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.
By
contrast, the inquisitorial system begins historically
where the adversarial system stopped its development.
It is two historical steps removed from the system of
private vengeance. Therefore, from the standpoint of legal
anthropology, it is historically superior to the adversarial
system. Under the inquisitorial system the public investigator
has the duty to investigate not just on behalf of the
prosecutor but also on behalf of the defendant. Because
of the inquisitorial system's thoroughness in conducting
its pretrial investigation, it can be concluded that a
defendant who is innocent would prefer to be tried under
the inquisitorial system, whereas a defendant who is guilty
would prefer to be tried under the adversarial system.
The
primary purpose of the passage is to:
(A)
explain why the inquisitorial system is the best system
of criminal justice.
(B) explain how both the adversarial and the inquisitorial
systems of criminal justice evolved from the system of
private vengeance.
(C) show how the adversarial and inquisitorial systems
of criminal justice can both complement and hinder each
other's development.
(D) show how the adversarial and inquisitorial systems
of criminal justice are being combined into a new and
better system.
(E) analyze two systems of criminal justice and imply
that one is better.
The
answer to a main idea question will summarize the passage
without going beyond it. (A) violates these criteria by
overstating the scope of the passage. The author draws
a comparison between two systems, not between all systems.
(A) would be a good answer if "best" were replaced with
"better." (Beware of absolute words.) (B) violates the
criteria by understating the scope of the passage. Although
the evolution of both the adversarial and the inquisitorial
systems is discussed in the passage, it is done to show
why one is superior to the other. (C) and (D) can be quickly
dismissed as neither is mentioned in the passage. Finally,
the passage does two things: it presents two systems of
criminal justice, and it implies that one is better developed
than the other. (E) aptly summarizes this, so it is the
best answer.
You
may have noticed that the three sample problems did not
ask any questions about legal issues. Ironically, the
LSAT does not contain any legal questions. You may have
also noticed that some questions have a rather mathematical
appearance.