How I got a perfect score on the LSAT. Forum

[fs34]

2) Pick up a good book on INFORMAL logic. I hear people saying that formal logic important, believe me, for this test INFORMAL logic is actually what you want to study. I think people are confusing the two. I am particularly fond of "Informal Logic: A handbook for critical argument" by Douglas N. Walton.

********************************************************************

I got this book and read half of it. Its terrible. Extremely poorly written. Lacking in any useful insight. Basically a long-winded explanation of common sense principles and repetitive examples illustrating obvious points. Its a waste of time. If I continued repeating myself and coming up with new ways of phrasing "this book sucks" for 200 pages, then this post would begin to approach the level of significance and usefulness reached by Walton's book. If you enjoy burning books or you prefer the rough scrape of printing paper over conventional toilet paper, then this books is for you!

the test examines the test-takers' formal AND informal logic skills. LR and RC test both (although mostly informal), lg tests formal. that being said, one would need to have a firm grasp on both in order to maximize one's score.

as for the review of walton's book... let me just say that i had a very different experience with it. I started off averaging -6 on each LR section. i went through both the LR bible and walton's book, and now i'm at about -3 or -2 in each section. of course, i still have a long way to go before i perfect LR, but i think the combination has been very useful in MY experience.

And this goes for my future experience too that I haven't experienced yet because I'm waiting on that damn book.

HALLO THIS IS LSAT LOGIC IN EVERYDAY LIFE IM ADAM BRODY

I just started and I've read about 100 pages of it. I find that it complements the LRB. It provides you with more examples of fallacies such as the straw man, loaded questions, appeal to emotions/ popular beliefs, etc. I wouldn't say it's imperative to read it, but it elaborates on some of the concepts discussed in the LRB.

I would be happy to email it to you if you are interested in reading it.

[cord]

this book is in pdf?

[fs34]

this book is in pdf?

Yes. Some people have found it via torrent.

[mickeymouse4509]

Straw man?

[allison34363]

I took a Kaplan course and it was the biggest waste of money EVER. I wish I could get it back..Grrr

tls is known for kaplan hating. I honestly don't see what is so bad about their course.

[philip.platt]

For example, my first diag was 162...there's no way I can ever get 180.

I'm going to mimic Trojan here and disagree with you, if only in principle. I mean, maybe your diagnostic was wildly inaccurate and you should have scored a 140. However, a 162 is a very good initial diagnostic. Think about it: You're scoring around the 90th percentile cold. That's fantastic. It tells me that you have a very firm grip on many core LSAT concepts. Thus, with refinement and commitment, you should be able to push your score into the 99th percentile. Even a 180 cannot be considered unfeasible.

Like Trojan, I am not a genius, nor am I brilliant. Yet I scored a very high. I had to earn every single point from my initial 157 diagnostic. Did I doubt myself? Repeatedly. We like to justify our pessimism by dressing it as reality, but remember reality is that normal joes such as Trojan and I scored well. I don't know Trojan's LSAT story, but I'll tell you that hard work and a smart strategy are powerful tools in the hands of a determined individual.

great post

[Bgd736j2]

I read something online about the book "Introduction to Logic" by Copi & Cohen i think it would help with Logical Reasoning also. I purchased the book and the companion CD-rom.

It has 800+ exercises for readers to dissect and analyze. This is what enables this Logic text to stand apart from its competitors. Many texts have examples, but no items with which to practice and hone these skills.

After going through a book as insightful and comprehensive as this one, I can say with confidence that a person's understanding of arguments will be augmented.

The thing that surprises me is the fact that the book is called Introduction to logic(its used for formal logic classes) yet the book deals with logic in terms of language. In other words, the book views logic from an informal standpoint.

The exercises will build the right skills. Skills that will enable you to break down any argument- LSAT or non-LSAT- that you encounter.

Last but not least, this book is a good supplement but by no means necessary for LSAT preparation. Its best for a person who is trying to build these skills a year before he/she plans to write the LSAT- Give or take a couple of months.

[mickeymouse4509]

I read something online about the book "Introduction to Logic" by Copi & Cohen i think it would help with Logical Reasoning also. I purchased the book and the companion CD-rom.

It has 800+ exercises for readers to dissect and analyze. This is what enables this Logic text to stand apart from its competitors. Many texts have examples, but no items with which to practice and hone these skills.

After going through a book as insightful and comprehensive as this one, I can say with confidence that a person's understanding of arguments will be augmented.

The thing that surprises me is the fact that the book is called Introduction to logic(its used for formal logic classes) yet the book deals with logic in terms of language. In other words, the book views logic from an informal standpoint.

The exercises will build the right skills. Skills that will enable you to break down any argument- LSAT or non-LSAT- that you encounter.

Last but not least, this book is a good supplement but by no means necessary for LSAT preparation. Its best for a person who is trying to build these skills a year before he/she plans to write the LSAT- Give or take a couple of months.

How much of this book is relevant to the LSAT though?

[Toof]

Copi & Cohen is NOT generally used in formal logic classes, it is, however, a serious canonical work for informal logic courses. Deconstructing arguments, understanding definitions, etc, is what C&C cover - and is thus VERY significant and helpful for studying for the LSATs.

If you're looking for a formal logic textbook, Virginia Klenk's 'Understanding Symbolic Logic' is the way to go, same type of format as Copi & Cohen, but focused instead on formal, symbolic logic rather than the less formal studies of C&C.

[mickeymouse4509]

Copi & Cohen is NOT generally used in formal logic classes, it is, however, a serious canonical work for informal logic courses. Deconstructing arguments, understanding definitions, etc, is what C&C cover - and is thus VERY significant and helpful for studying for the LSATs.

If you're looking for a formal logic textbook, Virginia Klenk's 'Understanding Symbolic Logic' is the way to go, same type of format as Copi & Cohen, but focused instead on formal, symbolic logic rather than the less formal studies of C&C.

Yeah but is there anything in there that you can't just learn from the LR Bible?

[allison34363]

I read something online about the book "Introduction to Logic" by Copi & Cohen i think it would help with Logical Reasoning also. I purchased the book and the companion CD-rom.

It has 800+ exercises for readers to dissect and analyze. This is what enables this Logic text to stand apart from its competitors. Many texts have examples, but no items with which to practice and hone these skills.

After going through a book as insightful and comprehensive as this one, I can say with confidence that a person's understanding of arguments will be augmented.

The thing that surprises me is the fact that the book is called Introduction to logic(its used for formal logic classes) yet the book deals with logic in terms of language. In other words, the book views logic from an informal standpoint.

The exercises will build the right skills. Skills that will enable you to break down any argument- LSAT or non-LSAT- that you encounter.

Last but not least, this book is a good supplement but by no means necessary for LSAT preparation. Its best for a person who is trying to build these skills a year before he/she plans to write the LSAT- Give or take a couple of months.

How useful is the cd-rom? What is on it? Like practice problems and stuff?

[Bgd736j2]

The CD-rom companion to Introduction to Logic By Copi and Cohen has 800+ questions and answers.

Questions where you dissect, analyze, critique arguments, statements, newspaper editorials.
It is very elaborate. It can be purchased on amazon.

If you read the reviews on Amazon a couple people who use Logic by Copi and Cohen write about scoring in the 99+%, and how much this book helped them in achieving that feat.


Good Luck.

[crazycanuck]

Does the CD-Rom work on macs or only windows?

[Bgd736j2]

Both

[allison34363]

The CD-rom companion to Introduction to Logic By Copi and Cohen has 800+ questions and answers.

Questions where you dissect, analyze, critique arguments, statements, newspaper editorials.
It is very elaborate. It can be purchased on amazon.

If you read the reviews on Amazon a couple people who use Logic by Copi and Cohen write about scoring in the 99+%, and how much this book helped them in achieving that feat.


Good Luck.

Thanks for the review, I just ordered it.

[mickeymouse4509]

What a great thread this has turned in to. Thanks for the advice everyone and good luck with the Sept LSAT.

[allison34363]

The CD-rom companion to Introduction to Logic By Copi and Cohen has 800+ questions and answers.

Questions where you dissect, analyze, critique arguments, statements, newspaper editorials.
It is very elaborate. It can be purchased on amazon.

If you read the reviews on Amazon a couple people who use Logic by Copi and Cohen write about scoring in the 99+%, and how much this book helped them in achieving that feat.


Good Luck.

Thanks for the review, I just ordered it.

Great book but haven't used the CD-rom yet as I need to get my drive fixed. Thanks for the recommendation.

[basicgrey7]

In addition to reading things like the Economist or WSJ, does anyone think that pleasure reading helps any for RC? I like to read when I am at the gym.

[RVP11]

In addition to reading things like the Economist or WSJ, does anyone think that pleasure reading helps any for RC? I like to read when I am at the gym.

Unless you're relying on RC passages being pleasurable, no.

[allison34363]

In addition to reading things like the Economist or WSJ, does anyone think that pleasure reading helps any for RC? I like to read when I am at the gym.

If you can read at the gym you probably aren't working out hard enough, just an fy.

[Foozle]

In addition to reading things like the Economist or WSJ, does anyone think that pleasure reading helps any for RC? I like to read when I am at the gym.

Unless you're relying on RC passages being pleasurable, no.

This. The whole point of RC passages is to read a topic that is less interesting/familiar/pleasurable and try to get information from it. Pleasure reading will not help you.

In addition to reading things like the Economist or WSJ, does anyone think that pleasure reading helps any for RC? I like to read when I am at the gym.

If you can read at the gym you probably aren't working out hard enough, just an fyi.

Also this.

[hayman]

In addition to reading things like the Economist or WSJ, does anyone think that pleasure reading helps any for RC? I like to read when I am at the gym.

If you can read at the gym you probably aren't working out hard enough, just an fy.

i read at the gym. usu in the dry sauna

[crazycanuck]

In addition to reading things like the Economist or WSJ, does anyone think that pleasure reading helps any for RC? I like to read when I am at the gym.

It might help you read faster if you do several hours a day, every day, for a a year or so.

[Slimpee]

In addition to reading things like the Economist or WSJ, does anyone think that pleasure reading helps any for RC? I like to read when I am at the gym.

It might help you read faster if you do several hours a day, every day, for a a year or so.

I think two is probably better.

[DavidYurman85]

Is this the Walton book that everyone is referencing?
http://apologetics315.blogspot.com/2009 ... uglas.html