LSAT v. LS Exams Forum

[BNA]

Had a thought that there may be some hidden points on exams that I may be able to dig out using lsat methodology. For example: false assumptions. Is there ANY relevancy to the shit we studied for the test and how to apply the law on exams?

[ForgotMyPassword]

Its been a couple years since I took it, but the key lesson of the LSAT throughout was to pay attention to details. That sounds like a broad, obvious statement, but as you prep and take practice exams you'll realize how vital it is to be at 100% for every second of that three or four hour test, which the LSAT prepared you for.

In torts there will be individual words and scattered phrases that open or close issues of foreseeability (e.g. Charles carefully engaged the emergency brake in the old van - why carefully, did he anticipate whatever happened later in the hypo?) negligence per se (A statute is mentioned), respondiat superior (Charles being described as wearing a name patch and coveralls when he approached Bob at the gas station - was he employed there?), etc. In criminal law the differences can be cut even finer when you approach issues such as attempt or conspiracy, and missing or misinterpreting exactly who did what, and when, will have significant implications for what can be argued successfully.

In large part, a significant percentage of doing well on 1L exams can be broken down into three distinct components; (1) Learn the material (Cases if the prof says you have to, BLL otherwise); (2) Fully and completely dissecting fact patterns, with all their hidden nuances and tricks; (3) Applying the material to the fact pattern. The difference in law school is that most everyone will either completely master or almost completely master (1), so the points you'll get that your classmates may not will stem from (2) and (3). Applying the material to the fact pattern will vary depending on what sort of exam your professor wants / the topics and structure they prefer, but that dissection of the fact pattern into its constituent claims and close reading is essentially an LSAT skill.

[Zensack]

Unlearn everything that helped you do well on the LSAT. LSAT is all about narrowing down to a clear, precise answer. Law school exams want you to explore every nook and cranny of the fact pattern and it really doesn't matter if Jane has to pay damages to John.

Read "Getting to Maybe" if you haven't already.

[star fox]

One area where the LSAT is really on point is explicitly recognizing assumptions. Professors want to see how you got from point a to point b in your analysis. The best way to do this usually is to identify what assumptions you are making and the reasons for it. Use a lot of "because" to really put your thoughts on paper. If you can identify what assumptions are getting you to that potential conclusion, you'll be in better shape.

Flaws are another good area. Mainly because being able to easily identifies flaws helps you realize what analysis NOT to do.