CardozoLaw09 wrote:bk1 wrote:I don't have the preptests in front of me so I haven't looked at the answers, but LSAC's "you need to have a basic understanding of the Cold War" argument strikes me as a bit strange for a test that purportedly doesn't require outside knowledge.
+1
According to them, it's "common knowledge" -- I'd beg to differ
I actually agree with them, and disagree with my past self (that idiot!). And I think the argument they're making is illustrative of how you're supposed to use outside knowledge on the LSAT.
-----
It's a common refrain: don't use common knowledge on the LSAT! I'm not sure where it comes from, but everyone seems to agree with it.
Now, who is this advice targeted at? The main target of prep companies: students scoring in the 150s. If you're in the 150s, you have a bunch of assumptions about how the world works, that you think are true. Or rather, you think they
have to be true.
So if you try to apply outside knowledge, you're going to have a bunch of extra beliefs.
-----
At a higher level, people get better at recognizing when one of their beliefs may not be a universal belief. Such a belief is still useful for forming a
hypothesis, but it should not be accepted as being universally true.
Then there are other beliefs that more or less everyone would agree to be true. In British law, they call this "The man on the clapham omnibus"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_man_on ... am_omnibus
American law applies a similar principle, without the same name. There are some things that almost any reasonable person would agree on.
On the LSAT, you can assume these beliefs to be true. These are
warranted assumptions. Be careful: you really need to make sure it's something
everyone would agree with.
An added snag is that you're supposed to use the beliefs of a reasonable scientist. The LSAC is not explicit about this, but several questions demonstrate you're supposed to be familiar with scientific knowledge. Remember the question about seal and horse spleens? Every reasonable scientist would agree that major organs such as spleens are similar in function across mammals: that knowledge was essential to getting the right answer.
The cold war was a dispute between two opposing blocs. I was being pedantic when I argued that alliances shifted. They did, but never to such as extent that the Warsaw pact and NATO ceased to be rivals.
------
Outside knowledge to form hypothesis
I said you can also use outside knowledge that not everyone would agree with. How? Not as warranted assumptions. But you can use it to prephrase.
For example, there was an (easy) question that talked about allowing police to break regulations and drink in nightclubs. I used outside knowledge to form a hypothesis: maybe police will look weird if they don't drink in nightclubs.
Scanned the answers, saw it was there, moved on quickly. I use this kind of "knowledge --> hypothesis --> look for it" cycle all the time to answer questions quickly. If my hypothesis isn't correct, I just go back to the drawing board.
Especially on the modern test, the LSAC expects you to approach questions with a broad view, using all of your knowledge. You
can answer questions purely from what the question says, but there are so many shortcuts if you use outside knowledge creatively.
-------
TL;DR
1. Outside knowledge is actually important
2. If
everyone would agree, it's a warranted assumption
3. If it's debatable, you can use it to form hypotheses and prephrase
4. I was being a pedantic ass when I said the cold war wasn't a conflict between two rival blocs.
5. If you're aiming for 170+, you shouldn't necessarily listen to advice meant for those scoring 140-160.