Barron's LSAT Prep Book Forum

[zpetrov]

This is strictly my opinion, but what a load of bollocks this thing is. I bought it a year ago and still go back to it from time to time when my other prep books aren't around. Their practice questions are frustratingly inconsistent. A lot of them are too easy. Others are too... messed up. It seems like one out of every 20 practice questions violates some of the most basic foundations of real LSAT questions (i.e. answer goes way beyond the scope of the question, "must-be-true" questions answered with answers that are definitively not always true, etc.). It's annoying.

But most of all: the explanations for the answers are just terrible. Usually the explanation elaborates with literally three or four words on why the correct answer makes sense, and it says something along the lines of "B, C, D, and E are simply not right" or "A, B, C, and E are clearly not supported by the passage".

How. is. that. helpful?

Rotten.

[incompetentia]

This is nothing new

[zpetrov]

Judging by the last poster's response, people already know that Barron's is miserable, but I just want to bring this example:

"Tom is test driving a blue car. After driving for a short while he comes to the following conclusion: since this car is blue, it must not accelerate quickly.

The foregoing conclusion can be properly drawn if it is also known that:

Correct answer given: all cars that accelerate quickly are red."

NO.

NO!

There is NOTHING in the question stem that implies that only blue and red cars exist. It is absolutely not the case that the answer given is is always true. There are answers that are at least as good as that one.

[OldTymeyFaceSmasher]

Reading this makes me feel better. I picked the book up because it was small and I can carry it to work, and as a way to sort of "break in" to practicing for the LSAT. I've found it ridiculously confusing, and more than once have been doubting the answers the book says are correct. I guess it's just a piece of shit and I shouldn't bother with it.

[suspicious android]

There is NOTHING in the question stem that implies that only blue and red cars exist. It is absolutely not the case that the answer given is is always true. There are answers that are at least as good as that one.

Actually, that question stem that you quoted means you're not looking for a valid inference, but rather an assumption that is sufficient to make the argument valid. And, if you assume that quick acceleration is sufficient for redness, then blueness would also be enough to infer non-quick acceleration.

Still, I wouldn't use Barron's or any other third party LR or RC material. I've looked over it and there are a lot of terrible questions, it's definitely some of the worst stuff out there.

[tomwatts]

Yeah, what the previous poster said as far as the question's right answer. That answer, while kind of dumb, is correct. But I don't think that you should take any non-LSAC questions as anything more than loose examples intended to illustrate a point anyway. Real practice comes from real questions, not fake ones.

[SanDiegoJake]

Barron's is the worst, by far. If I see a student with a Barron's book, I force the student to throw it away immediately.

[cubswin]

A few years ago, I saw an Amazon review of Barron's LSAT book that said something like, "It's a good thing that nobody who uses this book will get into law school, because they would sue the hell out of Barron's."