprehension: Would Agree About

zenof180@gmail.com (Mr. Bennett) — Thu, 29 Mar 2012 17:00:00 +0000

This is another post in our series describing the classification system Zen of 180 uses for the reading comprehension section. If you're not sure how to approach studying for the LSAT, our 19 reading comprehension standards break it down into manageable chunks; also, our free online LSAT analyzer will let you know which types of passage structures give you the most trouble.

Today's task, would agree about, is another extrapolation strand that requires the examinee to combine information presented in the passage and derive a new statement from it. Unlike reading comprehension tasks in the opinion strand that pick up on non-evidentiary keywords, would agree about is more of a blend of the most strongly supported by [stimulus] and justify logical reasoning task. It thus benefits from cleanly prestating the topic's actors, relationships, and degrees of certainty for each, but injects a tiny bit of affective judgement from the point of view of the author. Thus, you are extrapolating from the author's stated evidence and inferred point of view, not from his or her opinion.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Rachel Maddow breaks down the evidence that Mitt Romney and Ron Paul would agree about what should happen to a person without health insurance who develops a fatal health condition.

Because of the need to prephrase the actors, relationships, and degrees of certainty, marking the passage's structural signposts that clearly assign examples and counterexamples to their actors will help to quickly eliminate distractors. You can read through our discussion of main idea or title and primary purpose to review these highlighting techniques. Additionally, it's important to review those tasks because the answers to maid idea and primary purpose questions will help frame the author's POV for would agree about questions.

The question stems for would agree about questions are easy to spot, as the sample question we'll be using from LSAC's website exemplifies. Here are some examples of the question stems from modern LSATs:

The passage suggests that the author would be likely to
agree with each of the following statements:

The passage most strongly suggests that the author holds which one of the following views?

Based on what can be inferred from the passages, which
one of the following acts would have been [treated negatively] under [system], but would not be [treated negatively] under [another system]?

Note that the second example above explicitly instructs the examinee to consider the author's viewpoint; whether this task would be a would agree about or an opinion strand task would depend on whether the correct answer choice hinged on the author's evidence or opinion. Today, we'll be using the same passage we introduced in the passage or author says explanation, a comparative passage where two authors in the 1990s discuss anthropomorphic climate change.

Passage A
In January 1995 a vast section of ice broke off the
   Larsen ice shelf in Antarctica. While this occurrence,
   the direct result of a regional warming trend that began
   in the 1940s, may be the most spectacular
(5) manifestation yet of serious climate changes
   occurring on the planet as a consequence of
   atmospheric heating, other symptoms—more intense
   storms, prolonged droughts, extended heat waves, and
   record flooding—have been emerging around the
(10) world for several years.

   According to scientific estimates, furthermore,
   sea-level rise resulting from global warming will
   reach 3 feet (1 meter) within the next century. Such a
   rise could submerge vast coastal areas, with
(15) potentially irreversible consequences.

   Late in 1995 the Intergovernmental Panel on
   Climate Change (IPCC) reported that it had detected
   the “fingerprint“ of human activity as a contributor to
   the warming of the earth’s atmosphere. Furthermore,
(20) panel scientists attributed such warming directly to
   the increasing quantities of carbon dioxide released
   by our burning of fossil fuels. The IPCC report thus
   clearly identifies a pattern of climatic response to
   human activities in the climatological record, thereby
(25) establishing without doubt that global warming can
   no longer be attributed solely to natural climate
variability.

This passage introduces the topic of global warming and the IPCC's findings that humans are contributing to the phenomenon. From these findings, the author jumps to their clearly stated opinion on the topic (pink highlights), which conclude the final paragraph.

Passage B
Over the past two decades, an extreme view of
global warming has developed. While it contains
(30) some facts, this view also contains exaggerations and
misstatements, and has sometimes resulted in
     unreasonable environmental policies.
        According to this view, global warming will cause the
     polar ice to melt, raising global sea levels,
(35) flooding entire regions, destroying crops, and
     displacing millions of people. However, there is still a
     great deal of uncertainty regarding a potential rise in
     sea levels. Certainly, if the earth warms, sea levels
     will rise as the water heats up and expands. If the
(40) polar ice caps melt, more water will be added to the
     oceans, raising sea levels even further. There is some
     evidence that melting has occurred; however, there is
     also evidence that the Antarctic ice sheets are
     growing. In fact, it is possible that a warmer sea-
(45) surface temperature will cause more water to
     evaporate, and when wind carries the moisture-laden
     air over the land, it will precipitate out as snow,
     causing the ice sheets to grow. Certainly, we need to
     have better knowledge about the hydrological cycle
(50) before predicting dire consequences as a result of
     recent increases in global temperatures.
      This view also exaggerates the impact that human
     activity has on the planet. While human activity may
     be a factor in global warming, natural events appear
(55) to be far more important. The 1991 eruption of Mount
     Pinatubo in the Philippines, for example, caused a
     decrease in the average global temperature, while El
     Niño, a periodic perturbation in the ocean’s
     temperature and circulation, causes extreme global
(60) climatic events, including droughts and major
     flooding. Of even greater importance to the earth’s
     climate are variations in the sun’s radiation and in the
     earth’s orbit. Climate variability has always existed and
     will continue to do so, regardless of human
(65) intervention.

As with many tasks in reading comprehension, the Zen system suggests that you reframe back to the main idea and/or primary purpose answers to ensure that you are starting from the correct vantage point on a new question. This is especially important in both the extrapolation and opinion strands, and will often make today's task of would agree about much easier. The actual process of this strategy is to read the passage and then answer the questions in order; often, the main idea or primary purpose questions will be in the first 1 or 2 for a given passage. Then, when you continue on to a question in the extrapolation or opinion strands, you re-read the answer choice to the main idea or primary purpose question to ensure that your head is cleared from any intervening questions.
For this passage, we won't fully discuss the main idea or primary purpose, but below is the flowchart for applying this strategy with the correct primary purpose answer for this passage.
After reading the passage the primary purpose task:

Which one of the following most accurately describes the relationship between the argument made in passage A and the
argument made in passage B?

and correctly answering it with:

(C) Passage A warns about the effects of certain recent
phenomena, while passage B argues that some
inferences based on those phenomena are unfounded.

With this prephrase in mind, the would agree about task should be much easier to answer, even if it is inverted to be about what the authors would disagree about. Passage A's author predicts dire consequences from global warming, and Passage B's author disputes the strength of the evidence linking global warming to human actions.

The authors of the two passages would be most likely to
disagree over

(A) whether or not ~~any melting~~ of the polar ice caps
      ~~has occurred~~
(B) whether natural events ~~can cause~~ changes in
      global climate conditions
(C) whether warmer air temperatures ~~will be likely~~ to
      ~~raise~~ oceanic water temperatures
(D) the extent to which natural climate variability is
      responsible for global warming
(E) the ~~extent~~ to which global temperatures ~~have risen~~
      in recent decades

Answer choice D is a extrapolated causality statement from Passage A's and Passage B's evidentiary statements about the role (or lack thereof) that humans have played in global warming. The only non-human causes mentioned by either passage are the naturalistic examples in Passage B (volcanoes, El Nino, and variations in sun radiation), and answer choice D picks up on the clash between those examples and the evidence from IPCC that Passage A invokes in lines 20-27. Based on their cited evidence and implied POV, these two authors would disagree about the relative weight that human activities and natural climate variability have played in global warming.

Answer choice A ignores lines 41-42, where Passage B's author clearly admits that "some" polar ice cap melting has occurred. Although Passage A's author would clearly argue that melting has occurred, the absolute language --"any"--in answer choice A makes it too extreme for Passage B's author to disagree about.

Answer choice B makes a similar mistake, except with Passage A's stated evidence. Although the IPCC evidence in lines 20-27 emphasize that human activity is significant enough to increase global warming, it does not deny natural climate variability's role in global warming.

Answer choice C repeats B's mistake, taking Passage A's lack of evidence about air temperature to mean that its author doesn't see a causal connection to water temperature. As with the logical reasoning extrapolation strands, be sure to keep a sharp look out for answer choices that are simply too strong or introduce a new actor/relationship that the passage does not present enough information about. In this case, Passage B mentions air temperature in lines 38-39, but we don't have enough information from Passage A to determine if its author would disagree.

Finally, answer choice E is doubly incorrect because neither author mentions any evidence about the amount of warming; they merely present evidence about its causes and their relative contributions.

Reading Comprehension: Most Supported by Passage

zenof180@gmail.com (Mr. Bennett) — Tue, 27 Mar 2012 13:00:00 +0000

This is another post in our series describing the classification system Zen of 180 uses for the reading comprehension section. If you're not sure how to approach studying for the LSAT, our 19 reading comprehension standards break it down into manageable chunks; also, our free online LSAT analyzer will let you know which types of passage structures give you the most trouble.

Today's task, most supported by passage, requires an examinee to combine explicit information in the passage, often highlighted in the question stem, and choose a factual statement or conclusion that can be drawn from them. It is analogous to the most strongly supported by [stimulus] logical reasoning task, and similarly benefits from cleanly prestating the topic's actors, relationships, and degrees of certainty for each.

This NASA video is full of many layers of nested extrapolations. Based on what we know, how would our solar system look from another system, from millions of years ago, and can scientists find planets using this technique?

Because of the need to prephrase the actors, relationships, and degrees of certainty, marking the passage's structural signposts that clearly assign examples and counterexamples to their actors will help to quickly eliminate distractors. You can read through our discussion of main idea or title and primary purpose to review these highlighting techniques.

The question stems for most supported by passage questions are often difficult to spot, as they are easily conflated with passage or author implies. At its base, the difference between the two tasks is between extrapolating facts and identifying opinion; today we're working on making a clean logical inference from explicit scientific evidence, which is why the sample question we'll be using from LSAC's website is classified as a most supported by passage and is not an opinion standard.

Some examples of most supported by passage question stems from modern LSATs:

Based on the passage, which one of the following is most likely to be true of any [category] used to replace [subcategory] in the process mentioned in the first paragraph?

Which one of the following is most strongly implied by
the passage?

It can be inferred from the passage that if the [actor] mentioned in lines 46–47 were eliminated . . . which one of the following would be the most likely to occur?

The passage most strongly suggests which one of the following about the use of [subject]?

We'll be using the same passage we introduced in the passage or author says explanation, a comparative passage where two authors in the 1990s discuss anthropomorphic climate change.

Passage A
In January 1995 a vast section of ice broke off the
   Larsen ice shelf in Antarctica. While this occurrence,
   the direct result of a regional warming trend that began
   in the 1940s, may be the most spectacular
(5) manifestation yet of serious climate changes
   occurring on the planet as a consequence of
   atmospheric heating, other symptoms—more intense
   storms, prolonged droughts, extended heat waves, and
   record flooding—have been emerging around the
(10) world for several years.

   According to scientific estimates, furthermore,
   sea-level rise resulting from global warming will
   reach 3 feet (1 meter) within the next century. Such a
   rise could submerge vast coastal areas, with
(15) potentially irreversible consequences.

   Late in 1995 the Intergovernmental Panel on
   Climate Change (IPCC) reported that it had detected
   the “fingerprint“ of human activity as a contributor to
   the warming of the earth’s atmosphere. Furthermore,
(20) panel scientists attributed such warming directly to
   the increasing quantities of carbon dioxide released
   by our burning of fossil fuels. The IPCC report thus
   clearly identifies a pattern of climatic response to
   human activities in the climatological record, thereby
(25) establishing without doubt that global warming can
   no longer be attributed solely to natural climate
variability.

Passage B
Over the past two decades, an extreme view of
global warming has developed. While it contains
(30) some facts, this view also contains exaggerations and
misstatements, and has sometimes resulted in
     unreasonable environmental policies.
        According to this view, global warming will cause the
     polar ice to melt, raising global sea levels,
(35) flooding entire regions, destroying crops, and
     displacing millions of people. However, there is still a
     great deal of uncertainty regarding a potential rise in
     sea levels. Certainly, if the earth warms, sea levels
     will rise as the water heats up and expands. If the
(40) polar ice caps melt, more water will be added to the
     oceans, raising sea levels even further. There is some
     evidence that melting has occurred; however, there is
     also evidence that the Antarctic ice sheets are
     growing. In fact, it is possible that a warmer sea-
(45) surface temperature will cause more water to
     evaporate, and when wind carries the moisture-laden
     air over the land, it will precipitate out as snow,
     causing the ice sheets to grow. Certainly, we need to
     have better knowledge about the hydrological cycle
(50) before predicting dire consequences as a result of
     recent increases in global temperatures.
      This view also exaggerates the impact that human
     activity has on the planet. While human activity may
     be a factor in global warming, natural events appear
(55) to be far more important. The 1991 eruption of Mount
     Pinatubo in the Philippines, for example, caused a
     decrease in the average global temperature, while El
     Niño, a periodic perturbation in the ocean’s
     temperature and circulation, causes extreme global
(60) climatic events, including droughts and major
     flooding. Of even greater importance to the earth’s
     climate are variations in the sun’s radiation and in the
     earth’s orbit. Climate variability has always existed and
     will continue to do so, regardless of human
(65) intervention.

This second passage clearly tries to downplay the evidence introduced in Passage A, as well as present several countervailing factors and natural examples that outweigh humanity's impact on global warming. The signposts for each point of view (pink), the examples and counterexamples each author uses (blues and cyans, respectively), as well as the more structural elements (green and red), will help us find and reference back for any passage or author says questions.

The author of passage B would be most likely to make which
one of the following criticisms about the predictions cited in
passage A concerning a rise in sea level?

This question stem is one of the most complicated for this task, as it exemplifies the difficulty of classifying the task as either identifying Passage B author's opinion on Passage A or extrapolating from the evidence that the author includes in Passage B's argument. Ultimately, though, you'll still want to pay attention to the actors, relationships, and degrees of certainty for either task. If an answer choice correctly maps on to the relevant portion(s) of the passage, then it will be correct.

In this case, the author of Passage B clearly thinks that the anthropomorphic global warming opinion in Passage A is "exaggerated" and based on evidence that we don't fully understand and that is, in the author's opinion, outweighed by other, naturalistic, causes. Ideally, you would have already answered a main idea or primary purpose question prior to reaching today's question, as reframing to that prephrase would make comparing the answer choices much easier.

(A) These predictions incorrectly posit a causal
relationship between ~~the warming of the earth~~
and ~~rising sea levels~~.
(B) These predictions are supported ~~only~~ by inconclusive
evidence that some melting of the polar ice caps
has occurred.
(C) These predictions exaggerate the degree to which
~~global temperatures have increased~~ in recent
decades.
(D) These predictions rely on an inadequate
understanding of the hydrological cycle.
(E) These predictions assume a ~~continuing increase~~ in
global temperatures that may not occur.

Answer choice D is a factual statement that is supported by lines 48-52, and not an opinion, because it merely points out that scientists do not currently fully understand how the hydrological cycle will react to the admittedly observed global warming phenomenon. "Rely" does not convey the evaluative element necessary to convey the author's opinion, as it points out a gap in scientists' current abilities to properly extrapolate from the underlying evidence. This answer choice fits nicely in with our prephrase of Passage B's actors, relationships, and degrees of certainty: we shouldn't make predictions of global ruin until we better understand the mechanisms underlying the phenomenon.

Answer choice A ignores lines 38-39, where the author admits that warming has some relationship to sea levels; stating that the relationship is more complicated than it is treated in Passage A is not denying causality.

Answer choice B inappropriately limits the author to criticizing Passage A on the evidence of melting ice caps. Line 30 uses plural "facts," and the rest of the argument focuses on rising sea levels, of which polar ice caps are only a piece.

Answer choice C imputes information for Passage B's author that neither passage discusses: we only know that temperatures have risen, not by how much.

Answer choice E similarly would require evidence that neither passage presents. Although both passages discuss future effects of global warming, neither rely on a continuing increase.

Reading Comprehension: Passage or Author Says

zenof180@gmail.com (Mr. Bennett) — Mon, 26 Mar 2012 13:00:00 +0000

There's some strong language in this video, but that's often what makes memorable movie quotes. Unfortunately, it's much harder to parse out explicit evidence on an LSAT RC passage.

The biggest problem with author or passage says is that they invite the examinee to spend a few minutes double- and triple-checking the passage to ensure that their answer is, in fact, not mentioned in the text. While some distractors will be easy to eliminate because they were clearly not mentioned in the text, most will be minor mischaracterizations or inferences that can be drawn from the text (as opposed to explicitly stated).

Thus, the manner of creating structural signposts as you read through the passage will help to quickly find where a given answer choice is located, or, if you're eliminating distractors, where the author mentioned the topic of the answer choice. You can read through our discussion of main idea or title and primary purpose to review these highlighting techniques.

The question stems for passage or author says questions are normally easy to spot, often containing the keywords "mentions/offers/states" or "according to the passage/author" to show that the task is to restate the passage's explicit evidence. However, be careful to distinguish between this task and expert says and the various explicit and evaluating evidence standards that also use "mention" with a meaning or purpose task added on.

Some examples of passage or author says question stems from modern LSATs:

According to passage B, which one of the following is an example of a [phenomenon] for which [scientists] propose a questionable explanation?

According to the passage, which one of the following was a motivating factor in certain Latina authors’ decisions regarding the structure of their autobiographical writings?

The passage offers which one of the following as an
explanation for why [phenomenon]?

You can find this passage and the others we'll be using to describe the RC section on LSAC's website. We'll be diving into a new passage today, a comparative passage where two authors in the 1990s discuss anthropomorphic climate change.

Passage A
In January 1995 a vast section of ice broke off the
   Larsen ice shelf in Antarctica. While this occurrence,
   the direct result of a regional warming trend that began
   in the 1940s, may be the most spectacular
(5) manifestation yet of serious climate changes
   occurring on the planet as a consequence of
   atmospheric heating, other symptoms—more intense
   storms, prolonged droughts, extended heat waves, and
   record flooding—have been emerging around the
(10) world for several years.

   According to scientific estimates, furthermore,
   sea-level rise resulting from global warming will
   reach 3 feet (1 meter) within the next century. Such a
   rise could submerge vast coastal areas, with
(15) potentially irreversible consequences.

   Late in 1995 the Intergovernmental Panel on
   Climate Change (IPCC) reported that it had detected
   the “fingerprint“ of human activity as a contributor to
   the warming of the earth’s atmosphere. Furthermore,
(20) panel scientists attributed such warming directly to
   the increasing quantities of carbon dioxide released
   by our burning of fossil fuels. The IPCC report thus
   clearly identifies a pattern of climatic response to
   human activities in the climatological record, thereby
(25) establishing without doubt that global warming can
   no longer be attributed solely to natural climate
variability.

Passage B
Over the past two decades, an extreme view of
global warming has developed. While it contains
(30) some facts, this view also contains exaggerations and
misstatements, and has sometimes resulted in
     unreasonable environmental policies.
        According to this view, global warming will cause the
     polar ice to melt, raising global sea levels,
(35) flooding entire regions, destroying crops, and
     displacing millions of people. However, there is still a
     great deal of uncertainty regarding a potential rise in
     sea levels. Certainly, if the earth warms, sea levels
     will rise as the water heats up and expands. If the
(40) polar ice caps melt, more water will be added to the
     oceans, raising sea levels even further. There is some
     evidence that melting has occurred; however, there is
     also evidence that the Antarctic ice sheets are
     growing. In fact, it is possible that a warmer sea-
(45) surface temperature will cause more water to
     evaporate, and when wind carries the moisture-laden
     air over the land, it will precipitate out as snow,
     causing the ice sheets to grow. Certainly, we need to
     have better knowledge about the hydrological cycle
(50) before predicting dire consequences as a result of
     recent increases in global temperatures.
      This view also exaggerates the impact that human
     activity has on the planet. While human activity may
     be a factor in global warming, natural events appear
(55) to be far more important. The 1991 eruption of Mount
     Pinatubo in the Philippines, for example, caused a
     decrease in the average global temperature, while El
     Niño, a periodic perturbation in the ocean’s
     temperature and circulation, causes extreme global
(60) climatic events, including droughts and major
     flooding. Of even greater importance to the earth’s
     climate are variations in the sun’s radiation and in the
     earth’s orbit. Climate variability has always existed and
     will continue to do so, regardless of human
(65) intervention.

Which one of the following is mentioned in passage B but not
in ~~passage A~~ as a possible consequence of global warming?

This question stem is one of the most complicated for this task, as it requires comparing the two passages to each other and filtering out commonalities. However, the correct answer should jump out because of its interplay on the two passage's central dispute: whether humans are significantly contributing to global warming and whether we understand the phenomenon enough to design environmental policy against anthropomorphic carbon emissions.

(A) an increase in the size of the Antarctic ice sheet
(B) a ~~decrease~~ in the amount of snowfall
(C) a ~~falling~~ of ocean sea levels
(D) an increase in the severity of heat waves
(E) an ~~increase in the frequency~~ of major flooding

Answer choice A is clearly correct, as Passage B mentions the ice sheets growing as a possible, unexpected outcome based on warming sea water and its concomitant increase in snowfall. With the right signposts (mental or physically drawn), the good examinee will reference Passage B, starting with the "however" in line 42, and Passage A, starting with line 1. Passage B mentions growing ice sheets, while A mentions their crumbling; a savvy examinee will mark A and move on without checking the rest of the answer choices.

Answer choice B is not mentioned by Passage B at all; it only references snowfall at all in line 47, implying that it could increase rather than decrease.

Answer choice C similarly inverts the evidence, as both passages mention rising sea levels (lines 12, and 34).

Answer choice D at least correctly states the change in frequency of heat waves, but only Passage A specifically mentions them (line 8).

Answer choice E is by far the most attractive of the distractors, as both passages explicitly mention flooding (lines 9, 35, 61). However, Passage B never acknowledges that frequency of flooding will increase as a result of global warming, as it only discusses flooding from the point of view of the "extremist" position of anthropomorphic global warming or as a consequence of naturalistic causes. The structural signposts in line 33 ("According to this view,") and line 55 (example of Mount Pinatubo leading to floods) will help the great examinee eliminate answer choice E.

Reading Comprehension: Application of or Analogous to

zenof180@gmail.com (Mr. Bennett) — Fri, 23 Mar 2012 14:53:00 +0000

This is another post describing the classification system Zen of 180 uses for the reading comprehension section; if you're not sure how to approach studying for the LSAT, our 19 reading comprehension standards break it down into manageable chunks; also, our free online LSAT analyzer will let you know which types of passage structures give you the most trouble.

We'll be continuing with the Netherland's tulip bulb craze passage today, which we first outlined for the meaning of or referring to standard.

Many application of or analogous to questions are somewhat easy to identify, as they contain a synonym of application or analogous, and will reference or quote the part(s) of the passage that will serve as the comparison to the answer choices. However, some of this strand's question stems will will not have a keyword, but will clearly prompt the examinee to compare or apply the logic in the answer choices to the logic in the referenced portion of the passage. Thus, this task is part of the extrapolation strand, as it requires you to take information from the author's text and expand upon it or apply it in a new situation.

The example question we pulled from the sample questions LSAC provides on its website is pretty standard in its form, but some other sample question stems from modern LSATs are:

The relationship between the ways in which [countries'] common law and [ancient civilization's] law treat [subject], as described in the passages, is most analogous to the relationship between which one of the following pairs?

Which one of the following is most analogous to the process, described in the last paragraph, by which the [phenomenon] can be curtailed?

Based on the passage, which one of the following scenarios is most similar to some [field’s] scholars’ use of the [theoretical] principle regarding the [policty] debate?

The explanation of the utility maximization principle in the passage suggests that which one of the following would be most appropriately described as a rational response to [phenomenon]?

The Colbert Report applies an MIT study: longer essays get better scores on the SAT despite errors or evidence, so ideally your writing section should read like Glenn Beck's teleprompter.
Get More: Colbert Report Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,Video Archive

This extrapolation task most often requires the examinee to consider the question stem's highlighted text within the broader context of the passage's argument. As with the extrapolation strand in logical reasoning, you want to be paying special attention to the referenced topic's actors, relationships, and degrees of certainty. While reading through the passage, you should be actively marking these structural components anyway, as we describe in detail for the main idea and primary purpose tasks. When presented with an application of or analogous to question, you should return to the referenced text's signposts in the passage and cleanly restate who the actors are, how they are related, and how certain we are about each.

The question stem for today's sample provides some helpful focusing issues for the reader.

7. Given Garber’s account of the seventeenth-century Dutch
tulip market, which one of the following is most analogous to
someone who bought a tulip bulb of a certain variety in that
market at a very high price, only to sell a bulb of that variety at
a much lower price?

It's worth noting that the question is only focused from Garber's point of view; the passage presents both Garbar's opinion and that of Mackay, and a savvy examinee will be sure to make clear structural marks to indicate when the author is presenting which POV. Before we can even get to the full sample question today, though, we of course need to go over the passage.

       In economics, the term “speculative bubble“
       refers to a large upward move in an asset’s price
       driven not by the asset’s fundamentals—that is, by
       the earnings derivable from the asset—but rather by
(5)   mere speculation that someone else will be willing to
       pay a higher price for it. The price increase is then
       followed by a dramatic decline in price, due to a loss
       in confidence that the price will continue to rise, and
       the “bubble“ is said to have burst. According to
(10) Charles Mackay’s classic nineteenth-century account,
       the seventeenth-century Dutch tulip market provides
       an example of a speculative bubble. But the
       economist Peter Garber challenges Mackay’s view,
       arguing that there is no evidence that the Dutch tulip
(15) market really involved a speculative bubble.

       By the seventeenth century, the Netherlands had
       become a center of cultivation and development of
       new tulip varieties, and a market had developed in
       which rare varieties of bulbs sold at high prices. For
(20) example, a Semper Augustus bulb sold in 1625 for an
       amount of gold worth about U.S. $11,000 in 1999.
       Common bulb varieties, on the other hand, sold for
       very low prices. According to Mackay, by 1636 rapid
price rises attracted speculators, and prices of many
(25) varieties surged upward from November 1636 through
       January 1637. Mackay further states that in February
       1637 prices suddenly collapsed; bulbs could not be
       sold at 10 percent of their peak values. By 1739, the
       prices of all the most prized kinds of bulbs had fallen
(30) to no more than one two-hundredth of 1 percent of
       Semper Augustus’s peak price.

       Garber acknowledges that bulb prices increased
       dramatically from 1636 to 1637 and eventually
       reached very low levels. But he argues that this
(35) episode should not be described as a speculative
       bubble, for the increase and eventual decline in bulb
       prices can be explained in terms of the fundamentals.
Garber argues that a standard pricing pattern occurs
       for new varieties of flowers. When a particularly
(40) prized variety is developed, its original bulb sells for
       a high price. Thus, the dramatic rise in the price of
       some original tulip bulbs could have resulted as tulips
       in general, and certain varieties in particular, became
       fashionable. However, as the prized bulbs become
(45) more readily available through reproduction from the
       original bulb, their price falls rapidly; after less than
       30 years, bulbs sell at reproduction cost. But this
       does not mean that the high prices of original bulbs
       are irrational, for earnings derivable from the millions
(50) of bulbs descendant from the original bulbs can be
       very high, even if each individual descendant bulb
       commands a very low price. Given that an original
       bulb can generate a reasonable return on investment
       even if the price of descendant bulbs decreases
(55) dramatically, a rapid rise and eventual fall of tulip bulb
       prices need not indicate a speculative bubble.

The passage clearly sets up a debate between Mackay and Garber on whether Tulip Mania was a speculative bubble. However, for our purposes today, we're only interested in how Garber describes the original purchaser of an expensive bulb and sold that same variety for a low cost later. Once again, after reading the question stem, you should try and prephrase the actors, their relationships, and our degree of certainty about each before approaching the questions.

7. Given Garber’s account of the seventeenth-century Dutch
tulip market, which one of the following is most analogous to
someone who bought a tulip bulb of a certain variety in that
market at a very high price, only to sell a bulb of that variety at
a much lower price?

A good examinee would return (either mentally or physically) to the passage's third paragraph, where Garber's argument is fully described. The question stem tells you to focus on the buyer of the expensive tulip bulb who eventually sells versions of that bulb at a much lower price--the best examinees will realize that the question is referring to "original" and "descendant" bulbs from the text and make note of this relationship between the buyer, the original bulb, the descendant bulbs, and the ability to make a profit even with low prices because of the large number of descendant bulbs.

  But this
       does not mean that the high prices of original bulbs
       are irrational, for earnings derivable from the millions
(50) of bulbs descendant from the original bulbs can be
       very high, even if each individual descendant bulb
       commands a very low price.

With this prephrase in mind, we can compare the actors, their relationships, and the degree of certainty to the answer choices.

(A) someone who, after learning that many ~~others~~ had
~~withdrawn their applications~~ for a particular job,
applied for the job in the belief that there would
be ~~less competition~~ for it
(B) an art dealer who, after paying a very high price for
  a new painting, sells it at a very low price because
  it is ~~now considered to be an inferior work~~
(C) someone who, after buying a box of rare motorcycle
  parts at a very high price, is forced to sell them
  at a much lower price because of the sudden
  availability of ~~cheap substitute parts~~
(D) a publisher who pays an extremely high price for a
  new novel only to sell copies at a price affordable
  to nearly everyone
(E) an airline that, after selling ~~most of the tickets~~ for
  seats on a plane at a ~~very high~~ price, must sell the
  remaining tickets at a very low price

Answer choice D nicely analogizes the Garbar's argumentation of turning an expensive single original product into a profitable business by selling many copies of that original at a lower price. All of the important actors from the tulip market are replicated: buyer/seller, original bulb, descendant bulb. The relationships are similarly analogous, with an expensive price for the original product and a much lower price for the copies. Additionally, noted that D does not imply that the buyer/seller is forced to do anything because of market conditions: this is the standard business model for this market, and thus the buyer/seller plans to sell the copies at a low price in order to recoup their high initial cost.

Answer choice C and E clearly violate this important relationship between the buyer/seller and his descendant bulbs: although Mackay describes Tulip Mania as forcing original buyers to sell at a low price, you must note that the question stem clearly limits our application of the ideas from within Garber's argument.

Answer choice A introduces extraneous elements: actors (other applicants) and a relationship in the decision making process (less market competition) that simply doesn't exist in the passage.

Answer choice B is the most attractive distractor, as it has many of the actors and relationships from the passage. However, it is missing the crucial descendant bulb actors, and actively misstates the relationship between the original high and subsequent low price. Garber's opinion is that the original bulb's owner created copies to sell them cheaply and recoup costs, not because others had judged the tulips to be inferior.

Reading Comprehension: Meaning of or Referring to

zenof180@gmail.com (Mr. Bennett) — Thu, 22 Mar 2012 17:23:00 +0000

This is another post describing the classification system Zen of 180 uses for the reading comprehension section; if you're not sure how to approach studying for the LSAT, our 19 reading comprehension standards break it down into manageable chunks; also, our free online LSAT analyzer will let you know which types of passage structures give you the most trouble.
We'll be starting with a new passage today, one questioning whether the Netherland's tulip bulb craze could be characterized as a speculative bubble.

Meaning of or referring to questions are almost easy to identify, and oftentimes will have specific line references (e.g., "lines 30–36"), as does the example question we pulled from the sample questions LSAC provides on its website. For those questions, we suggest pausing after reading those lines, answering the question, and then return to reading the passage. It's easy to identify the "line reference" questions by just skimming through the question stems, as the numbers and/or parenthesis should jump out at you. We'll write another post about the other advantages to this strategy, but you can't always apply it to meaning of or referring to questions.

The concept behind this Canadian game show is pretty close to the LSAT's task of restating exactly what the author's evidence means.

Some sample question stems from modern LSATs are:

In using the phrase “[phrase]” (line 25), the author of passage A most clearly means to refer to [the actor's

The author most likely intends to include which one of the following [meanings] among the “[phrase]” referred to in line 50?
Which one of the following assertions from passage A most clearly exemplifies what the author of passage B means in calling [topic] a “[phrase]” (lines 30–33)?

This explicit evidence task most often requires the examinee to consider the question stem's highlighted text within the somewhat narrow context of the lines surrounding it; rarely, however, the question will require the reader to orient the highlighted text within the passage's overall argument. As such, it's often quite helpful to actively read the passage and highlight changes in topic and structure, as meaning of or referring to questions will necessarily be explicit pieces of evidence that the author uses to build his or her argument.

The question stem for today's sample provides some helpful focusing issues for the reader.

6. The phrase “standard pricing pattern“ as used in line 38 most
nearly means a pricing pattern

Before we can even get to the sample question today, though, we of course need to go over the passage. As a reminder, the Zen system suggests skimming the question stems for the entire passage, taking note of the ones with line references, and then notating the passage with the question numbers along the the passage's margins. In this case, you should actively read the passage up until about about line 40, then move on to answer the question before continuing:

       In economics, the term “speculative bubble“
       refers to a large upward move in an asset’s price
       driven not by the asset’s fundamentals—that is, by
       the earnings derivable from the asset—but rather by
(5)   mere speculation that someone else will be willing to
       pay a higher price for it. The price increase is then
       followed by a dramatic decline in price, due to a loss
       in confidence that the price will continue to rise, and
       the “bubble“ is said to have burst. According to
(10) Charles Mackay’s classic nineteenth-century account,
       the seventeenth-century Dutch tulip market provides
       an example of a speculative bubble. But the
       economist Peter Garber challenges Mackay’s view,
       arguing that there is no evidence that the Dutch tulip
(15) market really involved a speculative bubble.

       By the seventeenth century, the Netherlands had
       become a center of cultivation and development of
       new tulip varieties, and a market had developed in
       which rare varieties of bulbs sold at high prices. For
(20) example, a Semper Augustus bulb sold in 1625 for an
       amount of gold worth about U.S. $11,000 in 1999.
       Common bulb varieties, on the other hand, sold for
       very low prices. According to Mackay, by 1636 rapid
price rises attracted speculators, and prices of many
(25) varieties surged upward from November 1636 through
       January 1637. Mackay further states that in February
       1637 prices suddenly collapsed; bulbs could not be
       sold at 10 percent of their peak values. By 1739, the
       prices of all the most prized kinds of bulbs had fallen
(30) to no more than one two-hundredth of 1 percent of
       Semper Augustus’s peak price.

       Garber acknowledges that bulb prices increased
       dramatically from 1636 to 1637 and eventually
       reached very low levels. But he argues that this
(35) episode should not be described as a speculative
       bubble, for the increase and eventual decline in bulb
       prices can be explained in terms of the fundamentals.
6.    Garber argues that a standard pricing pattern occurs
       for new varieties of flowers. When a particularly
(40) prized variety is developed, its original bulb sells for
       a high price. Thus, the dramatic rise in the price of
       some original tulip bulbs could have resulted as tulips
       in general, and certain varieties in particular, became
       fashionable.

The passage clearly sets up a debate between Mackay and Garber on whether Tulip Mania was a speculative bubble. However, for our purposes today, we're only interested in what the author and Garber meant by describing the tulip's market as a "standard pricing pattern."

6. The phrase “standard pricing pattern“ as used in line 38 most
nearly means a pricing pattern

(A) against which ~~other~~ pricing patterns ~~are to be measured~~
(B) that conforms to a commonly ~~agreed-upon~~ ~~criterion~~
(C) that is merely ~~acceptable~~
(D) that regularly recurs in certain types of cases
(E) that serves as an exemplar

Answer choice D nicely restates the author's and Garbar's meaning of "standard" with regularly recurs, and "certain types of cases" maps on to the "for a new variety of flowers" in the passage. Note that Garbar is refuting Mackay's stance by saying that Tulip Mania actually conforms to normal, rational economic behavior within the wider flower market.

Answer choice E is an excellent distractor: however, "exemplar" implies that some actor was actively trying to create the standard market conditions. Garbar is not arguing that the market was following an exemplar, but rather that it was an example of the expected operations.

Answer choice A follows this same erroneous reasoning, but the language is much more clearly out of the scope of what Garbar's argument is meaning: we're only talking about the tulip market and not measuring other markets against any standard.

Answer choice B falsely implies that the argument used only one criterion to define the standard, as well implied that others have settled on this after deliberation. We're not told how or why this standard was defined, and thus the answer choice can't impute things that are not present in the passage text.

Answer choice C incorrectly brings a value judgment component to the "standard," which much more closely tracks the "normal" meaning of the word rather than the evaluative meaning.

Reading Comprehension: Attitude on [Piece]

zenof180@gmail.com (Mr. Bennett) — Fri, 16 Mar 2012 13:00:00 +0000

Nigel Farage delivering his opinion on the European Union's handling of member states' sovereignty during the debt crises. Note that this level of passion is common in the real world, but is far more forceful and strongly worded than any LSAT RC passage has ever been.

A common phrase bandied about starts off with: "Opinions are like..." It's important to remember that the LSAT is a stilted version of the real world, if it can even be called a part of it at all. That is, you are far more likely to deal with strongly held opinions in your daily interactions that you are to encounter one on a RC passage. In order to pick up on the cues provided by the author, then, you must be especially sensitive to any whiff of an opinion.

The example question we pulled from the sample questions LSAC provides on its website is a good representative of the attitude on [piece] task, although it is somewhat easy because the passage is overall an opinion structure. The entire purpose of the passage is to outline the author's opinion, and the question zeroes in on the passages' main subject. However, the same skills that we'll outline today will work for all attitude on [piece] questions.

Before we can even get to the question, though, we of course need to go over the passage:

The painter Roy Lichtenstein helped to define pop
art—the movement that incorporated commonplace
objects and commercial-art techniques into paintings—
by paraphrasing the style of comic books in his work.
(5) His merger of a popular genre with the forms and
intentions of fine art generated a complex result: while
poking fun at the pretensions of the art world,
Lichtenstein’s work also managed to convey a
seriousness of theme that enabled it to transcend mere
(10) parody.

That Lichtenstein’s images were fine art was at
     first difficult to see, because, with their word balloons
     and highly stylized figures, they looked like nothing
     more than the comic book panels from which they were
(15) copied. Standard art history holds that pop art emerged
     as an impersonal alternative to the histrionics of
     abstract expressionism, a movement in which painters
     conveyed their private attitudes and emotions using
     nonrepresentational techniques. The truth is that by the
(20) time pop art first appeared in the early 1960s, abstract
     expressionism had already lost much of its force. Pop
     art painters weren’t quarreling with the powerful early
     abstract expressionist work of the late 1940s but with a
     second generation of abstract expressionists whose
(25) work seemed airy, high-minded, and overly lyrical.
     Pop art paintings were full of simple black lines and
     large areas of primary color. Lichtenstein’s work was
     part of a general rebellion against the fading emotional
     power of abstract expressionism, rather than an aloof
(30) attempt to ignore it.

But if rebellion against previous art by means of
     the careful imitation of a popular genre were all that
     characterized Lichtenstein’s work, it would possess
     only the reflective power that parodies have in relation
(35) to their subjects. Beneath its cartoonish methods, his
     work displayed an impulse toward realism, an urge to
     say that what was missing from contemporary painting
     was the depiction of contemporary life. The stilted
     romances and war stories portrayed in the comic books
(40) on which he based his canvases, the stylized
     automobiles, hot dogs, and table lamps that appeared in
     his pictures, were reflections of the culture Lichtenstein
     inhabited. But, in contrast to some pop art,
     Lichtenstein’s work exuded not a jaded cynicism about
(45) consumer culture, but a kind of deliberate naivete,
     intended as a response to the excess of sophistication
     he observed not only in the later abstract expressionists
     but in some other pop artists. With the comics—
     typically the domain of youth and innocence—as his
(50) reference point, a nostalgia fills his paintings that gives
     them, for all their surface bravado, an inner sweetness.
     His persistent use of comic-art conventions
     demonstrates a faith in reconciliation, not only between
     cartoons and fine art, but between parody and true
(55) feeling.

After reading the passage and before you have reached an attitude on [piece] question, you will have hopefully answered a broader, passage structure question or two (main idea, primary purpose, overall organization). The correct answer choice from one of those questions will serve as a great reframing of what the LSAT considers the most important part(s) of the passage, and will thus help you better consider how the author considers the "piece" from the attitude on [piece] question. As a reminder, this passage's primary purpose question and answer was:

The primary purpose of the passage is most likely to

B) clarify the motivation behind an artist’s work

Which one of the following best captures the author’s attitude toward Lichtenstein’s work?

(A) enthusiasm for its more rebellious aspects
(B) respect for its successful parody of youth and innocence
(C) pleasure in its blatant rejection of abstract expressionism
(D) admiration for its subtle critique of contemporary culture
(E) appreciation for its ability to incorporate both realism and
naivete

Answer choice E captures the author's clear respect for Lichtenstein's ability to create a complex aesthetic by blending contemporary culture with an innocent tone and disarming medium (comics).

While the author clearly has respect for Lichtenstein's work, answer choice A and C probably goes to far in inferring that the author takes pleasure in it; add in the problematic focus on rebelling from or rejecting abstract expressionism rather than celebrating his handling of a complex aesthetic (see lines 5-10), A and C can be quickly removed.

The other answer choices all start off with nouns that appropriately map onto the author's general views of the work. However, a good examinee will remind herself that the author's overall purpose was to argue that Lichtenstein used such a complex aesthetic, drawing from popular culture as well as serious themes, to transcend parody.

Thus, answer choice B will quickly be eliminated because the author thinks that Lichtenstein's work transcends parody by incorporating youth and innocence, not parodying them.

Similarly, answer choice D is clearly incorrect because the author incorporates and celebrates contemporary culture; see the list of topics he draws from in lines 35-48, all of which are parts of his everyday world.

Reading Comprehension: Refers to [Piece] in Order to

zenof180@gmail.com (Mr. Bennett) — Thu, 15 Mar 2012 13:00:00 +0000

This is another post describing the classification system Zen of 180 uses for the reading comprehension section; if you're not sure how to approach studying for the LSAT, our 19 reading comprehension standards break it down into manageable chunks; also, our free online LSAT analyzer will let you know which types of passage structures give you the most trouble.

We'll be using the same passage we used yesterday for primary purpose, so be sure to read through that post to understand how we'd suggest to read and mark the passage's structure.

Refers to [piece] in order to questions are somewhat easy to identify, and oftentimes will have specific line references (e.g., "lines 30–36"), as does the example question we pulled from the sample questions LSAC provides on its website. For those questions, we suggest stopping after reading those lines, go answer the question, and then return to reading the passage. It's easy to identify the "line reference" questions by just skimming through the question stems, as the numbers and/or parenthesis should jump out at you. We'll write another post about the other advantages to this strategy, but you can't always apply it to refers to [piece] in order to questions.

Some example question stems from modern LSATs include:

The author’s discussion of [passage topic] serves primarily to

Which one of the following describes the author’s primary purpose in mentioning the [fact] (lines 12–17)?

The author’s reference to the belief that “[quoted evidence]” (lines 24–25) primarily serves to

The flying spaghetti monster is referred to by some debaters in order to suggest a conclusion about creationism.

This evaluating evidence use task most often requires the examinee to consider the question stem's highlighted text within the somewhat narrow context of the lines surrounding it; sometimes, however, the question will require the reader to orient the highlighted text within the passage's overall argument. As such, it's often quite helpful to actively read the passage and highlight changes in topic and structure, as refers to [piece] in order to will necessarily hinge on the argumentation around it.

Finally, keeping in mind the various argumentative structural components that the information could be providing: premise, evidence, or conclusion. Prephrasing this structural use of the highlighted text will often be enough to eliminate many distractors.

So, putting it all together with the passage we introduced for primary purpose:

2. The author most likely lists some of the themes and objects
influencing and appearing in Lichtenstein’s paintings (lines 38-43)
primarily to

As a reminder, the Zen system suggests skimming the question stems for the entire passage, taking note of the ones with line references, and then notating the passage with the question numbers along the the passage's margins. In this case, you should actively read the passage up until about line 48, then move on to answer the question before continuing.

The painter Roy Lichtenstein helped to define pop
art—the movement that incorporated commonplace
objects and commercial-art techniques into paintings—
by paraphrasing the style of comic books in his work.
(5) His merger of a popular genre with the forms and
intentions of fine art generated a complex result: while
poking fun at the pretensions of the art world,
Lichtenstein’s work also managed to convey a
seriousness of theme that enabled it to transcend mere
(10) parody.

That Lichtenstein’s images were fine art was at
     first difficult to see, because, with their word balloons
     and highly stylized figures, they looked like nothing
     more than the comic book panels from which they were
(15) copied. Standard art history holds that pop art emerged
     as an impersonal alternative to the histrionics of
     abstract expressionism, a movement in which painters
     conveyed their private attitudes and emotions using
     nonrepresentational techniques. The truth is that by the
(20) time pop art first appeared in the early 1960s, abstract
     expressionism had already lost much of its force. Pop
     art painters weren’t quarreling with the powerful early
     abstract expressionist work of the late 1940s but with a
     second generation of abstract expressionists whose
(25) work seemed airy, high-minded, and overly lyrical.
     Pop art paintings were full of simple black lines and
     large areas of primary color. Lichtenstein’s work was
     part of a general rebellion against the fading emotional
     power of abstract expressionism, rather than an aloof
(30) attempt to ignore it.

But if rebellion against previous art by means of
     the careful imitation of a popular genre were all that
     characterized Lichtenstein’s work, it would possess
     only the reflective power that parodies have in relation
(35) to their subjects. Beneath its cartoonish methods, his
     work displayed an impulse toward realism, an urge to
     say that what was missing from contemporary painting
2. was the depiction of contemporary life. The stilted
     romances and war stories portrayed in the comic books
(40) on which he based his canvases, the stylized
     automobiles, hot dogs, and table lamps that appeared in
     his pictures, were reflections of the culture Lichtenstein
     inhabited. But, in contrast to some pop art,
     Lichtenstein’s work exuded not a jaded cynicism about
(45) consumer culture, but a kind of deliberate naivete,
     intended as a response to the excess of sophistication
     he observed not only in the later abstract expressionists
     but in some other pop artists.

After reading the passage to this point, we should be ready to skip ahead to question 2 and answer it before continuing.

The author most likely lists some of the themes and objects influencing and appearing in Lichtenstein’s paintings (lines 38-43) primarily to

(A) show that the paintings depict aspects of contemporary life
(B) support the claim that Lichtenstein’s work was parodic in intent
(C) contrast Lichtenstein’s approach to art with that of abstract
expressionism
(D) suggest the emotions that lie at the heart of Lichtenstein’s work
(E) endorse Lichtenstein’s attitude toward consumer culture

Answer choice B nicely fits along with the third paragraph's structure of closely describing Lichtenstein's aesthetic, leveraging that into how he consciously used it to create poignant art from common cultural tools. The list is clearly made up of specific evidence, thus any non-evidentiary keywords make an answer choice suspect.

On that basis alone, E can be removed because a list of objects cannot, on its own, lead to an endorsement of an attitude.

Answer choice B mischaracterizes the author's argument, as he or she is emphatic that Lichtenstein's work transcends parody.

While answer choice C starts off somewhat promisingly, and the list does seem in contrast with what little we are told about abstract expressionism in the second paragraph (it's "airy, high-minded, and overly lyrical"); however, the list the refers to [piece] in order to question emphasizes is in the entire next paragraph. The author has moved on from abstract expressionism and is building an argument about how Lichtenstein uses popular culture to build something more than parody.

Oppositely, answer choice D conflates the list with the author's later argument that Lichtenstein's "deliberate naivete" and his work's "inner sweetness" created a rich ground for artistic juxtaposition with the real world. Remember that the LSAT is only asking about the specific pieces of the argument listed, not the overall arguments in the paragraph or lines mentioned.

Reading Comprehension: Primary Purpose

zenof180@gmail.com (Mr. Bennett) — Wed, 14 Mar 2012 13:00:00 +0000

John Tartaglia reminds us in Avenue Q that finding your own purpose, let alone someone else's, can be quite difficult.

Primary purpose questions are one of the easiest tasks to recognize on the LSAT, and the example question we pulled from the sample questions LSAC provides on its website is a good representative.

Before we can even get to the question, though, we of course need to go over the passage:

The painter Roy Lichtenstein helped to define pop
art—the movement that incorporated commonplace
objects and commercial-art techniques into paintings—
by paraphrasing the style of comic books in his work.
(5) His merger of a popular genre with the forms and
intentions of fine art generated a complex result: while
poking fun at the pretensions of the art world,
Lichtenstein’s work also managed to convey a
seriousness of theme that enabled it to transcend mere
(10) parody.

This first paragraph clearly has a lot going on, despite only being 10 lines long. The author introduces the main topic (Lichtenstein and pop art in yellow), the complexity of his aesthetic (orange), and the author's opinion that this complexity makes his art transcend parody (purple). The dark blue highlights are positive definitions of their respective topics, and the green "also" helps to connect the specific complexity that the author finds so transcendental.

Note that from the beginning, we know that this passage is not only the arts and humanities passage, but also that its structure is almost certainly an argument--i.e., in the Zen classification, an opinion passage. This structural categorization has special importance to correctly answering primary purpose questions, as we'll see later when we can quickly eliminating distractors because they implicate other structures. Moving on with the passage:

     That Lichtenstein’s images were fine art was at
     first difficult to see, because, with their word balloons
     and highly stylized figures, they looked like nothing
     more than the comic book panels from which they were
(15) copied. Standard art history holds that pop art emerged
     as an impersonal alternative to the histrionics of
     abstract expressionism, a movement in which painters
     conveyed their private attitudes and emotions using
     nonrepresentational techniques. The truth is that by the
(20) time pop art first appeared in the early 1960s, abstract
     expressionism had already lost much of its force. Pop
     art painters weren’t quarreling with the powerful early
     abstract expressionist work of the late 1940s but with a
     second generation of abstract expressionists whose
(25) work seemed airy, high-minded, and overly lyrical.
     Pop art paintings were full of simple black lines and
     large areas of primary color. Lichtenstein’s work was
     part of a general rebellion against the fading emotional
     power of abstract expressionism, rather than an aloof
(30) attempt to ignore it.

This paragraph presents a ton of specific information, both positive (blue) and negative (cyan) definitions for both pop art and its aesthetic counterpart, abstract expressionism. While these details are not helpful for answering primary purpose questions, you should of course still note them during reading. More useful for today's purposes, the author also expresses an opinion on which works Lichtenstein was directly opposing (the second generation of abstract expressionism), and that he was part of a general, purposeful retreat from that aesthetic's high-mindedness. Moving on with the passage:

But if rebellion against previous art by means of
     the careful imitation of a popular genre were all that
     characterized Lichtenstein’s work, it would possess
     only the reflective power that parodies have in relation
(35) to their subjects. Beneath its cartoonish methods, his
     work displayed an impulse toward realism, an urge to
     say that what was missing from contemporary painting
     was the depiction of contemporary life. The stilted
     romances and war stories portrayed in the comic books
(40) on which he based his canvases, the stylized
     automobiles, hot dogs, and table lamps that appeared in
     his pictures, were reflections of the culture Lichtenstein
     inhabited. But, in contrast to some pop art,
     Lichtenstein’s work exuded not a jaded cynicism about
(45) consumer culture, but a kind of deliberate naivete,
     intended as a response to the excess of sophistication
     he observed not only in the later abstract expressionists
     but in some other pop artists. With the comics—
     typically the domain of youth and innocence—as his
(50) reference point, a nostalgia fills his paintings that gives
     them, for all their surface bravado, an inner sweetness.
     His persistent use of comic-art conventions
     demonstrates a faith in reconciliation, not only between
     cartoons and fine art, but between parody and true
(55) feeling.

This paragraph builds on previous paragraph, but focuses more on Lichtenstein’s work rather than the more general differences between pop art and abstract expression. The author further elaborates the opinion that the cartoonish methods were purposefully counterpoint to stuffy expressionism, but that Lichtenstein did far more with the medium than comic books. The author cites this use of conflicting innocence, naivete, and nostalgia with serious topics allowed him to better comment on contemporary American life.

Thus, this paragraph simply builds on the basic opinion from the first paragraph that Lichtenstein’s work uses a complex blend of simple aesthetic and purposeful appropriation of pop culture to fight against abstract expressionism. Once you see a primary purpose question, you should try to prephrase the passage's structure and content at a such a high level of generality. With this prephrase, we should be able to answer the primary purpose question:

The primary purpose of the passage is most likely to

A) express curiosity about an artist’s work
B) clarify the motivation behind an artist’s work
C) contrast two opposing theories about an artist’s work
D) describe the evolution of an artist’s work
E) refute a previous overestimation of an artist’s work

Answer choice B nicely presents an opinion phrase that matches the author's goals: convince the reader of why Lichtenstein chose his complex aesthetic, and explain how those choices achieved that goal and made his work transcend parody into great art.

Most of the distractors exhibit a common flaw: they conflate the passage's structure. For instance, answer choice C implies that the passage is a debate structure; however, no opposing viewpoints are ever presented to the author's primary thesis.

Similarly, D implies the passage is a transition text, i.e., that it describes how a topic developed or changed over time. The author of this passage, however, discusses Lichtenstein’s work after the fact and as a single body; it does not spend any time on how he developed his style, merely discussing why and the aesthetic's power.

Finally, answer choice A's use of the neutral phrase "express curiosity" does not have nearly enough emphasis on the opinionated tones in the passage. It probably would be referring to an expository passage, which might be appropriate if the author did not express an opinion on Lichtenstein’s work but rather had described his aesthetic in greater detail.

While answer choice E is clearly implicates an opinion structure, the author never mentions any prior valuation of Lichtenstein’s work. Clearly, then, it can't be the author's purpose to refute a point of view he or she never addresses.

Reading Comprehension: Passage or Author Implies

zenof180@gmail.com (Mr. Bennett) — Tue, 13 Mar 2012 13:00:00 +0000

While it might not be helpful to do so on a first-read through of the passage, be sure to adopt this attitude for passage or author implies questions.

Recognizing a passage or author implies question, is, however, much more difficult than it would at first appear. This task is essentially asking you to identify a point of view--that is, an opinion--that the author would likely hold. Although the question stem sometimes will provide the topic to be opined upon, often the answer choices will present differing opinions on differing topics. Thus, in order to accurately answer answer this task, you should be prepared to evaluate each answer choice; prephrasing is only possible if the stem provides the topic.

That said, here are a few common question stem examples that prompt passage or author implies:

The passage indicates which one of the following about [passage piece]?

The passage most strongly suggests that the author holds which one of the following views?

Which one of the following is most strongly supported by information given in the passage?

Note how the final question stem seems to fit better into an extrapolation standard; LSAC is unfortunately not consistent in separating the question stems for inferring an opinion from identifying a logical extension of presented evidence. Note that today's task is about inferring the author's opinion on a topic, and sometimes the lines between the two can be blurred. Thankfully, as with the distinction between definition and fails to consider assumptions, the general approach to passage or author implies will also help you answer most supported by passage questions.

When presented with a question stem that focuses on a given topic, the first task is to refresh your understanding of the passage's treatment of the topic; then you can cleanly prephrase the starting point and use that prephrase to compare against the answer choices.

However, if the the question is open ended--as our example is--then you should re-read the answer to the main idea or title question to reframe back to what the LSAT considers as the author's primary considerations. The following example comes from a RC passage you can access for free on LSAC's website. LSAC helpfully identified this passage as being written in 1980, and you can see how we suggest you "read" the passage here.

        The struggle to obtain legal recognition of
        aboriginal rights is a difficult one, and even if a right
        is written into the law there is no guarantee that the
        future will not bring changes to the law that
(5) undermine the right. For this reason, the federal
        government of Canada in 1982 extended
        constitutional protection to those aboriginal rights
        already recognized under the law. This protection was
        extended to the Indian, Inuit, and Métis peoples, the
(10) three groups generally thought to comprise the
        aboriginal population in Canada. But this decision has
        placed on provincial courts the enormous burden of
        interpreting and translating the necessarily general
        constitutional language into specific rulings. The
(15) result has been inconsistent recognition and
        establishment of aboriginal rights, despite the
        continued efforts of aboriginal peoples to raise issues
        concerning their rights.

        Aboriginal rights in Canada are defined by the
(20) constitution as aboriginal peoples’ rights to ownership
        of land and its resources, the inherent right of
        aboriginal societies to self-government, and the right
        to legal recognition of indigenous customs. But
        difficulties arise in applying these broadly conceived
(25) rights. For example, while it might appear
        straightforward to affirm legal recognition of
        indigenous customs, the exact legal meaning of
        “indigenous“ is extremely difficult to interpret. The
        intent of the constitutional protection is to recognize
(30) only long-standing traditional customs, not those of
        recent origin; provincial courts therefore require
        aboriginal peoples to provide legal documentation
        that any customs they seek to protect were practiced
        sufficiently long ago—a criterion defined in practice
(35) to mean prior to the establishment of British
        sovereignty over the specific territory. However, this
        requirement makes it difficult for aboriginal societies,
        which often relied on oral tradition rather than written
        records, to support their claims.

(40) Furthermore, even if aboriginal peoples are
        successful in convincing the courts that specific rights
        should be recognized, it is frequently difficult to
        determine exactly what these rights amount to.
        Consider aboriginal land claims. Even when
(45) aboriginal ownership of specific lands is fully
        established, there remains the problem of interpreting
        the meaning of that "ownership." In a 1984 case in
        Ontario, an aboriginal group claimed that its property
        rights should be interpreted as full ownership in the
(50)contemporary sense of private property, which allows
        for the sale of the land or its resources. But the
        provincial court instead ruled that the law had
        previously recognized only the aboriginal right to use
        the land and therefore granted property rights so
(55) minimal as to allow only the bare survival of the
        community. Here, the provincial court’s ruling was
        excessively conservative in its assessment of the
        current law. Regrettably, it appears that this group
        will not be successful unless it is able to move its
(60) case from the provincial courts into the Supreme
        Court of Canada, which will be, one hopes, more
        insistent upon a satisfactory application of theconstitutional
        reforms.

The question we'll be going over today has the following question stem:

The passage provides evidence to suggest that the author would be most likely to assent to which one of the following proposals?

Once again, when presented with this open-ended question stem, you should return to the passage's main idea as a prephrase to help you eliminate answer choices. The main idea question and correct answer choice for this passage was:

Which one of the following most accurately states the main
point of the passage?

(C) Constitutional language aimed at protecting
       aboriginal rights in Canada has so far left the
       protection of these rights uncertain due to the
       difficult task of interpreting this language.

Taking that basic summary of this answer choice, we are reminded that the author wants to help protect aboriginal rights through the Canadian Constitution, specifically by overcoming the court's barriers of interpreting the Constitution and the procedural issues that aboriginal societies have in asserting their rights. Below is the fulle question:

The passage provides evidence to suggest that the author would be most likely to assent to which one of the following proposals?

(A) Aboriginal peoples in Canada should not be
       answerable to the federal laws of Canada.
(B) Oral tradition should sometimes be considered legal
       documentation of certain indigenous customs.
(C) Aboriginal communities should be granted full
       protection of all of their customs.
(D) Provincial courts should be given no authority to
       decide cases involving questions of aboriginal rights.
(E) The language of the Canadian constitution should
       more carefully delineate the instances to which
       reforms apply.

Most of the distractors exhibit a common flaw: their degree of certainty is far too strong. For instance, answer choice A turns the author's stated "aboriginal people should be able to protect their rights" opinion into "Canada should never affect aboriginal peoples' rights." Be on the lookout for absolute and extreme keywords, as they will often allow you to eliminate 3 or even 4 distractors.

Answer choice B is correct--not only because it avoids too-strong language--but because it addresses one of the problems facing aboriginal socities that the author specifically mentions in lines 36-39. Because the author wants these plaintiffs to be able to assert their rights, it is easily inferred that he or she would want to remove this beaurocratic barrier to that assertion. Note, however, that even this fairly non-controversial inference is qualified by the keywords "sometimes" and "certain." This helps eliminate an improper over-generalization of the author's POV, and thus it ensures that B is the correct answer.
Answer choice C is a tempting distractor, but it does not have the limiting language present in B. While we do know that the author wants aboriginal societies to be able to assert their rights, we do not know for sure that he or she thinks that all of the customs should be protected.

Answer choice D is similarly extreme, in that it turns the author's stated opinion--that the 1984 case described in the final paragraph was wrongly decided by the provincial court--into a blanket ban on provincial court's power to hear aboriginal rights' cases.

Answer choice E is another tempting distractor--it even avoids the absolute language that easily eliminated C--as it plays along well with the passage's main idea that the barriers to aboriginal societies' assertions of their rights should be removed. However, the passage indicates in lines 58-63 that the Supreme Court should be the lever to clarify the language, not that the constitution itself should be modified.

Reading Comprehension: Main Idea or Title

zenof180@gmail.com (Mr. Bennett) — Mon, 12 Mar 2012 13:00:00 +0000

This is the first post describing the classification system Zen of 180 uses for the reading comprehension section; if you're not sure how to approach studying for the LSAT, our 19 reading comprehension standards break it down into manageable chunks; also, our free online LSAT analyzer will let you know which types of passage structures give you the most trouble.

As a wise woman once said: "Let's start at the very beginning. A very good place to start. When you read you begin with A-B-C. When you read on the LSAT you start with the main idea."

No offense meant to the wonderful Julie Andrews or anyone who worked on The Sound of Music .

But identifying the main idea of an LSAT passage is not always as easy as it might sound, especially because LSAC has committed itself to crafting four enticing distractors. Getting this task correct is vital, however, becuase many of the other tasks on reading comprehension sections turn on an accurate overall picture; thus the Zen system suggests that you continually return to the correct main idea answer to "refocus" on the central elements of the passage. As a last point, the main idea question is almost always at the beginning of the passage and section, so being confident and correct is a great boost.

Thus, the main idea or title task is where we begin.

While there are many ways to approach the reading comprehension passages, today I'll outline a basic strategy that will not only help with this task, but can serve as a basis for atacking any RC passage. The goal is to actively read the passage, taking special note of the structural elements, both the more obvious--like new paragraphs--and the more subtle--such as the author moving to a different expert to present a slightly different point of view.

At each new structural change, you should reflect on how the new information fits in with each previous structural element: for instance, you might note that the author uses the first paragraph to present a general overview of a scientific field, the second paragraph describes a new study that challenges a common understanding within the field, and the third and fourth paragraphs discuss two possible applications of the study's findings.

The overall main idea would not focus on only the first paragraph, the general scientific field, because it omits all of the following paragraphs' topic. Similarly, a distractor might only discuss one of the study's applications. These are "evidence" distractors--by far the most common on main idea or title questions--in the sense that they are restatements of information from the passage, but they don't adequately address the broader idea.

While such general advice might be helpful, it's probably more useful to--sigh--actually look at an entire passage and break it down structurally element by element. You can find this passage and the others we'll be using to describe the RC section on LSAC's website. LSAC helpfully identified this passage as being written in 1980.

        The struggle to obtain legal recognition of
        aboriginal rights is a difficult one, and even if a right
        is written into the law there is no guarantee that the
        future will not bring changes to the law that
(5) undermine the right. For this reason, the federal
        government of Canada in 1982 extended
        constitutional protection to those aboriginal rights
        already recognized under the law. This protection was
        extended to the Indian, Inuit, and Métis peoples, the
(10) three groups generally thought to comprise the
        aboriginal population in Canada. But this decision has
        placed on provincial courts the enormous burden of
        interpreting and translating the necessarily general
        constitutional language into specific rulings. The
(15) result has been inconsistent recognition and
        establishment of aboriginal rights, despite the
        continued efforts of aboriginal peoples to raise issues
        concerning their rights.

Don't go down the wrong track...

The yellow highlighting is the first topic introduced in the passage, and the first several pieces of evidence are building on that same general topic. The "But" clearly shows that the author is about to change direction, so a savvy LSAT examinee will be sure to note where the author is headed so they don't take the wrong track.

A great examinee will also try to predict where the passage will go next, to serve as a constant check on their understanding. If you are caught off guard by where the author goes, you clearly didn't understand the previous material; these passages are well written and structurally sound, so don't be satisfied if you're thrown for a loop in your reading.

        Aboriginal rights in Canada are defined by the
(20) constitution as aboriginal peoples’ rights to ownership
        of land and its resources, the inherent right of
        aboriginal societies to self-government, and the right
        to legal recognition of indigenous customs. But
        difficulties arise in applying these broadly conceived
(25) rights. For example, while it might appear
        straightforward to affirm legal recognition of
        indigenous customs, the exact legal meaning of
        “indigenous“ is extremely difficult to interpret. The
        intent of the constitutional protection is to recognize
(30) only long-standing traditional customs, not those of
        recent origin; provincial courts therefore require
        aboriginal peoples to provide legal documentation
        that any customs they seek to protect were practiced
        sufficiently long ago—a criterion defined in practice
(35) to mean prior to the establishment of British
        sovereignty over the specific territory. However, this
        requirement makes it difficult for aboriginal societies,
        which often relied on oral tradition rather than written
        records, to support their claims.

This paragraph is a great example of how important it is to recognize and mark these structural "signposts." Although it provides several excellent pieces of information and concrete examples, there are three discrete broader concepts implicated by those examples. We first return to the overall concept of aboriginal rights (yellow), and dive into a specific positive definition (dark blue). Hopefully the examinee noted that this information provides greater clarity on the previous paragraph's opening sentences, as well.

Moving on, however--and using the same "But" structure--the author next presents a positive definition (dark blue) of a legal example that illustrates the burden on the courts (pink). Note that the author then utilizes a negative definition--i.e., what an important actor or concept is not, highlighted in cyan--to emphasize the difficulty for a court in weighing whether a custom is "longstanding" enough.

Finally, the great examinee will notice the "However" and realize that the author is now presenting a new topic, the difficulty this evidentiary burden places on the aboriginal societies (highlighted in orange)--as opposed to the courts' troubles highlighted in pink.

(40) Furthermore, even if aboriginal peoples are
        successful in convincing the courts that specific rights
        should be recognized, it is frequently difficult to
        determine exactly what these rights amount to.
        Consider aboriginal land claims. Even when
(45) aboriginal ownership of specific lands is fully
        established, there remains the problem of interpreting
        the meaning of that "ownership." In a 1984 case in
        Ontario, an aboriginal group claimed that its property
        rights should be interpreted as full ownership in the
(50)contemporary sense of private property, which allows
        for the sale of the land or its resources. But the
        provincial court instead ruled that the law had
        previously recognized only the aboriginal right to use
        the land and therefore granted property rights so
(55) minimal as to allow only the bare survival of the
        community. Here, the provincial court’s ruling was
        excessively conservative in its assessment of the
        current law. Regrettably, it appears that this group
        will not be successful unless it is able to move its
(60) case from the provincial courts into the Supreme
        Court of Canada, which will be, one hopes, more
        insistent upon a satisfactory application of theconstitutional
        reforms.

The "Furthermore" should alert the reader that this paragraph continues to build on the dychotomy presented at the end of the previous paragraph: the burdens on aboriginal cultures (orange) and courts (pink). It then dives into another example (dark blue) of land claims, and delves further, into a specific case (lighter blue) with both the aboriginal claims (light orange) and, after warning us of the contrary outcome with "But," the court's contrary finding (light blue).

Finally, the author reveals his or her hand, and lets the reader know the opinion we should be leaving the passage with: this "conservative" approach is too restrictive and should be overturned by the Supreme Court (highlighted in purple), which will in turn help guide lower courts with their interpretive problem (pink).

Whew! After all that prep work, the question choices are much easier to go through. The correct answer choice will implicate almost all of the highlighted topics and associate them in the same relationships that the author does.

Which one of the following most accurately states the main
point of the passage?

(A) The overly conservative rulings of Canada’s provincial
       courts have been a barrier to constitutional
       reforms intended to protect aboriginal rights.
(B) The overwhelming burden placed on provincialcourts
       of interpreting constitutional language in
       Canada has halted efforts by aboriginal peoples
       to gain full ownership of land.
(C) Constitutional language aimed at protecting
       aboriginal rights in Canada has so far left the
       protection of these rights uncertain due to the
       difficult task of interpreting this language.
(D) Constitutional reforms meant to protect aboriginal
       rights in Canada have in fact been used by some
       provincial courts to limit these rights.
(E) Efforts by aboriginal rights advocates to uphold
       constitutional reforms in Canada may be more
       successful if heard by the Supreme Court rather
       than by the provincial courts.

Hopefully you were able to see that answer choice C hits all the right chords: the Constitutional language, the aboriginal interests, the lower court's struggle, and references the passage's many examples--without inappropriately focusing on any one example--of these issues getting in each others' way.

Answer choice A is an opinion distractor, in that it emphasizes the author's final shot over the bow and does not appropriately discuss the other 85% of the passage.

Answer choice B is an evidence distractor, as it only refers to the information in lines 40-50.

Answer choice D is also an evidence distractor pulled only from the final paragraph, but it also misconstrues the author's opinion that the case's outcome was "conservative" to mean an active attempt by the provincial court to thwart aboriginal rights.

Answer choice E is an extrapolation distractor, because it uses the author's expressed opinion about the Supreme Court decision and takes it one step further to suggest how best the aboriginal societies could vindicate their rights. Even if this might be implied by the author's final paragraph, it does not accurately summarize the conflict from the first two paragraphs.

Logical Reasoning: Point at Issue

zenof180@gmail.com (Mr. Bennett) — Fri, 09 Mar 2012 14:00:00 +0000

This is the last post describing the classification system Zen of 180 uses for the logical reasoning section; if you're not sure how to approach studying for the LSAT, our 88 standards and 23 logical reasoning standards break it down into manageable chunks.

For today we'll explain how we approach one of the tasks, point at issue, which is where the LSAT asks you to cleanly restate the finite disagreement between the two speakers from the stimulus. As I'm sure you've encountered when arguing with your friends, sometimes it takes several rounds before you realize, "I'm not arguing that with you Harry!"

Joe Versus the Volcano, probably the least known of the rom-coms with Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan.

Lawyers are notorious for picking arguments and fighting tenaciously over the smallest issue. Thus, this task is utilized quite extensively in law school; and it's better to only focus your energy on the issue(s) most germane to your argument. You'll certainly be expected to clearly describe points of agreement and disagreement with various points of view, so this detail-minded task maps on to law school much better than many other tasks.

While point at issue questions are prompted by several different question stems, the stimuli almost always have two different speakers followed by colons that visually distinguish the task. On modern LSATs, the most common versions of this question stems are:

[Speaker 1]'s and [Speaker 2]'s statements commit them to disagreeing on whether

The point at issue between [Speaker 1] and [Speaker 2] is

The key to correctly answering a point at issue question is to remember that this is a detail task: 95% of the questions can be answered by simply comparing the two speaker's statements and cleanly restating what they both explicitly mention. While it might sound deceptively simple, it really is that simple. The two speakers do what normal humans do, they talk past each other and often have only a single point of contention.

Take an example argument:

Gary says that most successful sheep dogs have been trained by gently but purposefully guiding their natural instincts. Thus, trainers should only exert a minimal influence on sheep dogs and not force dogs to learn any specific commands.

Larry disagrees, saying that sheep dogs should acquire the fundamental commands that are necessary for all trained dogs, as this learning can make even a poor sheep dog perform at an average level. Thus, trainers should use accredited methods to provide their sheep dogs with disciplined and systematic instruction, which is the only way to learn these fundamentals.

The correct answer will zoom in on what both speakers explicitly mention: what kind of training that sheep dogs should receive.

The most common distractors will emphasize the pieces of information mentioned by only one of the speakers, or pieces that they agree on, or pieces that neither mention such as:

Larry's point that disciplined and systematic training is the only way to learn fundamentals; we don't know what Gary thinks about fundamentals.
The import of a trainer in developing sheep dogs; both speakers mention the important role played by a trainer.
The best type of sheep and field layout to use during training; neither speaker mentions these aspects of training.

The most difficult distractors will introduce extraneous information that could be erroneously inferred from the speakers' statements, such as:

how excited the sheep dogs are about training and herding sheep

This distractor introduces a completely extraneous element--the dogs' affective reaction to their lot--but it's possible to imagine that Gary and Larry fundamentally disagree based on the differences between Gary's naturalistic and Larry's strict approach.

Remember, however, that point at issue is not an extrapolation strand task, so hew closely to the argument's details and the questions will be much easier.

Logical Reasoning: Justify Task

zenof180@gmail.com (Mr. Bennett) — Thu, 08 Mar 2012 14:00:00 +0000

Today we'll introduce one of the tasks from the principle strand of the LSAT logical reasoning section: justify.

This Zen task is one of the more difficult to recognize as it can easily be conflated with its other principle strand counterparts as well as with the strengthen task. Whereas the other principle tasks as you to match examples with principles or vice versa, justify requires you to identify a qualitative premise that covers at least the stimulus' argument.

On a modern LSAT, a common question stem is:

Which one of the following principles, if valid, most helps to justify the [stimulus'] reasoning?

Often, however, a justify answer will obviously apply to many more situations than just the one(s) presented in the stimulus; this "scope" difference can be confusing for test-takers, who are punished for thinking broadly in almost every other logical reasoning task.

We've decided to give JT the benefit of the doubt on needing justification, despite his insistence on "acting."

As with all principle standards, the correct answer to a justify question will map onto the evidence presented in the stimulus including all the relevant actors, relationships and degrees of certainty. However, justify requires the testtaker to pay much more attention to the stimulus' conclusion (indeed, other principle standards might only be a collection of evidence with no conclusion), as the correct answer will be a generality that provides some affective premise for the conclusion. Thus, the same strategy of identifying actors, their relationships, and degrees of certainty that works for the extrapolation strand will also apply for this task.

For example, a stimulus from the point of view of a law clerk might provide that:

A judge should apologize to me for lying to me because the judge has already apologized to the lawyers on the case for telling them the same lie.

The correct justify answer could be framed in varying levels of generality, from "If a lier apologizes to one person for lying, he should apologize to someone else who finds out he was lying," to "Everyone should apologize for lying."

Distractors for this argument could include:

Conflating the relationship "should apologize" with being "good to apologize"
Incorrectly limiting the scope of the relationship, such as saying that a lier should apologize only if both of those lied to deserve the apology.

Note that the stimulus doesn't need this to be the only reason a lier should apologize, nor does it explain why the clerk deserves an apology.

Conflating the relationship "should apologize" with "able to apologize"
Incorrectly negating the argument, i.e., stating that a lier does not need to apologize unless all who have been lied to can receive an apologize.

Logical Reasoning: Most Logically Completes

zenof180@gmail.com (Mr. Bennett) — Wed, 07 Mar 2012 14:00:00 +0000

Today we'll explain how we approach one of the tasks, most logically completes, which is where the LSAT asks you to identify the answer that provides the argument's missing structural or evidentiary element.

This task is prompted by a predictable question stem, and is possibly the easiest task of all to identify because of the "blank" space at the end of the stimulus, i.e. "because _______." On modern LSATs, the most common version of this question stem is:

Which one of the following most logically completes the argument?

Unfortunately, most logically completes and Cards Against Humanity only share the _________ and the English language in common.

This task benefits the most from the extrapolation strand's basic visualization:

Two general structures that Zen of 180 students use to visually represent the must also be true task

In the example on the left, the credited answer (C), is a necessary condition interpolated between two or more pieces of evidence presented in the stimulus (A and B), i.e. in order for B to be true in the context of A, C must also be true. In the diagram on the right, the credited response is a combination or two or more pieces of evidence from the stimulus, that when combined lead to a new conclusion.

The key to correctly answering a most logically completes question is to clearly highlight the main pieces of evidence--the actors and their definitions--and how they have been combined in terms of relationships and degree of certainty, paying special attention to opinions. As with other extrapolation standards, the goal is not to prephrase the specific evidence--the LSAT answers will invariably mention the "correct" parts--but rather the links in relationship and the degree of certainty between the pieces of the stimulus.

However, because the stimulus is missing the text in the correct answer choice, it can also be helpful to classify the argument's pieces (premise, evidence, bridge, and conclusion). This is because if the stimulus does not have a conclusion, then the correct answer choice will be the conclusion; however, if the stimulus ends with "because __________.", then the answer will provide supporting evidence or the bridge to existing evidence.

In this example, actors are black, relationships are red, and degrees of certainty are cyan.

The above example shows how the answer choice focuses on explaining the key discrepancy set up in the argument, why nettle plants should be used even though they attract aphids; the stimulus' degree of certainty that aphids were not uniformly bad left open the possibility that there could be some that do not eat the potato plants. The correct answer choice helpfully shows that the nettle plants only attract these benign aphids.

Logical Reasoning: Most Similar in Flawed Reasoning

zenof180@gmail.com (Mr. Bennett) — Tue, 06 Mar 2012 14:00:00 +0000

Today we'll introduce one of the most infamous tasks on the LSAT, one that frequently closes out a difficult LR section with a 400 word monster: most similar in flawed reasoning.

This Zen task is easy to recognize but difficult to complete, if only because the entire text for a question can take up one column on a logical reasoning section's page. In addition to their length, the questions turn on your ability to take abstract logic, identify the logic's flaw, and then compare it against multiple subtle distortions of that logical structure: many people's idea of mental torture.

Identifying the task is exceedingly easy, however. On a modern LSAT, the following stem would be common:

Which one of the following is most similar in its flawed
reasoning to the flawed reasoning in the argument above?

In order to accurately complete this task, you should focus on positively identifying the reasoning error exhibited in the argument; thankfully, these are usually much easier than the stand alone fix by removing questions. As you read, you should also take note of the actors, their explicit relationships, and the degree of certainty for those relationships. The argument's conclusion is also helpful to identify, and it almost always simple to do so for even the most difficult most similar in flawed reasoning questions.

Once these elements are identified, you can turn the stimulus into a pre-phrase similar to a principle or into a formal logic statement with symbols similar to a logic game diagram, making special note of the reasoning error. These tools can then be compared against the answer choices until a perfect match is found, starting with the explicit conclusion (but be careful with contrapositives!), following up with the argument's structure, and fact-checking the error.

For example, suppose the following argument:

Boston is America's largest higher education market.

Police in Boston arrest far more people during the academic school year than they do during the colleges' winter and summer breaks. Thus, Boston police arrest more students than non-students.

The flaw: associating a raw number change with a relative comparison between actors, without any evidence for that comparison.

Type of conclusion: comparative (more students arrested than non-students)

The actors: police, academic and non-academic time, students and non-students

The relationship: arrests increase during non-academic and decrease during academic

Degree of certainty: raw number changes

Combining all of these elements together, you can start eliminating answer choices. Some example distractors might be eliminated because their conclusions aren't comparitive:

e.g., a definitional conclusion, as if the students were criminals, not that more of them are arrested
e.g., a relative conclusion, as if the students were more likely to be arrested than non-students

Other types of distractors might be based on miscontruals of the stimulus' flaw, such as comparing the two different actors without any evidence linking them or utilizing cause and effect.

Finally, the argument structure distractors might introduce extra actors or omit the bridge.

Once you apply these subsequent layers of elimination, there should only be one correct answer choice left; if there are multiple, you should not try to repeat the same process. Once you only have a couple of answer choices left, you should focus on the relevant factors in a side-by-side comparison of the answer choices, rather than comparing them back to the stimulus. Thinking about the answer choices in a different way will almost certainly help you more than thinking harder about the same process.

As we mentioned earlier, many test prep companies recommend skipping this question type for anyone with significant timing issues on the logical reasoning sections. While this may be solid advice for those not finishing 5 or more questions per section, we don't generally advocate skipping tasks for those hoping to score above 165.

Logical Reasoning: Most Strongly Supported by [Stimulus]

zenof180@gmail.com (Mr. Bennett) — Mon, 05 Mar 2012 14:00:00 +0000

Today we'll explain how we approach one of the tasks, most strongly supported by [stimulus], which is where the LSAT asks you to extrapolate a new piece of evidence by combining the information presented in a stimulus.

This task is prompted by fairly pedestrian and easy to identify question stems, and the only difficulty should lie in carefully distinguishing them from strengthen tasks. On modern LSATs, one of the most common versions of this question stem is:

The statements above, if true, most strongly support which one of the following?

Most strongly supported by [stimulus] is the "loosest" of the extrapolation standards, in that the correct answer choice can be further afield from the evidence presented in the stimulus. For example, the correct answer may apply the evidence to a new situation or make an analogy, whereas the infer task requires you to draw a conclusion solely from the information presented in the stimulus. In order to correctly identify the inference, you will be required to read between the lines more than is required for the more concrete task.

However, the general strategy for all extrapolation strand task will serve you well for most strongly supported by [stimulus]. Thus, the key is to clearly highlight the main pieces of evidence--focusing on the actors and their definitions--and how they can be combined in terms degree, certainty, and opinion. As with depends upon assuming, the goal is not to describe the specific evidence--the LSAT answers will invariably mention the "correct" parts--but rather the links that create the relationships and the degree of certainty between those pieces.

Once you have identified these qualitative links between actors and how certain you are about each link, you should prephrase what information you do know and highlight what you don't know. Often the correct answer choice will hinge on either the relationships between the actors or the degree of certainty, but the most difficult most strongly supported by [stimulus] questions will play with both axes and introduce extraneous actors in the distractors.

Common distractors for this task include answers that make claims that are unwarranted based on what is presented about the actors/relationships/degrees of certainty:

Actor: introducing a new topic and treating it as though the stimulus' evidence applies to it.
Relationship: linking two or more actors in a way that is not supported by the stimulus, i.e., claiming that one causes the other.
Degree of certainty: making claims that are too strong, i.e., "too certain," or too weak based on the key language in the stimulus.

For example, consider this stimulus:

A virus can infect birds and mammals, but only through mosquitoes; while humans sometimes are infected, they cannot transmit it to new mosquitoes. The virus originated in one region and only recently migrated across the world.

In this simplified example, we should clearly identify the actors, the relationships between then, and how certain we are about each link.

Actors: birds and mammals (with subset of humans), virus, mosquitoes, and two world regions
Relationships and degree of certainty:

birds and mammals can contract virus, but only through mosquito bites
humans can sometimes catch the virus
humans can never pass the virus to mosquitoes
the virus definitely passed from one region to the next in the recent past

A correct answer might be to combine the impossibility of humans passing the virus on to each other and the recent migration between the regions: that is, that humans could not have been the carrier for the virus, because an infected person can't pass it on to other birds or mammals (only through mosquito bites), and a human could not have passed it to a mosquito intermediary.

Distractors for this stimulus might include

a prediction about the future spread of the disease (no temporal relationship on which to base predictions)
present mosquito population size as strict correlation with prevalence of the virus (relationship only for mechanism of transmission)
severity of the virus on human health (relationship only for mechanism of transmission)
comparing the two regions in infection rate (only temporal relationship between regions)

In this example, the actors are in black, the qualified relationships are in red arrows, and the degree of certainty is in cyan.

In the above diagram, a correct answer choice might say that beginners can reduce their change of injury by not trying to do the exact same kicks as experts. This example flips a line of relationships by stating its inverse relationship: the stimulus describes what happens if beginners do try, and the answer choice extrapolates what would happen in the absence of that relationship.

Note that the stimulus presents many information that is not addressed in the answer choice; this is obviously not a problem, but it is often a source of confusion for LSAT students. Inversely, the problem of being "out of scope" is much less in this task, as answer choices can travel far afield from the explicit topics of the stimulus and still accurately reflect its relationships and degrees of certainty with new actors.

Logical Reasoning: Strengthen Task

zenof180@gmail.com (Mr. Bennett) — Fri, 02 Mar 2012 15:41:00 +0000

The strengthen standard is the third most common task in the evaluating evidence strand, and will often be worth three raw questions on a modern LSAT. It is the logical opposite of the weekend task, but the two utilize the same thought processes until the pre-phrase.

Identifying a strengthen question is usually quite easy, as the question stems are standard and do not very significantly. A common example is: "Which one of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?" Another common variant is: "Which one of the following, if true, lends the most support to the [speaker’s] conclusion?"

After you have identified the strengthen task, you should read the stimulus and mark the argument's evidence, bridge, and conclusion. As with the weaken task, you should be especially cognizant of the link between the argument's evidence, and the conclusion. The answer choice will acknowledge this link, and present some new piece of evidence that makes it more likely the conclusion is true.

The pre-phrase for a strengthen argument is thus, "Given the evidence that leads to this conclusion, does this answer choice make this conclusion more likely?" Again, as with the weaken standard, it is nearly impossible to pre-phrase the answer itself; the goal is to ensure that you have a clear idea of where the evidence in the answer choices should lead you.

For example: a stimulus takes evidence from a study that shows that existing entrepreneurs are much more overconfident than other business managers and concludes that must mean that entrepreneurs are more likely to be overconfident in other areas. The pre-phrase would be, "Given the study, does this new evidence mean that entrepreneurs are more likely to be overconfident?" A correct strengthening answer choice might be that those who were currently business managers but had started businesses in the past were also extremely overconfident. This new evidence acknowledges the study, and helps to show that this overconfidence is a personality trait, and not merely a result of the entrepreneurial efforts. That is, it strengthens the conclusion that people who are overconfident in one aspect of life, i.e. entrepreneurs, will be overconfident in other areas of their life and in the future, as well.

This diagram shows how evidence from an argument leads to the conclusion, and the answer choice for a strengthen question will acknowledge that evidence and increase the likelihood that the conclusion is valid. In this case, the answer provides that the morale evidence in the stimulus is the driving force in the layoff/wage reduction choice, so it is more likely that evidence will control the conclusion.

Distractors for strengthen questions will often be pieces of evidence that do not affect the conclusion directly, or only deal with the stimulus’ evidence. The new evidence could also be neutral as to the conclusion, and thus not be able to strengthen it. It is rare for a strengthen distractor to actually weaken the argument, but that sometimes can be the hardest distractor to remove as it addresses both the key pieces of evidence and the conclusion in the stimulus.

As with the weaken task, the key to successfully completing a strengthen question is to have a clear pre-phrase of the ultimate conclusion your new evidence should be leading you to.

Logical Reasoning: Weaken Task

zenof180@gmail.com (Mr. Bennett) — Thu, 01 Mar 2012 21:40:00 +0000

The weaken standard is the most common standard in the evaluating evidence strand. With this task, the LSAT is asking you to identify which answer has a piece of evidence that makes the conclusion less likely to be true. Answer choices will acknowledge the evidence that has been given in the stimulus, but essentially hijack that evidence to lead to a negation of the conclusion. For causal conclusions, this often means that the answer will say that some other cause has led to the phenomenon in the conclusion.

Distractors for weaken questions will often present information that does not address the stimulus’ conclusion; these distractors are often referred to as being "out of scope." Additionally, common distractors will be neutral pieces of evidence that do not make the conclusion more or less likely to be true. Occasionally distractors will be evidence that strengthens the conclusion, and are thus opposite of what the task is asking you to identify.

The question stem for weaken questions are fairly similar, and thus it is easy to identify while taking the LSAT. A common variant is: "Which one of the following, if true, most weakens the argument.” This stem is emphasizing that the evidence in the correct answer is to be taken at face value, no matter how unlikely it may seem given the other evidence in the stimulus.

The real world cognitive task that is tested by the weaken standard is identifying evidence that can either attack an opponent’s argument, or identifying evidence that your argument needs to address in order to be valid. This, of course, is practiced every day by lawyers, we need to evaluate arguments and structure their evidence to make the best case for the client.

Once you've identified that a given question is a weaken task, you should actively read the stimulus and identify the argument’s evidence, bridge, and conclusion. You should be able to draw a mental chart that links the argument's evidence to the conclusion. Once you've identified that link, you can pre-phrase the negation of the conclusion.

For instance: if a stimulus’ conclusion is that reading more books will always lead to an increase in vocabulary, your pre-phrase should be that reading more books will not always lead to an increase in vocabulary. Causal conclusions are typically easier to negate than relative conclusions, but you can easily practice with the following example: Solving poverty is more easily accomplished by the government than the private sector. Although the negation would be "solving poverty is not more easily accomplished by the government than the private sector," that still leaves open the possibility that the routes are equally easily accomplished or that neither route is easily accomplished.

The correct answer choice will acknowledge the evidence from the stimulus, but still lead you to this pre-phrased negation. Thus, you should not try to pre-phrase an actual answer choice. This is because the "if true" evidence in the answer choice could be a multitude of possible pieces of evidence; is not helpful to try and think of all the ways that a given argument could be weakened if some other fact were true.

Once you have this pre-phrase, you can go to the answer choices and actively ask yourself "Combining the evidence in the stimulus and this new evidence, is the pre-phrased negation true?"

This diagram shows the stimulus' evidence leading to the argument's conclusion. The correct weaken answer choice acknowledges that the new technology uses electric currents, but presents new information that shows it is not reliable enough to allow "just in time" evacuations.

Another way of thinking about it is that the new evidence is hijacking the stimulus evidence, and leading it in the opposite direction. For instance: an argument could claim that a country's legislation regulating the safety of workplaces has led to a decrease in employee accidents in manufacturing. The pre-phrase would be that the legislation has not led to a decrease in employee accidents. The correct answer choice could be that increases in automation of manufacturing tasks has led to fewer employees working in manufacturing jobs. This new piece of evidence shows that the legislation is probably not the cause, but rather that there are fewer people at risk of injury due to some external evidence. This external evidence, if true, makes the causal connection between the legislation and the decrease in employee accidents less likely.

Updates to Analyzer for June 2012 LSAT

zenof180@gmail.com (Mr. Bennett) — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 16:33:00 +0000

For those of you who have tried our free online LSAT tracker, you know that the data it displays can be an incredibly powerful tool for self-preparation because it lets you know exactly where to focus your efforts to maximize improvement; however, as with all intense data tools, its dynamic tables can be imposing.

For that reason--and honestly cause it looks cool and we're visualization nerds--we're updating the analyzer with interactive graphs of your LSAT weaknesses. Below is a static image of the alpha page with the basic graphs that will take the place of the dynamic tables as the analyzer's primary interface.

Thanks to Highcharts for their amazing code and http://www.wheredidmytaxdollarsgo.com/ for inspiration.

The left pie chart shows the overall LSAT performance--the larger the piece size, the more important it is to practice its part of the LSAT--which you can then click on to "drill down" to individual sections, strands, and standards in the right pie chart. Clicking on this right chart will load a table with the questions you missed for that standard, along with your timing performance on it, and links to explanations and practice materials.

For those of you preparing for the June 2012 LSAT, we hope to have this feature and some other powerful graphs ready in early March!

LSAT Statistics: How many people take the LSAT?

zenof180@gmail.com (Mr. Bennett) — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 18:03:00 +0000

In case you want to know more about the numbers behind the LSAT, Zen of 180 has a whole section devoted to analyzing LSAT statistics.

In today's post, we'll take a quick look at the changes in the number of people who sit for an LSAT. The graph pretty much speaks for itself, but it's interesting to note that the rapid decline in testtakers since the Great Recession has actually only returned the numbers to their historic averages.

Area graph with percentage change overlay for LSATs administered since 2000. Note that the February 2012 statistics are projections.

Of course, when you take into account population growth, this means that a smaller percentage of the population is taking the first step in going to law school. That's probably a good thing for the legal industry, and will perhaps help correct the market influx of students during the recession.

As the NYTimes put it, there are a lot of schools that seem to be taking advantage of student's willingness to pay ridiculous tuitions and fees for a shot at a (biglaw) lawyer's salary:

[Many law schools are] ranked in the bottom third of all law schools in the country, but with tuition and fees now set at [nearly $50,000 a year,] charge more than Harvard. [Many have] increased the size of the class[es] by an astounding 30 percent, even as hiring in the legal profession imploded. [And, worst of all, these schools] reported in the most recent US News & World Report rankings that the median starting salary of its graduates was the same as for those of the best schools in the nation — even though most of its graduates, in fact, find work at less than half that amount.

In short, we just want to make sure that you really want to go to law school before you start the arduous task of preparing for the LSAT.

Week before February 2012 LSAT

zenof180@gmail.com (Mr. Bennett) — Fri, 03 Feb 2012 16:47:00 +0000

In case you haven't already planned out the week before you take the LSAT, I wanted to repost my suggestions for what worked for me to stay calm and focused. Such a personal goal will obviously be subject to personal preference, so take these as a friendly-suggested checklist.

If you've already started prepping for the June 2012 LSAT, check out our posts for our suggested LSAT training schedule, sign up for our free LSAT tracker, and then see if you'd like to sign up for one of our online tutoring

I'll limit this post to things LSAT-related, but in general, I'd delay tackling any life decisions or drastically changing your life routine. The week before the LSAT is not a good time to bust out, "We need to talk."

In a nutshell:

Visit the site before the test day
Do not practice after Wednesday morning on the week of the test
Do relaxing activities throughout the weekend
The night before, sleep ~2 hours more than you usually do
Eat breakfast, bring food and drink (caffeine) for break
Bring your used pencils and highlighters… they should be your friends by now
Arrive EARLY

Read something before, like the NY Times, to warm up

Take one portion of each section type--one logic game, one passage, ~10 logical reasoning questions, from the most recent LSAT, and check them at end of each section

Compare your score from when you first took it, and I’ll guarantee that you did better

The weekend prior to my test date, I drove to the test center to make sure I knew exactly how I would get there, where I would park, and where the testing center was in relation to the parking. Trust me, these trivial things will seem monumental if any one of them might make you late to the LSAT. I worked backwards from what time I needed to be at the testing center, gave myself three hours to acclimate, eat breakfast, and warm-up my brain, and travelling time plus 15 minutes for "damage time."

I spent the first part of the week before the LSAT following my normal routine to a tee. I went to the gym in the mornings, I went to every class, and I read the New York Times. If you don't have healthy routines built up by the week before, try abstaining from the more cognitively detrimental ones: arguments with loved ones, drugs/alcohol, sleeping late or not enough, etc.

Since I was in the endurance part of my LSAT training, on Saturdays and Wednesdays I normally took two full LSAT PrepTests in a single sitting. I decided that preparing for a longer time than the actual LSAT was the best way to make sure that I was not going to wilt in the 5th section like I did the first time.

However, that last week I gave myself Wednesday morning off. In general, I don't suggest my clients spend any time with actual sections after you only have five days until the test day, as your body and mind will be completely rejuvenated for the actual exam.

I spent those last few days thinking happy thoughts while swimming laps or lifting weights. Staying calm and positive, through yoga, meditation, spa getaway, prayer, exercise, etc., is definitely the way to be spending your time this last week before the LSAT.

Also in those days, I printed out a few pages of the June 2007 PrepTest to use as warm-up material the day before. As that was the first modern PrepTest I used in my practice, I felt it would provide a nice full-circle narrative to my LSAT prep. When choosing your own warm-up material, choose one of each section type from a modern LSAT you feel comfortable with, and print out or copy that to use on test day. After making sure my warm-up materials were taken care of, I planned out my break menu, including healthy foods like apples and granola bars, as well as energy drinks. Obviously, this is personal preference, but if you can stand caffeine, I suggest a tiny bit during the break to bring you through the last two sections.

The night before, I packed up everything I was taking with me into a ziplock bag, including my trusty pencils and highlighters. By now, these objects should be your best friends, and make sure you feel comfortable with them.

I made sure to arrive at the testing site about three hours early. This gave me enough time to settle in a side hallway, eat my breakfast, read the newspaper, and do my LSAT warmup. Reminding myself of how much I had prepared while doing the warmup was incredibly calming; my mind was tuned up and ready for the LSAT, and I went in knowing I was going to do well.

The key to overcoming stress is to acknowledge why you're feeling it! Beating yourself up for be anxious will only make it worse, so allow yourself to think about why you're worried. After acknowledging, though, you must take control and remind yourself of how well prepared you are.

Counter each of the fears with a solid reason of why you will do well, and get your Zen on!

New Online LSAT Tutor and Rates

zenof180@gmail.com (Mr. Bennett) — Tue, 31 Jan 2012 00:23:00 +0000

We're very excited to announce that Zen of 180 has added a new tutor to increase the choices you have in utilizing the Zen system while you prepare for the LSAT!

Mr. Robinson is current Harvard Law school student who also happened to score a perfect 180 on his only LSAT test date in 2009. Just like our other tutors, he will be using the data from the free Zen of 180 online LSAT tracker to personalize each tutoring session with real LSAC materials so that you can achieve your LSAT goals more quickly.

Additionally, while Mr. Bennett will be keeping his hourly, package, and Pell grant discount rates the same, Mr. Robinson will offer a flat $75 per hour rate.

You can read more about our online LSAT tutoring services, but please don't hesitate to contact us using the form below if you're interested in a free initial consultation! Both Mr. Robinson and Mr. Bennett have just opened their schedules for June 2012 LSAT takers, as the February 2012 LSAT is just coming up.

LSAT Analyzer updated with PrepTest 65

zenof180@gmail.com (Mr. Bennett) — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 22:02:00 +0000

In case you haven't tried our free, online LSAT self study tracker, we've updated to a version where you can input your answer data from all of the official LSAT PrepTests 19-65. The analyzer will then track your performance (no need for a complicated Excel document) and prioritize the Zen task standards by how many questions we predict you'll miss on a modern LSAT. That way you know exactly how to target your self-prep!

We're also in the process of updating the data output to be graphical, so if you have any comments about what you'd like to be able to do with your data or have suggestions for the data entry parts of the site, we'd very much appreciate them at development@zenof180.com.

We'll be updating the site frequently so that you can track the older PrepTests, as well as providing more video explanations for how to approach each Zen task standard and eventually explanations for all LSAT questions, ever. That way you can only buy the explanations you need, rather than for all the questions in an entire PrepTest.

Below is the video explaining the general features of the analyzer, but be sure to check it out as there are even more features packed in that didn't make the 3:30 cut.

June 2012 LSAT: Time to Start Prep

zenof180@gmail.com (Mr. Bennett) — Mon, 23 Jan 2012 14:00:00 +0000

If you're preparing for the June 2012 LSAT and haven't yet tried out our free online LSAT tracker, now is a great time to start.

We've also updated our LSAT prep calendar--the Google Calendar gadget towards the top of the right side-bar--for the June 2012 test takers, which you'll see has our clients starting their law school research and LSAT preparation in a few weeks!

We're in the process of upgrading the analyzer to include video explanations, interactive graphs in addition to the interactive table, and personalized LSAT practice material based on your missed question and timing data. If you've been using the analyzer and have any suggestions for the upgrade, please let us know at support@zenof180.com.

Finally, we're officially opening the list of tutoring clients for the June 2012 LSAT, so read about our online LSAT tutoring, and get in touch with Bryan at tutoring@zenof180.com if you're ready for a free initial consultation!

Post October 2011 LSAT: PrepTest 64 Scale Score Graphs

zenof180@gmail.com (Mr. Bennett) — Wed, 26 Oct 2011 18:16:00 +0000

The October 2011 LSAT scores were emailed earlier this week, so we hope that you end up with the score you wanted (what should you do now?)! If you didn't, read up on our advice for retaking the LSAT.

Also, if you've somehow managed to get your hands on the PrepTest, you can already analyze your accuracy and timing performance at our online LSAT tracker for free.

For everyone else, you can still benefit from the graphs we've got showing how the raw score translates into the 120-180 scale score and what people mean when they ask "Was it a hard or easy curve?" At Zen of 180, we advocate calling it a generous or ungenerous curve.

All LSATs are normed against the previous so that, statistically speaking, a person who got a 172 on the December 2007 should score within a specified band, +/- 2 of the reported score. This is to normalize performance across LSATs that obviously have different questions: so, the same person might miss 8 questions on one LSAT and 12 on another, but still earn the same scale score of 172.

The first PrepTest (-8) would be a hard curve, and the second PrepTest (-12) would be a easy curve. Here's where it gets confusing: the latter test would have, on average, harder questions, making the same person miss more and still be performing at the same (scale score) level.

So, at Zen of 180, we refer to these scales as generous or ungenerous. A generous curve makes up for harder questions, while an ungenerous curve compensates for easier questions. The concepts are the same, but the language makes it more clear what the relationship is between the number of questions you can miss and your eventual scale score.
For you visual learners, here's a graph comparing the average and range fluctuations of PrepTests 53-62 in gray bands with the actual range of PrepTest 63 in red.

PrepTest 64 had an odd curve compared to the previous 10 PrepTests: average in the top 1 percent of scores (from ~172-180), and then generous through the bottom quartile (historically so at 158 and 152).

In the graph, the gray vertical lines for each scale score show the range of raw scores that produced that result in PrepTest 53-62. For example, the lowest raw score for 173 was 7 missed questions, and the highest was 10.

PrepTest 64 fit perfectly within the historical average for scale scores 180 through 171. However, 170-150 was a generous cuve, hitting a new record high at 158 and 152, and always well above the middle quartiles, which are shown by the darker horizontal bands cutting across the range lines.
Hopefully this makes it clear why you can take a PrepTest, miss four more questions than you're used to, and yet still get the same scale score. Worse yet is when you miss four fewer questions, and you still get the same scale score and feel like you were tricked by LSAC! Keep in mind that the scores are normalized across all PrepTests, so be sure to compare your scale scores to each other rather than just your missed questions.

Below is the complete graph for PrepTest 63, from 180-120, as well as a graph linking to an explanation of the scale score's interaction with the bell curve.

More about LSAT scale score/bell curve.

PrepTest 64 starts out as expected and ends up "generous," even setting new records. Click for larger view.

Post-October 2011 LSAT (What now?!)

zenof180@gmail.com (Mr. Bennett) — Tue, 04 Oct 2011 13:00:00 +0000

The following post is part of a series from one of our LSAT tutoring clients. You can read about their experiences by clicking on the "Zen Journal" label above.

Two days ago, I took the October LSAT for the last time ever. * Cue celebratory jig *

The week before the test, my body decided to throw a little coup d’état on me. At the beginning of the week, I had many different and conflicting symptoms, which was confusing and upsetting, to say the least. I coughed, felt light-headed and congested. My stomach ached, I wanted to throw up all the time and I saw the world as if looking through a haze. I’ve had the hazy feeling before and recognized it as a sign of stress – the last time it happened, I had come back from a research trip in Africa and was probably suffering from PTSD. At the suggestion of friends, I rushed to buy orange juice and Airborne, which I proceeded to gulp in large quantities. All the symptoms, besides the nervous stomach, subsided by Thursday. Maybe the second grade teacher who created Airborne really did know what she/he was doing…

I spent the day before the LSAT reading books and watching silly movies. A quick word of advice – don’t read anything potentially depressing before the LSAT, even if it’s billed as humorous (i.e., Dave Sedaris’ more recent works). Then, on Friday night, a party started up in courtyard of my apartment complex. Around 10pm, when I went to bed, a bunch of raucous grad students started having conversations under my window. My boyfriend and I went out three times to explain to people (first nicely, then not so nicely) that I was taking a test tomorrow and I needed to sleep, but the talking didn’t stop until almost 2 in the morning, despite the downpour that started happening around midnight! This type of thing almost never happens in my courtyard, since the building is mostly PhD students and post-docs with small children, so it was sheer bad luck.

I woke up weary-eyed on Saturday, ate breakfast, and went on my way. Frankly, I don’t remember much of the test, except that one of the proctors had a Mohawk and looked like she might smack people down forgetting their social security number, which a couple of college students did. As expected, the logic games section was still challenging under timed conditions and the lack of sleep certainly didn’t help. Since LG was my second section, I had to force myself to focus for the remaining three sections. The strange thing was that the names my two student organization co-leaders (both unique, ethnic names) showed up in one of the games.

I kept picturing them and thinking to myself, “Why are you doing this to me, guys?”

Logical reasoning was no harder than usual, but I have a feeling that I second-guessed myself more since it was the real exam. At the fifth section, the passages in the reading comprehension came as a relief. Since I had done so many five-section practice tests, I didn’t have a problem with losing focus by the end. What I didn’t anticipate was how nervous I would be during the test, but I don’t know that I could’ve prepared any harder than I have already done.

After the LSAT, my body went through a detox and I quickly cleared every single item on my desk that has been touched by the LSAT. Over the past few months, I finished around forty full-length practice tests. I have so many LSAT prep books that I had to get an extra large box because they wouldn’t fit in a normal sized one (when I tried to move that box, it wouldn’t budge). On Sunday, I reveled in doing ordinary things, like having brunch with my sister and prancing around the supermarket.

The LSAT is done and I will never have to take it again. Whatever happens, I’m grateful to my friends and family who have gone above and beyond to support me during this period. I’m also happy to have been Mr. Bennett’s student, because without him, my preparation would have been directionless and misguided. He encouraged me and honed in on my LSAT weaknesses in a way that no test prep company could have done.

By the end of this month, I plan to turn in my applications to a wide range of schools. At this point, I’m still doing a balancing act – trying to make sure my law school letters of recommendations are in order and that my personal statement and resume are the absolute best they can be, while catching up on all the schoolwork that I’ve been neglecting for the past month.

Good luck to everyone who’s studying for the upcoming LSATs! My parting pieces of advice – make sure you know why you want to go to law school before you take on this beast of a test, carve out enough time to prepare for it, and don’t take it if you don’t feel absolutely ready.