Top Law Schools

I'm planning on focusing on LR for a bit, and I'm thinking of tackling it in the following way: review a given question type in MLR, then read the corresponding section in LGB, and lastly drill the corresponding Cambridge question set (LR by type from PTs 1-38). Rinse and repeat.

However, since each company uses its own classification system, I need to know how the sections correspond. Looking at the indexes from my books, I made a rough comparison chart (below).

A couple of things:
1. You'll probably notice that conditional logic/reasoning is not on the chart. This is primarily because I've never understood why any of the companies organize their reasoning sections and introduce the concepts the way they do.

With respect to the conversion between MLR and LRB, I was planning on grouping the reasoning chapters in LRB together and reviewing in the following order: MLR - Conditional Logic || LRB - Conditional Reasoning; Causal Reasoning; Formal Logic
Because conditional logic informs many of the other question types and does not have its own problem set, I was planning on reviewing this early (probably after necessary and sufficient assumptions).

2. Could you let me know if I made any mistakes in the labeling, conversions, etc.? Or if I am missing any sections/classifications? And help me fill in any gaps (e.g., whether MLR has a corresponding classification for paradox, or if they group it with a different question type)?

I'd really appreciate any help/suggestions! I'll make revisions as needed, and hopefully the finished product will be a useful resource for others, too!



NOTE: Edited as per RhymesLikeDimes and Daily_Double's suggestions.

ETA: Many thanks to Cambridge LSAT for putting together a more effectively organized and comprehensive table! It's posted in this thread, so make sure to scroll down a bit. Cheers!

I'd say that looks pretty good, though I wouldn't lump Strengthen and Weaken together.

Assuming this is correct, thanks!!

If I recall correctly, then Powerscore's classification, Justify the conclusion, is actually the same as the Sufficient Assumption classification, and if I recall correctly, then you are mistaken. Otherwise, judging from memory alone, this looks pretty good, and very similar to how I classified my drilling, each Cambridge type has its own folder and each folder contains copied pages from Powerscore and Manhattan.

I also think Manhattan's explain a result are equivalent to resolve the paradox.

You might need to double check what I just said, but I'm pretty sure my memory is spot on.

ercmilla wrote:Assuming this is correct, thanks!!

+bazillion

RhymesLikeDimes wrote:I'd say that looks pretty good, though I wouldn't lump Strengthen and Weaken together.

I actually had in mind reviewing and drilling them separately, so I had no reason for grouping them in the table like that. Edited for clarification now. Thanks!

Daily_Double wrote:If I recall correctly, then Powerscore's classification, Justify the conclusion, is actually the same as the Sufficient Assumption classification, and if I recall correctly, then you are mistaken. Otherwise, judging from memory alone, this looks pretty good, and very similar to how I classified my drilling, each Cambridge type has its own folder and each folder contains copied pages from Powerscore and Manhattan.

I also think Manhattan's explain a result are equivalent to resolve the paradox.

You might need to double check what I just said, but I'm pretty sure my memory is spot on.

Thanks so much for pointing those out to me! Spot on, as you said.

superdingle2000 wrote:

ercmilla wrote:Assuming this is correct, thanks!!

+bazillion

Actually made a couple of edits, so be sure to check out the updated table. Hope it's helpful!

Thanks for putting this together OP! Since this comes up fairly frequently (see http://top-law-schools.com/forums/viewt ... 6&t=203063), we've created this fleshed-out table. Right click on the chart and pull down to "Save link as..." to save the pdf version. We've also updated our LSAT question types page to include the conversion information. Note that PowerScore considers the Principle designation to be an overlay of other question types, as opposed to its own question type.

Cambridge LSAT wrote:Thanks for putting this together OP! Since this comes up fairly frequently (see http://top-law-schools.com/forums/viewt ... 6&t=203063), we've created this fleshed-out table. Right click on the chart and pull down to "Save link as..." to save the pdf version. We've also updated our LSAT question types page to include the conversion information. Note that PowerScore considers the Principle designation to be an overlay of other question types, as opposed to its own question type.

Brilliant! Thanks so much for this. (I hadn't even seen that other thread, since I had actually made my table before the other question had been asked - I just wasted a decent amount of time trying to figure out if/how I could embed the table into my post, before eventually settling upon making a Photobucket account instead.) Anyway, thanks again!