Top Law Schools

So, I have read the LRB.

Still practicing, and drilling, and nothing can take the place of that.

However, for those who have read both LRB and MLSAT LR- would it be wise to intersperse LR practice with the MLSAT LR book as well?



And, yes, I know there are plenty of people who have not read either, or one or the other, and still do fantastic- I am just wondering if for those who read both, if it helped much? How much? Or are there only specific chapters to read (obviously, that is more directed towards the MLSAT one because I haven't read it).

Thanks!

Edit: I know there's already debate as to which one is better- (just didn't know if it was from people who have read both)- if there is already a discussion on it, you can just link it below.

I read them both and didn't have any problems in doing so. They actually go together quite well.

Thanks for the response gaud!

So- was there a lot of overlap? Or anything that you got from MLSAT LR that you didn't get from LRB, that really helped?

austinyo wrote:Thanks for the response gaud!

So- was there a lot of overlap? Or anything that you got from MLSAT LR that you didn't get from LRB, that really helped?

There was certainly overlap in some areas (I can't recall the exact parts). Going through both books was definitely helpful because it was as if two different people were explaining the same thing to me. There were parts of LRB that I felt made more sense and the same applied for MLSAT LR.

Sweet! I'm going to order it... Can't hurt.

And, to answer my own question, Amazon actually has people who read both the LRB and MLSAT LR: http://www.amazon.com/Manhattan-Logical ... ewpoints=1

I read both, and each have their strengths. For NA/SA and Flaw, I think nothing tops Manhattan. For Formal Logic, LRB definitely makes it more understandable (to the point that I'm going to review that chapter shortly). Honestly, while I think Manhattan is better on the whole, both are good resources and compliment each other quite well.

@NoodleyOne (thanks for the response, btw)

That's what I really want to get better at- are Assumptions- especially FL Sufficinet Qs so that diagramming is a rare occurrence. Flaws are great as well- because as I am sure you noticed, these pop up on many Question types (as do Assumptions).

I actually just ordered the MLSAT book, and will be starting it on Monday.

Manhattan LSAT should send me a fucking check for all the advertising I've been doing for them lately.

NoodleyOne wrote:Manhattan LSAT should send me a fucking check for all the advertising I've been doing for them lately.

Hahah I picked up the LR book because of your post in my thread.

NoodleyOne wrote:Manhattan LSAT should send me a fucking check for all the advertising I've been doing for them lately.

Hahaha, that's pretty funny.

Manhattan definitely better for assumption family questions. There were also some points that I can't believe LRB never covered, like the range of probability on certain questions, like Must Be True. Powerscore seemed to imply that you had to always find the one indubitable answer, while Manhattan insists upon flexibility. Also, I liked how Manhattan put strong emphasis on the argument core and returning to that to compare answers whenever necessary. With that said, I noticed the more dramatic improvement after reading LRB, but that was probably because I read that first. I like Powerscore for their treatment of conditional reading in general.

cloudhidden wrote:Manhattan definitely better for assumption family questions. There were also some points that I can't believe LRB never covered, like the range of probability on certain questions, like Must Be True.

Ya, I think Assumption Qs are super important to master because they pop up on multiple question types. Same with Flaw. And what do you mean, "range of probability" and also as it relates to MBT?? I would like to see more of what you think of that...

That's one thing I wanted to make sure of, by reading MLSAT- and BP Shinners wrote of this on his semi-weekly office hours thread- that there are those who get good scores and they can identify the reasoning, the Q Type, the method of attack relative to the type- but that the people who really break through and go 170> "see the matrix," as he called it. They see where the formulas for solving each Q break down, and they see what the LSAT as a whole is trying to do.

I think this comes through a lot of practice and exposure.

austinyo wrote:I think this comes through a lot of practice and exposure.

It will.

gaud wrote:

austinyo wrote:I think this comes through a lot of practice and exposure.

It will.

Thanks dude.

I go to the MLSAT forums and Matt Sherman on there is so BA at diagramming the formal logic for certain problems- I know we want to keep diagramming at a minimum- however, when he does it, he knows how to sift out the bs that's not needed and get to the core of the logic and let the other stuff just be that-other stuff. It's pretty awesome. I get FL, however, the way he can break it down is very impressive.

I meant range of provability, but I typed with my phone. MLSAT mentions this in their Inference chapter.

.