In this lesson, Shana and Trudel introduce you to LSAT Logical Reasoning Flaw questions, and bust the myth that "The February LSAT is THE HARDEST LSAT".  Simply not true.  Flaw Notes: A flaw is a fault in an argument that impairs the quality of its logical reasoning. In causal arguments, the flaw is found in the causal assumption, and often will reverse the cause and effect or create causation where there isn’t any. In arguments by analogy, the flaw will illogically relate two groups or ideas whose differences are significant and being ignored. In data sampling arguments, the flaw will often be found in how the survey was conducted and highlight a human error or a sample that misrepresents a whole. A flawed causal argument will contain a flaw in the assumption; it will establish causation when there is merely correlation, or, it will establish only one cause when there is clearly more than one cause. Any time you have two things merely present or coexisting in the premise, and then you find a conclusion connecting them through a causal relationship, you will likely have a correlation/causation flaw. The correlation/causation flaw takes on three possible forms: A. Correlation/Causation Confusion a. Example: If evidence suggests that people who snore have throat damage, a flawed argument might conclude that snoring causes throat damage, although the evidence only suggests a relationship (that snoring and throat damage are both traits of certain individuals). An answer choice might say: “The argument takes for granted that because certain characteristics are present whenever a condition occurs, those characteristics are a cause of that condition.” b. Example: Suppose an argument states that negative news reports cause damage to people’s confidence, which in turn can decrease the willingness of people to spend money (A → B → C ). Then, it would be a flaw to say that a correlation between B and C couldn’t exist, without B and C being wrapped up in a conditional causal argument. Here, the correct answer choice will open the door to the possibility that B relates to C for reasons other than A, such as “people who have little confidence in the overall economy generally take a pessimistic view concerning their own immediate economic situations.” See Preptest 65 Section 1 #17. c. Example: Suppose studies show a negative correlation between diet A and disease B, and suppose to conform to diet A you have to eat things within diet A that may also include non-diet-A foods (like a higher-fiber diet that also increases your calcium intake). To conclude that diet A directly causes a change in the incidence of disease B is a flaw. The reason why is because other non-diet-A foods (like high-calcium foods) could have just as easily caused the change in incidence of disease B. Hosted by Shana Ginsburg, Esq., CEO of Ginsburg Advanced Tutoring. This podcast is developed, edited and mixed by Shana Ginsburg. Music by Taha Ahmed. Podcast listeners take 15% off our LSAT Boss course on Teachable with offer code GAT15 at checkout. Ginsburg Advanced Tutoring is a full-service tutoring, accommodations and admissions company designed to support the needs of the anything-but-average student.  For tutoring and accommodations inquiries, find us on the web at ginsburgadvancedtutoring.com or email us at hello@ginsburgadvancedtutoring.com. Like what you hear? Leave us a review! --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/lsatboss/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/lsatboss/support

LSAT BOSS

S2E11: Flaws, Mint Tea, & Is February the Hardest Exam?

Today's episode is Part II of our Inference lesson. We recommend starting with S2E9 before beginning this episode. In today's episode, Shana and Trudel return to discuss the complexities of inference questions and go step-by-step through two inference practice questions. They also bust a myth about accommodations for students who suffer from Post Concussion Syndrome, and another myth about applying as early as possible for law school (without first securing a good LSAT score).  Practice Questions:  1. Modest amounts of studying can produce a dramatic improvement in your LSAT score. One should study most days of the week, but one need only do the equivalent of 45 minutes of untimed test questions to obtain studying benefits. More vigorous studying is more effective, but long study sessions are not absolutely necessary. Which one of the following is most strongly supported by the statements above? A. Having a long study session most days of the week can produce a dramatic improvement in your LSAT score B. Doing the equivalent of an hour of untimed test questions two or three days a week generally produces dramatic improvements in LSAT scores. C. It is possible to obtain at least as great an improvement in an LSAT score from doing the equivalent of 45 minutes of untimed test prep most days of the week as from having lengthier study sessions most days of the week. D. Aside from studying, there is no way to improve your LSAT score. E. To obtain a dramatic improvement in one’s LSAT score, one must study vigorously through lengthy study sessions at least occasionally 2. Cheerleading coach: Compared to many other gymnastic sports, cheerleading is highly risky. Failing to communicate with your spotters as a flyer often leads to poor falls, loss of points, or even injuries. Such communication failure is very likely to occur when young cheerleaders try to emulate the high tosses of more experienced flyers. Which one of the following is most strongly supported by the statements above? A. Experienced flyers are unlikely to fall, loose style points, or experience injury from communication failures. B. To reduce the risk of falls and injuries, young cheerleaders should avoid trying to emulate the high tosses of more experienced flyers. C. Young cheerleaders will not experience falls or have any injuries if they avoid trying to match the high tosses of more experienced flyers. D. Cheerleading is more risky than other gymnastic sports that do not involve high tosses. E. Most young cheerleaders fall and experience injuries from trying to emulate the high tosses of more experienced cheerleaders. Hosted by Shana Ginsburg, Esq., CEO of Ginsburg Advanced Tutoring. This podcast is developed, edited and mixed by Shana Ginsburg. Music by Taha Ahmed. Podcast listeners take 15% off our LSAT Boss course on Teachable with offer code GAT15 at checkout. Ginsburg Advanced Tutoring is a full-service tutoring, accommodations and admissions company designed to support the needs of the anything-but-average student.  For tutoring and accommodations inquiries, find us on the web at ginsburgadvancedtutoring.com or email us at hello@ginsburgadvancedtutoring.com. Like what you hear? Leave us a review! --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/lsatboss/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/lsatboss/support

S2E10: Inferences II, Accommodating Brain Injuries, & Applying Too Early

Inference questions ask you to analyze the logical reasoning of an argument and determine what other information necessarily follows from it. To determine what necessarily follows, or flows, from the argument, you’ll need to learn formal logical reasoning inference rules. These rules are the backbone of an argument, and understanding them can refine your approach to question types we learned in earlier lessons. Inference: A conclusion reached on the basis of evidence and reasoning. Note how similar the definition of an inference is the definition of a conclusion: Conclusion: A statement that necessarily follows from the stated and unstated premises. Notice how a conclusion flows from the premises—or evidence—but an inference flows from evidence AND reasoning. So what does it mean to flow from reasoning? Let’s learn some formal logic: Modus Ponens: a deductive reasoning inference rule of logic stating that if a conditional statement (“if p then q ”) is accepted, and the antecedent ( p ) holds, then the consequent ( q ) may be inferred. Example: If I sit hunched over my desk, I will likely end up with back pain. I sat hunched over my desk for five hours. So, I may end up with back pain. Symbolization: P → Q P --------- Q Modus Tollens: the inference rule of logic stating that if a conditional statement (“if p then q ”) is accepted, and the consequent does not hold ( not-q or ~q ), then the negation of the antecedent ( not-p or ~q) can be inferred. Example: If I sit hunched over my desk, I will likely end up with back pain. I did not end up with back pain today. So I must have not sat hunched over my desk. Symbolization: P → Q ~Q ---------- ~P Modus Tollendo Ponens (aka disjunction syllogism): A valid form of argument in which the antecedent (p) of a conditional proposition (Either p or q) is negated (~p), thereby entailing the affirmation of the consequent (q). Example: Either I am going to watch Bordertown on Netflix, or I’m going to watch The Good Fight because my eyes are too tired to handle the subtitles. My eyes are too tired for the subtitles in Bordertown, therefore, I’m going to watch The Good Fight. Symbolization: P v Q ~P ______ Q Hosted by Shana Ginsburg, Esq., CEO of Ginsburg Advanced Tutoring. This podcast is developed, edited and mixed by Shana Ginsburg. Music by Taha Ahmed. Podcast listeners take 30% off our LSAT Boss course on Teachable with offer code SALE30 at checkout. Ginsburg Advanced Tutoring is a full-service tutoring, accommodations and admissions company designed to support the needs of the anything-but-average student.  For tutoring and accommodations inquiries, find us on the web at ginsburgadvancedtutoring.com or email us at hello@ginsburgadvancedtutoring.com. Like what you hear? Leave us a review! --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/lsatboss/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/lsatboss/support

S2E9: Inferences, International Students, & GRE v LSAT Accommodations

In today's episode, Shana and Trudel unpack weakening questions, and bust myths about why 'liking' an answer is never a good reason to select it, and why a 'blind review' is not a learning strategy and something to be used with caution.  We'll consider weakening questions through the same lens as strengthening: Consider the case of a woman who sues a school system because she is rear-ended by a school bus on her way to work. After the accident, the woman has a back surgery totaling $200,000.00, so she sues the school system for damages. The underlying assumption of her argument is: “Because I was rear-ended by the school bus, I needed a $200,000.00 back surgery.” As her attorney, your job would be to prove that, more likely than not, the accident was the only cause of the surgery. You would have to strengthen the underlying assumption, and eliminate any other cause for the surgery. However, as an attorney for the school system, your job would be to prove that something other than the accident cause the need for the back surgery. If you can prove that the back surgery was scheduled before the accident, that would weaken the assumption.  We'll also tackle the following question along the way: Harriet, a Kindergartener, was once given a bin of toys by her school teacher after the more assertive children had wandered off. In her delight, she let out a series of loud squeals. The other children returned and took the toys away. The next day, Harriet was again alone and was given a single toy. This time, however, she didn’t make a sound. Her teacher concluded that Harriet’s silence was a strategy to keep the other children from her toys. Which one of the following, if true, most accurately weakens Harriet’s teacher’s conclusion? (A) Children make delighted squeals only when their favorite items are available. (B) Children make delighted squeals only when they encounter a sizable variety of toys. (C) Children frequently take items from other children merely to assert dominance. (D) Even when they are alone, children often make noises that appear to be signals to other children. (E) Toys are a type of item for which all children in Harriet’s class show a decided preference. Hosted by Shana Ginsburg, Esq., CEO of Ginsburg Advanced Tutoring. This podcast is developed, edited and mixed by Shana Ginsburg. Music by Taha Ahmed.   Podcast listeners take 30% off our LSAT Boss course on Teachable with offer code SALE30 at checkout. Ginsburg Advanced Tutoring is a full-service tutoring, accommodations and admissions company designed to support the needs of the anything-but-average student.  For tutoring and accommodations inquiries, find us on the web at ginsburgadvancedtutoring.com or email us at hello@ginsburgadvancedtutoring.com.   Like what you hear? Leave us a review!  --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/lsatboss/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/lsatboss/support

S2E8: Weakening Qs, 'Liking' Answers, and Unpacking the 'Blind Review'

Well, future law student,  if you're not yet sure what your test performance will look like, you may be struggling with some very uncomfortable and intrusive thoughts about what your test-day future holds. Often, these thoughts can be exacerbated by listening to other people talk about what you "must" do and when you '"must" take the test to be considered a good candidate. But, the short answer to this question of when the best time to take the LSAT is answered in today's episode.  --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/lsatboss/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/lsatboss/support

S2E7: Q&A: When is the best time to take the LSAT?

Strengthening questions are the first question type in the Logical Reasoning section of the LSAT that make you start thinking like an attorney.  The best strengthening answer choice will: a. Eliminate a possible alternate cause; or b. Eliminate a possible alternate effect; or c. Give more evidence linking the stated possible cause with the stated effect; or d. Bluntly support the assumption. In a causal argument, the answer choice would support the assumption that “nothing other than A (the cause) caused B (the effect).” Today's Practice Question: 1. Among men with broad shoulders, a large proportion do not even work out: They don’t do any cardiovascular exercises, don’t lift weights, and don’t do any manual labor that requires heavy lifting. Since such activity often leads to broader shoulders, it is likely that men with the broadest shoulders are genetically disposed to having a broader skeletal structure. Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument? (A) There is some evidence that engaging in some upper-body exercise can broaden anyone’s shoulders. (B) Some of the men with the broadest shoulders don’t do any cardiovascular exercises, but they do lift weights and have manual labor jobs that require heavy lifting. (C) Some of the men with the broadest shoulders do daily cardiovascular exercises, but they do not lift weights or have manual labor jobs that require heavy lifting. (D) Some men who do not have broad shoulders also don’t do any cardiovascular exercises, lift weights or have manual labor jobs that require heavy lifting. (E) Nearly all men with broad shoulders have fathers and brothers who also have broad shoulders. Hosted by Shana Ginsburg, Esq., CEO of Ginsburg Advanced Tutoring. Ginsburg Advanced Tutoring is a full-service tutoring, accommodations and admissions company designed to support the needs of the anything-but-average student.   For tutoring and accommodations inquiries, find us on the web at ginsburgadvancedtutoring.com or email us at hello@ginsburgadvancedtutoring.com.  This podcast is developed, edited and mixed by Shana Ginsburg.   Music by Taha Ahmed.   Like what you hear? Leave us a review! Podcast listeners take 30% off our LSAT Boss course on Teachable with offer code SALE30 at checkout.  --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/lsatboss/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/lsatboss/support

S2E6: Strengthening Qs, Migraines & Workplace Accommodations

This is the third installment of Admissions Love Story. In this episode, Ali gets his first offer letter; Claudia and Ali consider what law school life might look like if they attend University of Baltimore together; Claudia pulls the trigger on getting disability accommodations; and the gang talks support groups during the pandemic.   Hosted by Shana Ginsburg, Esq., CEO of Ginsburg Advanced Tutoring and managing partner of Ginsburg Legal Services.  Ginsburg Advanced Tutoring is a full-service tutoring, accommodations and admissions company designed to support the needs of the anything-but-average student.  This podcast is developed and edited by Shana Ginsburg.  Music by Taha Ahmed.  Like what you hear? Podcast listeners take 30% off our LSAT Boss course on Teachable with offer code SALE30 at checkout.  For tutoring and accommodations inquiries, find us on the web at ginsburgadvancedtutoring.com or email us at hello@ginsburgadvancedtutoring.com  --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/lsatboss/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/lsatboss/support

S2E5 Admissions Love Story Pt3- "The Hallway"

Shana is back with cohost Trudel Pare (177 LSAT Score; Ginsburg Advanced Tutoring alum) to delve into some practice assumption questions. We'll also bust a myth about 'pushing through' when you're tired, and discuss some healthy test taking strategies to ensure you give your eyes a rest and fuel your brain.   --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/lsatboss/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/lsatboss/support

S2E4: Assumptions II with Shana & Tru; Garlic Fry Wednesdays

I love this Admissions Love Story, because it's the gift that keeps on giving. Ali and Claudia first met at the beginning of their pre-law journey in 2018. Fast forward to September 2020, and Ali has generated a 21-point LSAT score improvement -- but equally amazing-- a 1.0 UGPA increase.  While he waits for his acceptance letters to roll in, we recorded an interview about his journey and caught up with Claudia Ryan, who, at the time, was preparing for her Criminal Law midterm exam.   A month later, we now bring you this episode with exciting news: Claudia  received the highest grade in the class! Ready to begin your pre-law journey? Learn about our test prep, admissions, and accommodations services at our website GinsburgAdvancedTutoring.com.  Find LSAT Boss: The Class hosted by Shana Ginsburg on Teachable.  Begin your LSAT journey with a rigorous, curriculum-based course designed for the anything-but-average student. LSAT Boss podcast listeners enjoy 30% off at checkout with code SALE30. Music by former student Taha Ahmed. --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/lsatboss/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/lsatboss/support

S2E3: Admissions Love Story II: Ali's GPA; Claudia Gets an A

You may know her as the Season 1 cohost of the LSAT Boss podcast, but back in 2019, Claudia was a pre-law student working with Ginsburg Admissions to prepare her personal statement and ensure that she was applying to the schools that were the best fit for her.  Baltimore ended up accepting Claudia with a sizable scholarship, and it turns out to be an even more perfect fit than she had expected.  It's not too easy. It's not too hard. To Claudia, it's the Goldilocks of law schools. And she's here to tell you why. Start your law school journey today. Visit us on the web at GinsburgAdvancedTutoring.com or head to Ginsburg.Advanced.Tutoring-teachable.com to begin your online LSAT Boss Course with Shana Ginsburg.   Music by Ginsburg alum Taha Ahmed.  --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/lsatboss/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/lsatboss/support

S2E2: Admissions Love Story I: Claudia Ryan + Baltimore Law

Season 2 of LSAT Boss picks up where we left off, only without Claudia Ryan who is on hiatus while she begins law school. Our new guest cohost is Trudel Pare, who will be helping us break down the rest of the logical reasoning lessons. Trudel, a Ginsburg Advanced Tutoring graduate, scored a 177 on the July LSAT and shares her wisdom on mastering the content, test strategies, and mental clarity techniques on her road to a near-perfect score.  This lesson is devoted to the assumption, and how to create the causal argument assumption—the assumption that connects the causal premises of an argument to its overall conclusion. Assumption Definition:  An unstated premise that is accepted as true or as certain to happen, without proof. The Assumption Strategy: 1. Identify the Conclusion 2. Identify the Premises 3. Prephrase the Causal Assumption (Every assumption can be prephrased by taking the conclusion and connecting it back to the premise. There are five ways you can make these connections in a prephrase of the assumption. We'll take a look.) 4. Apply Process of Elimination Tests The 4-part assumption strategy contains two steps you already know how to do- identify the conclusion, and identify the premise. The next steps are explained in this lesson. Our complete LSAT Boss curriculum is now available on teachable. Find us on the web and begin your 33-video curriculum, with guided lessons and homework drills in official LSAT Preptests:  ginsburg-advanced-tutoring.teachable.com.  --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/lsatboss/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/lsatboss/support

S2E1: Assumptions, 177 LSAT Scoring Strategies, and "Precision" Myths | Guest Cohost Trudel Pare

Episode 13: Principles. Consider the principle like a moral in an Aesop’s Fable. For example, in the fable “The Tortoise and the Hare,” the lesson learned by the animals—the moral of the story—is that “Slow and steady wins the race.” That moral is the principle! Let’s not confuse it with the conclusion of the fable, which was simply that the tortoise won the race. To get more technical, a principle is like a law, and laws have elements. In other words, to support a conviction of first degree murder, the prosecution must establish that the individual acted 1) intentionally, 2) with malice, that his act was 3) premeditated, and that it 4) cause the killing of another. If the prosecution can’t prove all of those elements apply to the case against a person, then the principle would not justify the application of a murder conviction in this case. For example, if a woman is charged with killing her husband, but his body isn’t ever found, is that 4th element above actually proven? Or, if a man asks his wife to shoot him while he holds a book in front of his heart so that he can test the theory that a book can stop a bullet, is there evidence that she did so with malice? So, as we look at principles, we’ll be looking at all of the components of the principle and checking one component at a time to see if it applies to a particular scenario, or can be used to justify a conclusion, or can apply to a similar principle with a different fact pattern. Three Types of Principle Questions Select the Principle from the Answer Choices ● Which one of the following principles, if valid, helps to justify the author’s reasoning? ● Which one of the following principles most helps to justify the conclusion above? ● Which one of the following principles underlies the author’s argument? Select the Justification from the Answer Choices ● Which of the following, if true, most justifies the above application of the principle? Apply the Principle to Another Situation ● The principles stated by the author --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/lsatboss/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/lsatboss/support

S1E13: Principles, Practice Tests, and 50% More Study Time!

In this episode, Shana and Claudia break down reasoning questions, and bust myths that cause us to shame gap years and going to law schools that don't give us full rides or aren't T-14s.  You won't want to miss this one.  Outro music by Taha Ahmed. Thanks to our sponsor, Anchor.fm.  If you want to donate to our podcast, email us at hello@ginsburgadvancedtutoring.com. Episode notes, classes, and tutoring services are available at our website GinsburgAdvancedTutoring.com Like what you hear? Leave us a good review on Apple, Google, Spotify, or wherever you podcast.    Find us on Instagram at @ginsburgadvanced Listeners enjoy 25% off a 1-hour tutoring or admissions consultation with a Ginsburg Advanced Tutor from 7/4/20 -7/30/20. Use offer code: JULYFOURTH --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/lsatboss/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/lsatboss/support

S1E12: Reasoning Questions (& Admissions Mythbusters!) w/ Shana Ginsburg, Esq. & Claudia Ryan

LSAT BOSS is a podcast by Shana Ginsburg, Esq., (Founder & CEO of Ginsburg Advanced Tutoring, LLC), a litigation and disability attorney, certified English teacher, and professional tutor with seventeen years of experience helping students with learning challenges reach their LSAT score potential. Each week, Shana brings you a lesson from her LSAT Boss strategy guide as if you were in an 1:1 tutoring session with her. Lesson notes and test prep services available for purchase at www.ginsburgadvancedtutoring.com. To become a sponsor, contact us at hello@ginsburgadvancedtutoring.com. Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/lsatboss/support

hubhopper

LSAT BOSS

hubhopper