Top Law Schools

The original thread was here

http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 6&t=224337

Due to the requests from friends and people here, I decided to write a more extensive guide on the LSAT. Mostly, is because I am bored.

You can find the LR guide at
http://lsatconqueror.com/Logical-Reasoning.pdf

LG guide at
http://lsatconqueror.com/Analytical-Reasoning.pdf

RC guide at
http://lsatconqueror.com/Reading-Comprehension.pdf

and some frequently asked questions at

http://lsatconqueror.com/faq

And my original story at:

http://lsatconqueror.com/The-Journey.pdf

I would post them as plain text here, but that would be a giant all of text which would probably crash all of your browsers. I hope that does not violate any rules on this forum.

If you have any requests/questions/comments let me know!

cool, thanks

Thank you so much for this! I absolutely LOVE your LR guide!

And your RC guide is awesome as well.

I, too, think of RC passages as either "descriptive" or "argumentative". I also started from 145. We know what that means: I'm guaranteed a 170 because we are the same person

Thanks again.

Louis1127 wrote:Thank you so much for this! I absolutely LOVE your LR guide!

And your RC guide is awesome as well.

I, too, think of RC passages as either "descriptive" or "argumentative". I also started from 145. We know what that means: I'm guaranteed a 170 because we are the same person

Thanks again.

Haha thanks! I was doubting whether anyone would read those bazillion pages.

I made alot of foolish mistakes while studying, you wont, so id say you are guaranteed a 171+ .

really helpful.

out of curiosity, how did you come up with that list of flaws? while i understand it's not exhaustive, i've spent a few weeks looking over some cambrdige packets and I can almost always place a flaw into one of those. kudos!

So did you get into YHS (or Columbia at least) OP?

cavalier2015 wrote:really helpful.

out of curiosity, how did you come up with that list of flaws? while i understand it's not exhaustive, i've spent a few weeks looking over some cambrdige packets and I can almost always place a flaw into one of those. kudos!

Thanks!

A combination of sitting infront of my computer chair and thinking for a while, looking at some flaw categories of what other people have used, and written every available LSAT there is.

bizzybone1313 wrote:So did you get into YHS (or Columbia at least) OP?

Dead at YS,

Waitlist at Harvard/Columbia.

Probably going to end to attend Chicago at this point.

if it's not too much trouble, can you expand on what the following flaws entail:

red-herring
ad-hominem
Failing to understand the difference between hit, correct-rejection, miss, false-alarm
Assuming that a false or true statement will be known to the speakers as true or false.

Hey OP,

I loved your RC guide -- especially the final point you made on the last page, about treating a RC passage almost like a LG setup. It makes sense to spend the time upfront, making "inferences" and mentally organizing the information presented in the passage in order to save time later. And it actually works!

I used to have major problems with timing when I would try to speed through the passage in 2.5 mins and refer back heavily to answer the questions. I never considered this practice to be analogous to "brute forcing" a LG, but it really is. This weekend I took PT 56, with the strategy of investing more time upfront with the passages to save time on the questions. I spent about 4.5 mins per passage, and I finished the section comfortably under time (for the first time in my life!), going -5. To give you an idea, my last RC section (using the speed-through, refer-back strategy) was PT55 last weekend, and I went -10 without having time to even look at the final passage.

So, PSA: Don't brute force RC. Take your time; understand the passage. It's entirely worth it.

cavalier2015 wrote:if it's not too much trouble, can you expand on what the following flaws entail:

red-herring
ad-hominem
Failing to understand the difference between hit, correct-rejection, miss, false-alarm
Assuming that a false or true statement will be known to the speakers as true or false.

Red-herring is a cute term philosophers came up with which basically means discussing an irrelevant topic/using irrelevant evidence to attack another's argument.
Ad-hominem is another cute philosopher term for attacking the source rather than the argument
Failing... this is a very rare flaw that appeared I believe a grand total of twice or 3 times in the LSAT. The best example I can give is one most people use for demonstration and it has appeared as almost exactly as a question in one prep test. There is a 95% chance doctors will find a disease if it exists (hit rate). The idea is that people mistakenly think that the machine has a 95% accuracy rate, and the flaw play upon those concepts. A quick google of those terms would do a better job explaining that I would.
Assuming... is a rare flaw as well. I remember this being relevant in the bank deposit parallel LR question if any one remembers (PT 31, S2, Q21). Basically the idea is that just because you as the reader know a certain information as facts, you cannot assume the other speakers know that as facts or not.

My initial plan was to write a short explanation of all these flaws with an example, but then I got lazy. If the website gains alot of traction, ill eventually add to it, and finish up the conditional logic stuff.

Straw_Mandible wrote:Hey OP,

I loved your RC guide -- especially the final point you made on the last page, about treating a RC passage almost like a LG setup. It makes sense to spend the time upfront, making "inferences" and mentally organizing the information presented in the passage in order to save time later. And it actually works!

I used to have major problems with timing when I would try to speed through the passage in 2.5 mins and refer back heavily to answer the questions. I never considered this practice to be analogous to "brute forcing" a LG, but it really is. This weekend I took PT 56, with the strategy of investing more time upfront with the passages to save time on the questions. I spent about 4.5 mins per passage, and I finished the section comfortably under time (for the first time in my life!), going -5. To give you an idea, my last RC section (using the speed-through, refer-back strategy) was PT55 last weekend, and I went -10 without having time to even look at the final passage.

So, PSA: Don't brute force RC. Take your time; understand the passage. It's entirely worth it.

Thanks !

Absolutely, I am glad it worked for you! I think most people forget the test after is just a test of logical thinking and comprehension,if you understand the stimulus and the passage, the test can become manageable.

OP's journey is amazing! OP likely has better insights into the test than many others who began with a much higher diagnostic.

Saved all of this, assuming game 4 and rc 4 keeps me away from 170, I'll read all of this before I go back to work

Hey,

Thanks so much for your guide! I've only read the LR and RC so far and I found them tremendously useful and insightful. I liked how you used a casual and conversational writing style to explain your strategies, which makes it that much easier to grasp and relate to. Your explanation of the RC passage and the questions was also really helpful! I was wondering if you are planning to do a breakdown of a comparative passage in the same way? I've been having trouble with comparative passages and I think it would be useful to see your thought processes and what you look for as you're doing a comparative passage (for ex., I struggled with PT54's, oil drilling). Thanks in advance for your help!

jmjm wrote:OP's journey is amazing! OP likely has better insights into the test than many others who began with a much higher diagnostic.

Calbears123 wrote:Saved all of this, assuming game 4 and rc 4 keeps me away from 170, I'll read all of this before I go back to work

Thanks!

iiibbystar wrote:Hey,

Thanks so much for your guide! I've only read the LR and RC so far and I found them tremendously useful and insightful. I liked how you used a casual and conversational writing style to explain your strategies, which makes it that much easier to grasp and relate to. Your explanation of the RC passage and the questions was also really helpful! I was wondering if you are planning to do a breakdown of a comparative passage in the same way? I've been having trouble with comparative passages and I think it would be useful to see your thought processes and what you look for as you're doing a comparative passage (for ex., I struggled with PT54's, oil drilling). Thanks in advance for your help!

There are couple of topics I thought about expanding on, comparative passages being one of them, but only if there is sufficient interest. Unfortunately that does not seem to be the case right now.

lawschool2014hopeful wrote:

jmjm wrote:OP's journey is amazing! OP likely has better insights into the test than many others who began with a much higher diagnostic.

Calbears123 wrote:Saved all of this, assuming game 4 and rc 4 keeps me away from 170, I'll read all of this before I go back to work

Thanks!

iiibbystar wrote:Hey,

Thanks so much for your guide! I've only read the LR and RC so far and I found them tremendously useful and insightful. I liked how you used a casual and conversational writing style to explain your strategies, which makes it that much easier to grasp and relate to. Your explanation of the RC passage and the questions was also really helpful! I was wondering if you are planning to do a breakdown of a comparative passage in the same way? I've been having trouble with comparative passages and I think it would be useful to see your thought processes and what you look for as you're doing a comparative passage (for ex., I struggled with PT54's, oil drilling). Thanks in advance for your help!

There are couple of topics I thought about expanding on, comparative passages being one of them, but only if there is sufficient interest. Unfortunately that does not seem to be the case right now.

Thanks for letting me know!

For some reason my website has been getting bunch of people registering, so ill bump this thread if anyone has any questions to ask.

Hi, do you happen to have a google doc version of this? The links above don't work anymore