Thoughts on the Daily Show, Colbert Report, and LSAT prep... Forum

[TIKITEMBO]

Wouldn't it be good for LSAT prep? I know everyone recommends various things that are more academic. But! How many times have you heard Jon Stewart use a parallel reasoning method like:

The (insert political party/group) saying they can't (perform some action for some reason) is like (some other subject actor) saying they can't (perform some other action for some reason).

Both Stewart and Colbert do a lot of comparative reasoning and I would think watching copious amounts of the Daily Show and Colbert Report is not only good for the soul, but also good for LSAT prep. I seem to be having less problems with this section in prep and I'm beginning to wonder if it's the years of exposure to these delightful gentlemen and their clever reasoning skills...

Other thoughts or reasoning methods you can think of consistently used in the show?

[TIKITEMBO]

Really no one I can't believe it bump.

[SchopenhauerFTW]

Colbert was good for flaw questions.

[lakers3peat]

I prefer glen beck.


No just kidding.


I dont find political humor very funny. Sportscenter > Conan > colbert and stewart

[Bildungsroman]

No, you can't legitimately claim time spent watching comedy shows as time spent prepping for the LSAT. Just pick up some practice tests and actually put in the effort like everyone else.

Also, between this thread and the one you started about not working for a law firm with evil clients, I'm certain you're some weak flame.

[Jeffort]

No, you can't legitimately claim time spent watching comedy shows as time spent prepping for the LSAT. Just pick up some practice tests and actually put in the effort like everyone else.

[TIKITEMBO]

No, you can't legitimately claim time spent watching comedy shows as time spent prepping for the LSAT. Just pick up some practice tests and actually put in the effort like everyone else.

Also, between this thread and the one you started about not working for a law firm with evil clients, I'm certain you're some weak flame.

I've got 4 copies of all the logic games from tests 29-38 that I've been working on since the end of April (sporadically for a few months before as well), my birthday present is going to be LSAT tests 39-51, and I've been working with LSATblog's 4 month study plan. Obviously I'm not doing this without any other materials, but if you'd like some help with LR I think this could only help if you learn how to follow the LR demonstrated on the shows. Sorry you didn't like the other thread.There were a few detractors, but from the number of thoughtful responses it looks like you missed something. http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 8#p4456888

Colbert was good for flaw questions.

Agreed. He does a lot where he states an argument that someone has given for their actions and then very matter-of-factly- puts a whole right through their reasoning, thus demonstrating the flaw. And when he's in character he is usually using a parallel argument to show how flawed the original one was. Basically, both of these shows are very successful because of their ability to analyze arguments and break them down. I am an emphatic supporter for these as a supplement to LSAT studying, not as the only supplement.

[TIKITEMBO]

Sportscenter > Conan > colbert and stewart

Can't even pretend I know sports, but I would say Conan is funny as well. Probably a lot of logic play involved with his stand up as well, but I think Stewart/Colbert are more directly useful as they create their arguments with a lot of contextual background.

[TIKITEMBO]

Thought this was a good example:

--LinkRemoved--

[Audio Technica Guy]

you do realize that what you're calling "comparative reasoning" is actually called a comparison or analogy flaw, and it's a type of reasoning flaw, not a good model that you want to copy, right?

Usually the correct answer on questions with these types of flaws is:

A) Fails to consider that the two examples differ in relevant aspects

[joebloe]

I always preferred Kilborn to Stewart.

[sarahlawg]

all this shows is that the LSAT Is taking over your brain. The Daily Show is awesome (and way better with Jon Stewart), but by the end of your prep you will definitely see how everything makes you think of the LSAT. I had a friend with some letters on her shirt that I swore said LSAC for a long time before I realized that no, it was not even close. And who would wear an LSAC shirt? God that thing ate my brain for awhile.

[tanzie]

First of all I am going to assume that OP started this thread to give exhausted LSAT preppers a prompt to lighten up. (And a personal thanks for that, OP, because holy shit did the LSAT ruin my week on Monday. I'll be commiserating with fellow LSATers in the "Cancel" threads.) Yes, of course, there is no substitute for drilling/PTing/diagramming/reading the Economist cover to cover/blueprint cleansing/etc, but at the same time, it's good to get a little humorous perspective when the studies get a little too intense.

When you start seeing flaws in the reasoning of every argument with which you come in contact, or when you start drawing parallels on people's methods of reasoning, it means you've come a long way in your studies. When you start seeing the humor in numerous things LSAT-related -- or when you're able to elicit relevant LSAT concepts from numerous humorous things, you can really give yourself a pat on the back, because you are synthesizing LR concepts with everyday situations; you are taking your LSAT prep outside of the textbook (albeit in a colloquial way). This means that you are actually getting the concepts. After you come to terms with the fact that you might be a huge geek for LSATifying everything you see, and when you're able to sit back and laugh at the fact that your brain is completely consumed with LR, you can gain some valuable, grounded, much-needed perspective. This balance is important. Some people don't take the test seriously enough; others become obsessed with it to the point of losing a firm grasp on the big picture.

Turning to comedy -- either for stress relief or to test one's newly acquired reasoning skills -- is not necessarily a complete waste of time. While much stoner comedy is typically devoid of logical value, political comedy (or just the news. on any network. seriously.) can actually be an excellent exercise in spotting the flaw, establishing the point at issue, identifying the skewed styles of reasoning, etc. Analyzing Colbert might not contribute much to securing a 175 and a lucrative scholly, but it can certainly be used as an effective strategy to diffuse study ennui, and maybe even as a tactic to appreciate the universal applications of logical reasoning.

Personally, I find myself playing the "find the flaw" game with everything - from shitty ads and commercials to the New York Post (ok bad example...) and bad TV, and honestly, aside from the fact that I'm slightly ashamed of myself for being such a geek, I really feel like I'm internalizing a lot of reasoning strategies (and it's showing up in my improving LR scores).

[Jeffort]

LSAC recently shipped me a free t-shirt and I like it. It doesn't say LSAC, it says DiscoverLaw.org on the back since that is a new online service they have for students.

[TIKITEMBO]

you do realize that what you're calling "comparative reasoning" is actually called a comparison or analogy flaw, and it's a type of reasoning flaw, not a good model that you want to copy, right?

Yeah, you're right. Definitely called it the wrong thing there. What I was meaning to say is that Stewart and Colbert often point out flaws in reasoning by comparing the flaw in logic of one argument to another argument that seems clearly ridiculous. No, you wouldn't want to copy the flawed logical reasoning, but you would want to recognize it!

First of all I am going to assume that OP started this thread to give exhausted LSAT preppers a prompt to lighten up. (And a personal thanks for that, OP, because holy shit did the LSAT ruin my week on Monday. I'll be commiserating with fellow LSATers in the "Cancel" threads.) Yes, of course, there is no substitute for drilling/PTing/diagramming/reading the Economist cover to cover/blueprint cleansing/etc, but at the same time, it's good to get a little humorous perspective when the studies get a little too intense.

I'm glad you embraced what I was really trying to do here I think it is a sign that the LSAT is starting to take over your life when you start seeing logical reasoning in everything, and this can be a good release where you're still getting some humorous practice. Not a substitute obviously, but something a bit less dry. Also, I am very much starting to play the "find the flaw" game and I really have no control over it.