Top Law Schools

A high scorer on here (maybe 180?) recommended getting a book on informal logic. Any of you smart peeps have any rec’s?

Post removed.

I wasn't a fan of Informal Logic by Walton. Seemed like the whole book was very intuitive. Just my opinion.

Edit: I am not a 180 scorer.

Tarsky

I took a logic class during college and I remember really liking the textbook we used, "An Introduction to Logic" by Wayne Davis. I believe it's got a pretty decent amount on informal logic, plus a lot of practice questions: --LinkRemoved--

Why informal logic? IMO formal logic would be a better supplement to LSAT PTs.

I can't see how formal logic could help with the LSAT.

I doubt studying informal logic would help all that much either, but this is a good (though too expensive) book:

http://www.amazon.com/dp/0136246028/ref ... _ti_hist_1

Personally, I found my exposure to informal logic to be useful. It's not going to be as useful as, say, working through the PowerScore or Manhattan LR guide, but if you have plenty of time and are going to end up reusing official material a bunch, then it could be a good idea.

We used the Copi/Cohen book in my college intro logic course, and I liked it: http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Logi ... 0205820379

Reading up on fallacies will probably be the most useful part for you.

Why are you wanting a logic book? I've never seen studying logic on the front end to be helpful. I think it's usually hurtful actually.

tsutsik wrote:I can't see how formal logic could help with the LSAT.

I doubt studying informal logic would help all that much either, but this is a good (though too expensive) book:

http://www.amazon.com/dp/0136246028/ref ... _ti_hist_1

Studying logic in undergrad prepared me enough that I got perfect scores for LG and LR during my first drills with no prior LSAT studying.

I can do most LGs in my head in <8 minutes. The techniques taught in the LSAT prep books seem so time consuming. Just go straight to the source.

I have the Walton informal logic book some people recommend and I would not recommend it. It's mostly obvious stuff repeated ad nauseam.

If you're still in school take a couple symbolic logic classes from your philosophy department, or a discrete structures class in your computer science department if you are a STEM guy.

jordan15 wrote:

tsutsik wrote:I can't see how formal logic could help with the LSAT.

I doubt studying informal logic would help all that much either, but this is a good (though too expensive) book:

http://www.amazon.com/dp/0136246028/ref ... _ti_hist_1

Studying logic in undergrad prepared me enough that I got perfect scores for LG and LR during my first drills with no prior LSAT studying.

I can do most LGs in my head in <8 minutes. The techniques taught in the LSAT prep books seem so time consuming. Just go straight to the source.

OP: as much as I value a education in informal logic, n.b. that this is atypical. Studying informal logic will not magically grant you these skills.

iamgeorgebush wrote:

jordan15 wrote:

tsutsik wrote:I can't see how formal logic could help with the LSAT.

I doubt studying informal logic would help all that much either, but this is a good (though too expensive) book:

http://www.amazon.com/dp/0136246028/ref ... _ti_hist_1

Studying logic in undergrad prepared me enough that I got perfect scores for LG and LR during my first drills with no prior LSAT studying.

I can do most LGs in my head in <8 minutes. The techniques taught in the LSAT prep books seem so time consuming. Just go straight to the source.

OP: as much as I value a education in informal logic, n.b. that this is atypical. Studying informal logic will not magically grant you these skills.

1- I was talking about formal logic, not informal logic. While informal logic can be valuable (it is essentially what the LSAT is), informal logic is often not taught well and sometimes is taught the exact opposite of what you would want for the LSAT. On the other hand, formal logic is universal and is extremely helpful, especially for LG.

2- I really don't think it's atypical. I've been studying with some other people and have been explaining some things in the way that I was taught and they've said it's really helpful. Of course, there are other things that are LSAT specific that you need to know (picking the weaker choice, for example). But I still think that formal logic is an excellent supplement to regular drilling and specific LSAT prep guides.

jordan15 wrote:

iamgeorgebush wrote:

jordan15 wrote:

tsutsik wrote:I can't see how formal logic could help with the LSAT.

I doubt studying informal logic would help all that much either, but this is a good (though too expensive) book:

http://www.amazon.com/dp/0136246028/ref ... _ti_hist_1

Studying logic in undergrad prepared me enough that I got perfect scores for LG and LR during my first drills with no prior LSAT studying.

I can do most LGs in my head in <8 minutes. The techniques taught in the LSAT prep books seem so time consuming. Just go straight to the source.

OP: as much as I value a education in informal logic, n.b. that this is atypical. Studying informal logic will not magically grant you these skills.

1- I was talking about formal logic, not informal logic. While informal logic can be valuable (it is essentially what the LSAT is), informal logic is often not taught well and sometimes is taught the exact opposite of what you would want for the LSAT. On the other hand, formal logic is universal and is extremely helpful, especially for LG.

2- I really don't think it's atypical. I've been studying with some other people and have been explaining some things in the way that I was taught and they've said it's really helpful. Of course, there are other things that are LSAT specific that you need to know (picking the weaker choice, for example). But I still think that formal logic is an excellent supplement to regular drilling and specific LSAT prep guides.

1- Ah, ok. Yes, if learned incorrectly, the study of informal logic could definitely be more harmful than helpful. That's true of LSAT prep in general, though; if you prep in a way that causes you to attack the test incorrectly, that prep could be more harmful than helpful.

2- Oh I agree with you that formal logic, especially conditional logic, is useful for LGs. I just think that very few people will be able to score perfectly on LGs on their first attempt even after studying logic in some depth. Neither will many people be able to solve LGs in their head in <8 minutes after having studied logic. I'm a pretty smart guy, but I definitely wasn't at that level before learning LSAT-specific techniques, and neither was a certain philosophy PhD student I know who is at a top program, i.e. a program more competitive to get into than YLS. Maybe you're a logic prodigy, but for the rest of us, a study of formal logic without LSAT-specific techniques won't cut it. Finding principles of formal logic useful =/= easily acing LGs.