Today on the show, Ben and Nathan discuss a turd regarding LSAT diagnostic tests. They explain why they advise new students to just start with a practice test. The guys also go over LSAC’s recently released data comparing August test scores from 2019 through 2021. Then, they answer a harder LR Weaken question and host the personal statement grand finale. As always, if you like the show and you want to get more from the Thinking LSAT community, check out the links below. You can connect with other folks studying for the LSAT and get more useful resources from Nathan and Ben. Read more on our website!

Thinking LSAT

Start With a Practice Test (Ep. 320)

Ben and Nathan continue the series of reading bad personal statements and calling out violations. But first, they tackle a Flaw question from PrepTest 73 and read emails from Demon students finding LSAT success. If you are still wondering what NOT to do on your personal statement, this episode is for you. As always, if you like the show and you want to get more from the Thinking LSAT community, check out the links below. You can connect with other folks studying for the LSAT, and get more useful resources from Nathan and Ben. Read more on our website!

The Flawed Argument Flaw and More Statements (Ep. 319)

Ben and Nathan have read a lot of shoddy personal statements on the show in recent weeks. If you’re wondering what a really good one sounds like, you don’t want to miss today’s first submission—one that actually follows the guys’ advice. The best personal statement in weeks is followed by a frenzy of violations. But first, the guys tackle a Parallel Reasoning question from PrepTest 73 and dispel a myth about diagramming arguments on the LSAT. First, Nathan reiterates the pearl of LR advice from episode 317: Mentally blur out the question and answer choices as you read the passage. Focus on one sentence at a time, and make sure you actually understand it. The first sentence is an if-then statement. Does that mean you should write it out with symbols and arrows and diagram the contrapositive? No! Doing that is counterproductive. Instead, just think about what the sentence means. Ben puts it simply: Either Suarez or Anderson is the most qualified. Halfway through the next sentence, Ben predicts what the argument can logically conclude. The conclusion matches his prediction, so the argument is valid. That is, the evidence forces the conclusion to be true. The question asks for a parallel argument. The given argument is valid, so the correct answer must be valid as well. Nathan describes the type of argument he’s looking for as, roughly, “It’s gotta be one of these two things. So, if it’s not this one, it’s that one.” Answer B is a perfect match. Read more on our website!

A Good Personal Statement and a Frenzy of Violations (Ep. 318)

Today on the show, Nathan and Ben uncover a rare pearl of LSAT wisdom. This listener-submitted advice promotes a deeper understanding of the test and can be applied to both Logical Reasoning and Reading Comprehension. The guys also relay some important announcements from LSAC and discuss why September is the best time to submit law school applications. Then, they review some cringey personal statements and wrap up with another list of rule violations. “Read more on our website!”

A Pearl and Some Cringeworthy Personal Statements (Ep. 317)

Listener personal statements have been rolling in, and Ben and Nathan are doing their best to respond to as many as possible. In what may be a new record, today’s episode features ten submissions. The guys pull no punches as they critique each one and compile a list of rule violations. But first, they hear from a listener who improved his official score by 27 points using LSAT Demon, and they tackle a Reasoning question from PrepTest 73. Reminder: If you want to submit your personal statement to be read on a future episode, go to lsat.link/statement and answer the questions first. 5:45 – Major Score Increases Listener Volodymyr studied with LSAT Demon for six months and increased his score by a whopping 27 points—from a diagnostic 142 to an official 169. Way to go! That 97th percentile score and his impressive 3.86 GPA make him an excellent candidate. Nathan and Ben revel in the fact that major score increases are becoming so common among dedicated Demon students, they’re almost unremarkable. The thing that sets LSAT Demon apart from other test prep companies is the emphasis on actually understanding the test—not on gimmicky shortcuts. 14:13 – Logical Reasoning Question 16 from PrepTest 73 Nathan breaks down the argument and summarizes the main point: The top award for architecture should go to the best building just as the top award for movies goes to the best picture. Why? Because creating a building is a team effort, much like creating a movie. Ben and Nathan are sympathetic to the argument but also point out its weaknesses. They then discuss their strategy for answering a Reasoning question. The right answer must accurately describe something that the argument did—nothing different, nothing extra. Ben adds that it’s okay if an answer describes the argument incompletely, but it can’t be inaccurate. Answer A makes perfect sense. The argument did use an analogy to reach its conclusion. Answers B, C, D, and E have a lot of the right words, but they’re all inaccurate and thus wrong. Nathan reminds listeners that the most efficient way to improve your Logical Reasoning score is to dig into one question at a time. 43:12 – Z’s Personal Statement The first few sentences of Z’s statement are somewhat vague and fail to capture Ben’s or Nathan’s interest. There are some awkward sentence constructions and too many uses of the word “would” throughout the first paragraph. (Instead of saying that you would do something, just say that you did something.) Z then claims to teach students how to construct “the clearest possible prose.” Meanwhile, Z’s prose is unclear and contains several grammatical errors. Nathan and Ben both say they’d stop reading at that point. 49:30 – Kamilah’s Personal Statement Kamilah’s first sentence can be edited down significantly. Ben and Nathan recommend losing the adjective “interesting.” If something is interesting, show the reader why it’s interesting—don’t force the conclusion. Kamilah follows with several more conclusions and too much detail about her attorney uncle. The reader cares only about you, the applicant. Don’t talk about family members. Skimming a couple paragraphs ahead, the guys learn that Kamilah has worked in HR for 18 years and is now “responsible for the investigation of statutory complaints raised by and against Intel employees and its contractors.” They encourage her to cut the entire first paragraph and lead with the important work that she does today. Read more on our website!

Major Score Increases and More Personal Statements (Ep. 316)

With the 2022 application cycle underway, more and more law school hopefuls are seeking feedback on their personal statements. Nathan and Ben are happy to continue reviewing them on the show. But too many submissions seem to flout their advice. So they’re introducing a new touchstone—one that hopefully will encourage everyone to take advantage of existing resources before submitting. Going forward, the guys will be accepting personal statements only from listeners who fill out a prerequisite questionnaire here: lsat.link/statement Today’s show features answers to personal statement questions from the listener mailbag and five more personal statement critiques. But first, the guys tackle another Logical Reasoning question from PrepTest 73 and evaluate an admissions tip for Pearls vs. Turds. “Read more on our website!”

Hit-or-Miss Personal Statements and a Flaw Question (Ep 315)

The personal statement queue continues to grow. This week, the pod received a special request for a good personal statement example. Unfortunately, most statements submitted to the show are not so good—some might even be described as torturous. Today, the guys review six more personal statements. One is great but could be better. The others are confusing, irritating, or worse. (Hint: Don’t use blood metaphors in a law school personal statement.) But first, it’s back to some classic Thinking LSAT content, including an Excuse of the Week, Pearls vs. Turds, and a Logical Reasoning question. Read more on our website!

Personal Statement Torture Chamber (Ep. 314)

Nathan and Ben kick off this week’s episode with a logical reasoning question and explain their two-step strategy for identifying a flaw. They hear from an August LSAT taker about an overly officious proctor. Then, they evaluate four more personal statements. It’s the time of year when many students are getting their law school applications ready and asking for advice. Today’s featured statements are better written than most but still lacking in relevant content. Spoiler: Law schools probably don’t want to hear a story about feral cats. Read more on our website!

Zealous Proctors, Could’ve Been Worse Flaw, and Feral Cats (Ep. 313)

Today on the show, Ben and Nathan tackle another batch of personal statements. These are better than average but still not great. They all at least have a good foundation to work with. The guys deliver their constructive criticism—and offer up a bonanza of advice to anyone who wants to improve their personal statement or their writing in general. Read more on our website!

Ep. 312: Slightly Better Personal Statements

By popular demand, the guys spend yet another episode shredding listener personal statements. It’s that time of year. This week, six brave participants will each have their personal statement read and critiqued for 10 minutes—on the clock. Nathan and Ben remind our listeners that, often, the first step to construction is demolition. Learn what to do and what not to do on your statement by listening to their feedback. Read more on our website!

Ep. 311: Personal Statement Blitz

The start of the 2022 application cycle is almost here. Anyone following Ben and Nathan’s advice is going to apply in early September with their best LSAT score—and with a fact-based personal statement that portrays a winner. On this week’s episode, the guys reprise their roles as mock law-school gatekeepers and evaluate three more personal statements. Spoiler: They don’t make it through any of them. Here’s one tidbit of advice for any listeners who are writing a personal statement: Think about what reaction the reader is likely to have after reading each sentence. Then ask yourself whether that sentence presents a fact about you that puts your best foot forward and makes them closer to accepting you. Before diving into Personal Statement-Palooza, Nathan and Ben discuss a lengthy Pearls vs. Turds candidate, answer a logical reasoning question from PrepTest 73, and remind you why you should never miss a Sufficient Assumption question. Read more on our website!

Ep. 310: Personal Statement-Palooza

It’s the first-ever Thinking LSAT Personal Statement-stravaganza! In this special episode, Nathan and Ben become mock law school admissions officers as they read and compare four personal statements. There’s a catch—they read only to the point where they would decide to admit or deny the applicant. Admissions committees have mountains of applications to drudge through. Realistically, they aren’t reading every single essay from beginning to end. Odds are they already have a good idea of what their decision is going to be based on an applicant’s GPA and LSAT score. A cursory look at the personal statement may be all they need to confirm that decision. Read more on our website!

Ep. 309: Personal Statement-stravaganza

The LSAT and the bar are the two most consequential tests that an aspiring lawyer will take. Your LSAT score factors enormously in determining where you will go to law school and how much you will pay for it. Then, after you spend three years earning a JD, the bar exam determines whether you will be permitted to use your degree and to practice law. But they are very different tests: One gauges a student’s command of critical reading and reasoning skills. The other rewards an ability to memorize and regurgitate large amounts of information. You can probably guess which test Ben and Nathan think is the better indicator of future success in legal practice. On this week’s episode, the guys discuss how much merit the bar exam has and weigh in on one state’s recent proposal to drop the requirement. They also reveal the solution to the brainteaser from episode 306, evaluate a Pearls vs. Turds candidate, and respond to a whole lot of listener mail. Read more on our website!

Ep. 308: The Bar vs. the LSAT

It’s natural for new students to wonder how much time they will have to spend preparing for the LSAT. The simple answer—as long as it takes—isn’t all that satisfying. But the reality is that some people may need a lot more or less time than others need. On this week’s episode, Ben and Nathan review an article that advises a more concrete timeline and compare it to their own advice. They also respond to listener questions about résumés and personal statements, share some helpful tips from a rising 2L, and explain how to overcome a “score plateau.” Read more on our website!

Ep. 307: How Long Should I Study?

Conclusions that are stated without sufficient evidence invite skepticism. To succeed on the LSAT, you need to be able to spot unwarranted conclusions and poke holes in weak arguments. On your personal statement, you’re the one making the argument. You want to demonstrate to the reader that you’re an ideal candidate for their law school. The best way to prove your case is to present indisputable evidence. State the facts, and allow the reader to draw their own conclusions about how great you are. On this week’s episode, Ben and Nathan review a fraternity treasurer’s personal statement that weighs a bit too heavily on conclusions. They offer constructive criticism that anyone writing a personal statement can learn from. The guys also break down an LSAT Conclusion question from PrepTest 73, and Nathan stumps Ben with a brainteaser. Read more on our website!

Ep. 306: A Fraternity Treasurer's Personal Statement

Ben Olson (ben@strategyprep.com) and Nathan Fox (nathan@foxlsat.com) started the Thinking LSAT Podcast to become better LSAT teachers, meet LSAT luminaries, and have some fun. Please 1) subscribe, 2) rate and review us, and 3) send us questions. We work for you.

hubhopper

Thinking LSAT

hubhopper