Top Law Schools

Sesame_Jesus wrote:

JDewey wrote: 2) Pick up a good book on INFORMAL logic. I hear people saying that formal logic important, believe me, for this test INFORMAL logic is actually what you want to study. I think people are confusing the two. I am particularly fond of "Informal Logic: A handbook for critical argument" by Douglas N. Walton.

I took OP's advice and have been casually reading through this book. It's an excellent supplement to LSAT studying. The vast majority of it is directly relevant to LR questions on the LSAT; his breakdowns of each logical fallacy are detailed and step-by-step. His taxonomy actually *adds* to an understanding of how the fallacy works and is never employed excessively or without purpose (cough ... powerscore ... cough). He gives tons of examples that read very much like LR stimuli.

If you're looking supplemental materials for extra lsat prep, the 2 best sources I've seen are GetPrepped's Ace the Logic Games for LGs and Walton's handbook for LR.

This is my first time hearing about the getprepped thing. Care to elaborate?

allison34363 wrote:

bobkjohnson wrote:

JDewey wrote: 2) Pick up a good book on INFORMAL logic. I hear people saying that formal logic important, believe me, for this test INFORMAL logic is actually what you want to study. I think people are confusing the two. I am particularly fond of "Informal Logic: A handbook for critical argument" by Douglas N. Walton.

I haven't taken the LSAT yet, but I took a formal logic class and studied informal logic. For the most part the stuff that I learned in the class, albeit it was more so formulas, it helped in my studying. I understand the Logic sections so much more now then when i took a practice test Sophomore year of College.

The most logic used on the LSAT is contrapositives. Agree or disagree?

if that's what you only know, may I ask what you got on your LSAT?

mickeymouse4509 wrote:

allison34363 wrote:

bobkjohnson wrote:

JDewey wrote: 2) Pick up a good book on INFORMAL logic. I hear people saying that formal logic important, believe me, for this test INFORMAL logic is actually what you want to study. I think people are confusing the two. I am particularly fond of "Informal Logic: A handbook for critical argument" by Douglas N. Walton.

I haven't taken the LSAT yet, but I took a formal logic class and studied informal logic. For the most part the stuff that I learned in the class, albeit it was more so formulas, it helped in my studying. I understand the Logic sections so much more now then when i took a practice test Sophomore year of College.

The most logic used on the LSAT is contrapositives. Agree or disagree?

if that's what you only know, may I ask what you got on your LSAT?

Hit 165 on a practice test the other day, average is usually 160.

prelaw76 wrote:

SeekingHeight wrote:

For example, my first diag was 162...there's no way I can ever get 180.

I'm going to mimic Trojan here and disagree with you, if only in principle. I mean, maybe your diagnostic was wildly inaccurate and you should have scored a 140. However, a 162 is a very good initial diagnostic. Think about it: You're scoring around the 90th percentile cold. That's fantastic. It tells me that you have a very firm grip on many core LSAT concepts. Thus, with refinement and commitment, you should be able to push your score into the 99th percentile. Even a 180 cannot be considered unfeasible.

Like Trojan, I am not a genius, nor am I brilliant. Yet I scored a 175. I had to earn every single point from my initial 157 diagnostic. Did I doubt myself? Repeatedly. We like to justify our pessimism by dressing it as reality, but remember reality is that normal joes such as Trojan and I scored well. I don't know Trojan's LSAT story, but I'll tell you that hard work and a smart strategy are powerful tools in the hands of a determined individual.

I agree. Diagnostics mean nothing. Congrats on your successful jump from 157 to 175, that is quite impressive!

+1 - I was stuck at exactly that 162 - with a course I am now PTing regularly in the 170's and still climbing. I would say I have to wait til test day to see for sure, but the point is I never was even able to do this on PTs at all, nowhere about 162, and now it is consistent. It took the course, and work work work

I too saw my scores become more consistent once I put in the time for prep... which may be a bad thing since I want to hit 170 and am stuck around 165

Sesame_Jesus wrote:

JDewey wrote: 2) Pick up a good book on INFORMAL logic. I hear people saying that formal logic important, believe me, for this test INFORMAL logic is actually what you want to study. I think people are confusing the two. I am particularly fond of "Informal Logic: A handbook for critical argument" by Douglas N. Walton.

I took OP's advice and have been casually reading through this book. It's an excellent supplement to LSAT studying. The vast majority of it is directly relevant to LR questions on the LSAT; his breakdowns of each logical fallacy are detailed and step-by-step. His taxonomy actually *adds* to an understanding of how the fallacy works and is never employed excessively or without purpose (cough ... powerscore ... cough). He gives tons of examples that read very much like LR stimuli.

I've started reading this book too. Its an interesting read and has helped me understand some forms of argument better. I'm a business major and never really had much experience with arguments.

Its helped me understand stuff in the LRB better. Its about 300 pages and can be read casually in a couple days

SkiBumLawyer wrote:

Sesame_Jesus wrote:

JDewey wrote: 2) Pick up a good book on INFORMAL logic. I hear people saying that formal logic important, believe me, for this test INFORMAL logic is actually what you want to study. I think people are confusing the two. I am particularly fond of "Informal Logic: A handbook for critical argument" by Douglas N. Walton.

I took OP's advice and have been casually reading through this book. It's an excellent supplement to LSAT studying. The vast majority of it is directly relevant to LR questions on the LSAT; his breakdowns of each logical fallacy are detailed and step-by-step. His taxonomy actually *adds* to an understanding of how the fallacy works and is never employed excessively or without purpose (cough ... powerscore ... cough). He gives tons of examples that read very much like LR stimuli.

I've started reading this book too. Its an interesting read and has helped me understand some forms of argument better. I'm a business major and never really had much experience with arguments.

Its helped me understand stuff in the LRB better. Its about 300 pages and can be read casually in a couple days

Where did you get it, amazon?

SkiBumLawyer wrote:

Sesame_Jesus wrote:

JDewey wrote: 2) Pick up a good book on INFORMAL logic. I hear people saying that formal logic important, believe me, for this test INFORMAL logic is actually what you want to study. I think people are confusing the two. I am particularly fond of "Informal Logic: A handbook for critical argument" by Douglas N. Walton.

I took OP's advice and have been casually reading through this book. It's an excellent supplement to LSAT studying. The vast majority of it is directly relevant to LR questions on the LSAT; his breakdowns of each logical fallacy are detailed and step-by-step. His taxonomy actually *adds* to an understanding of how the fallacy works and is never employed excessively or without purpose (cough ... powerscore ... cough). He gives tons of examples that read very much like LR stimuli.

I've started reading this book too. Its an interesting read and has helped me understand some forms of argument better. I'm a business major and never really had much experience with arguments.

Its helped me understand stuff in the LRB better. Its about 300 pages and can be read casually in a couple days

LR is my strongest section but I am still getting 3-4 wrong there, would you recommend the LRB?

mickeymouse4509 wrote:

SkiBumLawyer wrote:

Sesame_Jesus wrote:

JDewey wrote: 2) Pick up a good book on INFORMAL logic. I hear people saying that formal logic important, believe me, for this test INFORMAL logic is actually what you want to study. I think people are confusing the two. I am particularly fond of "Informal Logic: A handbook for critical argument" by Douglas N. Walton.

I took OP's advice and have been casually reading through this book. It's an excellent supplement to LSAT studying. The vast majority of it is directly relevant to LR questions on the LSAT; his breakdowns of each logical fallacy are detailed and step-by-step. His taxonomy actually *adds* to an understanding of how the fallacy works and is never employed excessively or without purpose (cough ... powerscore ... cough). He gives tons of examples that read very much like LR stimuli.

I've started reading this book too. Its an interesting read and has helped me understand some forms of argument better. I'm a business major and never really had much experience with arguments.

Its helped me understand stuff in the LRB better. Its about 300 pages and can be read casually in a couple days

Where did you get it, amazon?

Also check out Logic Made Easy by Deborah Bennett.

+1 on Douglas M. Walton. You guys are making me want to retake the LSAT REally.

You can also read a list of logical fallacies on wikipedia. It is actually quite extensive, and more detailed than the LR Bible.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

JJim1919 wrote:You can also read a list of logical fallacies on wikipedia. It is actually quite extensive, and more detailed than the LR Bible.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

great link, thanks

Any tips for retakers who have used up most of their tests?

I am in a similar boat. First, I am taking the holistic approach that the OP said. Understanding what to do for the test and innately knowing the general tenets that underlie the test are two different things, and while I knew what to do for the test, I would have been better served if I had had the actual foundation that much of it is built on. And I have to start reading more often too. And take a Xanax before the test next time.

thriller219 wrote:I am in a similar boat. First, I am taking the holistic approach that the OP said. Understanding what to do for the test and innately knowing the general tenets that underlie the test are two different things, and while I knew what to do for the test, I would have been better served if I had had the actual foundation that much of it is built on. And I have to start reading more often too. And take a Xanax before the test next time.

max from the chat? avoid the xanax dude.

2) Pick up a good book on INFORMAL logic. I hear people saying that formal logic important, believe me, for this test INFORMAL logic is actually what you want to study. I think people are confusing the two. I am particularly fond of "Informal Logic: A handbook for critical argument" by Douglas N. Walton.

********************************************************************

I got this book and read half of it. Its terrible. Extremely poorly written. Lacking in any useful insight. Basically a long-winded explanation of common sense principles and repetitive examples illustrating obvious points. Its a waste of time. If I continued repeating myself and coming up with new ways of phrasing "this book sucks" for 200 pages, then this post would begin to approach the level of significance and usefulness reached by Walton's book. If you enjoy burning books or you prefer the rough scrape of printing paper over conventional toilet paper, then this books is for you!

180orbust wrote:If I continued repeating myself and coming up with new ways of phrasing "this book sucks" for 200 pages, then this post would begin to approach the level of significance and usefulness reached by Walton's book.

lol ,really that bad huh? And whats up with the Xanax? Does that stuff really help?

allison34363 wrote:
LR is my strongest section but I am still getting 3-4 wrong there, would you recommend the LRB?

I am in a similiar situation. I just started prepping for the LSAT. I took 3 tests out of a Kaplan book (but didn't read any of their strategies, I just grabbed the book from the library for the PTs).

So, I'm starting off with -3 or -4 on LR. Should I bother reading the LRB, or is it possible that taking enough PTs and reviewing my mistakes will be enough for this section? I'm going to need a lot of work to get LG up to speed, so the less time I spend on LRB the better.

cubswin wrote:
I took 3 tests out of a Kaplan book (but didn't read any of their strategies

Good call.

mickeymouse4509 wrote:

cubswin wrote:
I took 3 tests out of a Kaplan book (but didn't read any of their strategies

Good call.

I don't think they are THAT bad for LR. Although I find that most Kaplan explanations consist of "out of scope" lol

I took a Kaplan course and it was the biggest waste of money EVER. I wish I could get it back..Grrr

esperanzax wrote:I took a Kaplan course and it was the biggest waste of money EVER. I wish I could get it back..Grrr

yeah I would have rather still had my $1000+

That's your fault for not doing research.

180orbust wrote:2) Pick up a good book on INFORMAL logic. I hear people saying that formal logic important, believe me, for this test INFORMAL logic is actually what you want to study. I think people are confusing the two. I am particularly fond of "Informal Logic: A handbook for critical argument" by Douglas N. Walton.

********************************************************************

I got this book and read half of it. Its terrible. Extremely poorly written. Lacking in any useful insight. Basically a long-winded explanation of common sense principles and repetitive examples illustrating obvious points. Its a waste of time. If I continued repeating myself and coming up with new ways of phrasing "this book sucks" for 200 pages, then this post would begin to approach the level of significance and usefulness reached by Walton's book. If you enjoy burning books or you prefer the rough scrape of printing paper over conventional toilet paper, then this books is for you!

the test examines the test-takers' formal AND informal logic skills. LR and RC test both (although mostly informal), lg tests formal. that being said, one would need to have a firm grasp on both in order to maximize one's score.

as for the review of walton's book... let me just say that i had a very different experience with it. I started off averaging -6 on each LR section. i went through both the LR bible and walton's book, and now i'm at about -3 or -2 in each section. of course, i still have a long way to go before i perfect LR, but i think the combination has been very useful in MY experience.

idiothek wrote:

180orbust wrote:2) Pick up a good book on INFORMAL logic. I hear people saying that formal logic important, believe me, for this test INFORMAL logic is actually what you want to study. I think people are confusing the two. I am particularly fond of "Informal Logic: A handbook for critical argument" by Douglas N. Walton.

********************************************************************

I got this book and read half of it. Its terrible. Extremely poorly written. Lacking in any useful insight. Basically a long-winded explanation of common sense principles and repetitive examples illustrating obvious points. Its a waste of time. If I continued repeating myself and coming up with new ways of phrasing "this book sucks" for 200 pages, then this post would begin to approach the level of significance and usefulness reached by Walton's book. If you enjoy burning books or you prefer the rough scrape of printing paper over conventional toilet paper, then this books is for you!

the test examines the test-takers' formal AND informal logic skills. LR and RC test both (although mostly informal), lg tests formal. that being said, one would need to have a firm grasp on both in order to maximize one's score.

as for the review of walton's book... let me just say that i had a very different experience with it. I started off averaging -6 on each LR section. i went through both the LR bible and walton's book, and now i'm at about -3 or -2 in each section. of course, i still have a long way to go before i perfect LR, but i think the combination has been very useful in MY experience.

And this goes for my future experience too that I haven't experienced yet because I'm waiting on that damn book.

HALLO THIS IS LSAT LOGIC IN EVERYDAY LIFE IM ADAM BRODY