.
What does the LSAT measure?The LSAT is an aptitude test. Like all aptitude
tests, it must choose a medium in which to measure intellectual ability. The LSAT has
chosen logic. Other tests, such as the SAT, use mathematics and English.
The question is--does it measure aptitude for law school? Now if you think analytically
and like to fiddle with crossword or logic puzzles, then you will probably warm up to the
LSAT. On the other hand, if you think intuitively and synthetically, then you will
probably find the medium (Logic) less palatable. Whether the ability to determine the
possible arrangements of people around a circular table is an important skill for a lawyer
is debatable. Nonetheless, the Law School Admission Council has chosen this type of
question to test your aptitude for law school, so you must master their solution.
Format of the LSAT
The LSAT is a three-hour-and-twenty-five
minute test. Only two hours and twenty minutes of the test count toward your score--the
experimental section and the writing sample are not scored. There are five parts to the
test.
- Analytical Reasoning (games) 24 Questions 35
Minutes
- Logical Reasoning (arguments) 25 Questions
35 Minutes
- Experimental Section ?? Questions 35 Minutes
- Reading Comprehension 27 Questions 35
Minutes
- Writing Sample not applicable 30 Minutes.
NOTE: The order of the format is not fixed:
the sections can occur in any order--except for the writing sample, which is always last.
The experimental section can be a game section, an argument section, or a reading
comprehension section. You won't know which section is experimental. You will know which
type of section it is, though, since there will be an extra one of that type.
The final section of the LSAT is the writing sample. This part of the test is not scored,
but a copy of it, along with your LSAT score, will be sent to the law schools to which you
apply.
The Three Types of Problems
The LSAT uses three types of problems to
measure your aptitude for law school: analytical reasoning (games), logical reasoning
(arguments), and reading comprehension.
Games
The game section comprises one-quarter of the test. It contains four games; each has about
six questions for a total of about twenty-four questions.
The game section is the most difficult and most mathematical part of the test. Indeed, the
games actually fit into a branch of mathematics called Set Theory--though we won't use any
mathematical tools to solve them.
While the entire test should be read with care, the games must be read with extra care. In
particular, pay close attention to words that limit relationships, such as
"only," "never," "sometimes," "exactly," etc.
Example: Game
Adam, Bob, Carl, David, Eric, Frank, George, and Hank are basketball players.
Frank is the same height as Hank.
George is taller than Frank.
Eric is taller than Adam.
Adam is taller than David and Carl.
Bob is shorter than Carl.
Which one of the following must be false?
(a) George is taller than Hank.
(b) Carl is taller than David.
(c) Adam is taller than Frank.
(d) David is the same height as Carl.
(e) Bob is the same height as Eric.
If George is taller than Frank who is as tall as Hank, then George must be taller than
Hank. Hence (a) is true. This dismisses (a). Next, the fourth condition tells us that Adam
is taller than both David and Carl; it does not, however, tell us who is taller between
Carl and David, nor do any other conditions. Hence (b) is not necessarily false. This
dismisses both (b) and (d). Next, no condition relates the relative heights of Adam and
Frank. Hence (c) is not necessarily false. This dismisses (c). Finally, Eric is taller
than Adam who is taller than Carl who is taller than Bob. Hence, Eric must be taller than
Bob. This contradicts (e). Thus (e) must be false, and therefore it is the answer.
Arguments
Arguments (logical reasoning) test your ability to understand the validity, or invalidity,
of a line of reasoning. On the LSAT, an argument is a presentation of facts and opinions
in order to support a position. The style of the arguments varies from informal
discussions to formal dissertations.
Some arguments are intentionally poorly written and many are fallacious.
This portion of the test looks as though it came right out of a logic book--hence the name
"logical reasoning." Now, logic is the study of the connections between
statements, not the truth of those statements. On the LSAT, many students hurt themselves
by tenaciously pursuing the truth--favoring answers that make true statements over those
that make false statements. Although there will be cases where the truth of an argument is
a factor, there will be as many cases where it is irrelevant.
Example: Argument
In the game of basketball, scoring a three-point shot is a skill that only those with a
soft-shooting touch can develop. Wilt Chamberlain, however, was a great player. So even
though he did not have a soft-shooting touch, he would have excelled at scoring
three-point shots.
Which one of the following contains a flaw that most closely parallels the flaw contained
in the passage?
(a) Eighty percent of the freshmen at Berkeley go on to get a bachelor's degree. David is
a freshman at Berkeley, so he will probably complete his studies and receive a bachelor's
degree.
(b) If the police don't act immediately to quell the disturbance, it will escalate into a
riot. However, since the police are understaffed, there will be a riot.
(c) The meek shall inherit the earth. Susie received an inheritance from her grandfather,
so she must be meek.
(d) During the Vietnam War, the powerful had to serve along with the poor. However,
Stevens' father was a federal judge, so Steven was able to get a draft deferment.
(e) All dolphins are mammals and all mammals breathe air. Therefore, all mammals that
breathe air are dolphins.
The original argument clearly contradicts itself. So we are looking for an answer-choice
that contradicts itself in like manner. Notice that both the argument and the correct
answer will not be true--again searching for truth can hamper you.
Choice (a) is not self-contradictory. In fact, it's a fairly sound argument. This
eliminates (a). Choice (b), on the other hand, is not a sound argument. The police, though
understaffed, may realize the seriousness of the situation and rearrange their priorities.
Nevertheless, (b) does not contain a contradiction. This eliminates (b). As to choice (c),
although the argument is questionable, it, like (b), does not contain a contradiction.
This eliminates (c). Choice (d), however, does contain a contradiction. It starts by
stating that both the powerful and the poor had to serve in Vietnam, but it ends by
stating that some powerful people--namely, Stevens--did not have to serve. This is a
contradiction, so (d) is probably the answer. Finally, choice (e), like the original
argument, is invalid, but it does not contain a contradiction. This eliminates (e). The
answer is (d).
The two argument sections, each with about twenty-five questions, make up one-half of the
test. This is good news because as we analyze these problems you will develop an ability
to uncover their underlying simplicity.
Reading Comprehension
Reading comprehension, like the games, comprises one-fourth of the test. The section
consists of four passages each with six to eight questions, for a total of about
twenty-six questions.
The passages are taken from academic journals. As you would expect, they are usually quite
dry. Nearly any subject may appear, but the most common themes are political, historical,
cultural, and scientific. Following is a condensed version of a recently given LSAT
passage.
Example: Passage
There are two major systems of criminal procedure in the modern world--the adversarial and
the inquisitorial. Both systems were historically preceded by the system of private
vengeance in which the victim of a crime fashioned his own remedy and administered it
privately. The modern adversarial system is only one historical step removed from the
private vengeance system and still retains some of its characteristic features. Thus, for
example, even though the right to initiate legal action against a criminal has now been
extended to all members of society and even though the police department has taken over
the pretrial investigative functions on behalf of the prosecution, the adversarial system
still leaves the defendant to conduct his own pretrial investigation. The trial is still
viewed as a duel between two adversaries, refereed by a judge who, at the beginning of the
trial has no knowledge of the investigative background of the case. In the final analysis
the adversarial system of criminal procedure symbolizes and regularizes the punitive
combat.
. |
CollegeDegreeGuide
