Logic Class and LSAT Forum

[ATB150]

Some have told me that taking a formal logic class like "Intro to Logic" helps with LSAT prep. However, some also have said that a class like this goes way more in depth than what is needed for LSAT logic and one person said that it even confused them when they studied for the LSAT because they would start analyzing the question at a deeper level than what was needed. Others said that it was good to have a few semesters in between taking the logic class and prepping for the LSAT.

This being said, if I take a logic class and concurrently prep for the LSAT hard this semester, will the two different types of logical reasoning jumble together in a bad way to make it somewhat confusing or make it so that I analyze the questions too deeply? I would be prepping this summer too and would take the LSAT at the beginning of the following semester.

Thanks!

[Adjudicator]

As a philosophy major, I took two classes on logic and there is no doubt in my mind that it helped me tremendously on the LSAT, particularly on the logical reasoning sections.

Particularly, when studying informal logic you will learn how to spot common fallacies. The LSAT loves to test this stuff.

The formal logic will be overkill but there are often a couple relatively simple formal logic type questions on the LSAT.... some exposure to formal logic might help you to formulate these problems.

[stintez]

As a philosophy major, I took two classes on logic and there is no doubt in my mind that it helped me tremendously on the LSAT, particularly on the logical reasoning sections.

Particularly, when studying informal logic you will learn how to spot common fallacies. The LSAT loves to test this stuff.

The formal logic will be overkill but there are often a couple relatively simple formal logic type questions on the LSAT.... some exposure to formal logic might help you to formulate these problems.

philosophy minor here and it helped a little bit but because i had taken the LG class im jr year in UG and took my lsat a year and a half later i still had to study as though I had never seen the stuff before.

[minnbills]

formal logic is not terribly helpful, you can learn what you need from the bibles. My class in formal logic basically came down to memorizing equations- it was a waste of time.

Philosophy classes or intellectual history where you deal with actual argumentation is probably the way to go, unless the formal logic classes at your school are more focused on actual arguments than mine was.

[PhiloLogicGames]

If you take a logic class, you will be confused.

TLC-----------------> Confused

NOT Confused----------------> NOT TLC

There's half the test. The other half is IDing Premises, Conclusions, knowing the Assumption. And the last half is reading closely, quickly, and accurately. It's a big test.

Forget the class and start reading The Economist and Euthyphro.

[ATB150]

It's just that I need to fill an elective and this course is supposed to be relatively easy and apparently really interesting. It also would count towards my minor and supposedly help with my LSAT.

I guess I'm just asking if it would hurt me in any way to take it while also prepping for the LSAT logic games and logical reasoning. Would it become confusing to be learning two logic systems at the same time and screw me up for the LSAT?

[Adjudicator]

It's just that I need to fill an elective and this course is supposed to be relatively easy and apparently really interesting. It also would count towards my minor and supposedly help with my LSAT.

I guess I'm just asking if it would hurt me in any way to take it while also prepping for the LSAT logic games and logical reasoning. Would it become confusing to be learning two logic systems at the same time and screw me up for the LSAT?

I don't think it would hurt you at all and it may be of some help, depending on what is covered in the class and how it is taught.

This is just my opinion but I was great at LR right from the beginning of my LSAT preparation, and part of that was due to my familiarity with the ideas of valid and invalid argumentation.