## Articles tagged "LSAT logical reasoning"

### #MovieFailMondays: Forrest Gump (Or, How Movies Can Teach You About Logical Fallacies and Help You Ace the LSAT)

Each week, we analyze a movie that illustrates a logical fallacy you’ll find on the LSAT. Who said Netflix can’t help you study? 🎥📖

Did you know that you can attend the first session of any of our online or in-person LSAT courses absolutely free? We’re not kidding! Check out our upcoming courses here.

You know what they say: Life is like a 1994 American epic romantic-comedy-drama based on the 1986 novel by Winston Groom. Who says that? Why, Wikipedia, when talking about Forrest Gump.

Forrest Gump tells the tale of an earnest-yet-dumb man as he stumbles through life, like a feather on the wind. During the course of the film he: Read more

### I’m in love with the June 2007 LSAT (and can’t wait to tell you all about it)! Part 1

Did you know that you can attend the first session of any of our online or in-person LSAT courses absolutely free? We’re not kidding! Check out our upcoming courses here.

This post will be the first of a series exploring the June 2007 LSAT in detail. Each post will examine a few questions from that test at a time. My goal is to demonstrate where hidden opportunities lie; then, using this analysis as a template, you can find those hidden opportunities in other practice tests. And, of course, find them on test day! Read more

### LSAT Scaffolding Part II: Logical Reasoning

Did you know that you can attend the first session of any of our online or in-person LSAT courses absolutely free? We’re not kidding! Check out our upcoming courses here.

Starting your LSAT prep can be a scary experience. You pick up a book and see all the complexity of the test at once. A long list of LR question types; many variations of logic games; Reading Comprehension, chapter after chapter! It’s a lot to take in, and most places that break the test down into categories like to impress with their long and exhaustive list.

This series of three blog posts—one for each section—will break down the LSAT at a much higher level. It’s important to start with a strong scaffold for the section.

### LSAT Logical Reasoning: Links vs. Objections

Logical Reasoning is a multi-faceted LSAT section with many, many different things going on.

Logical Reasoning is also a highly repetitive section with very few things going on.

Dickens I’m not.

### The New Manhattan LSAT Logical Reasoning Guide is Out!

It's Big, and it's Not Yellow

Boom! It’s big. That will be your first reaction. It’s 552 pages of pure LSAT chocolaty goodness. But this isn’t some stale Cadbury Egg (I had to keep the duck theme going somehow). We’re really psyched about what’s inside this book. We’ve kept our focus on what top scorers actually do, but we’ve added in a ton of practice sets (with explanations) to help students put our strategies to work immediately. We know that it’s not hard to find LSATs to practice with, but with our new LR book, your initial slam-it-in-your-head-but-think-deeply-cause-you-can’t-memorize-your-way-to-170 practice is right there. We’ve also expanded our discussion of the assumption family of questions. If you don’t know about our approach, what we do is find the commonalities between question types (and this will be a relief to those who find the overly-dichomotized systems found in other LSAT books to be overwhelming). We know that memorizing a ton of question types leaves you struggling on test day, so we keep it simple and powerful.

You’re going to love it. Take a look at how much we love it:

If you bought our last Logical Reasoning Guide after December 15, 2010, we’ll happily replace the book with a new one so that you can join in the Manhattan LSAT logical reasoning jamboree. If you bought it at a bookstore, send us the receipt, if you bought it through us, just e-mail us the shipping address to use.

Woo-hoo! We like big ducks.

### Assumptions and Flaws: Focus on the Argument Engine

Do you struggle with assumption and flaw questions? Do you often choose answers that seem right, or relevant, but end up being wrong? This may help.

Consider the following argument:

Many respected entrepreneurs assert that insufficient capital, capital required to cover operating expenses in addition to initial start-up costs, is inevitably a factor in the failure of start-up businesses. However, all of the failed start-ups with which I’ve been involved have failed as a result of executives’ lack of expertise in the product or service that the company provides. Thus, insufficient capital is not a factor in causing start-up businesses to fail.

If this were followed by a question that asked you to choose an assumption, this would be a pretty tough question. The average test-taker attempts to memorize, or “learn” the entire argument, and then gets distracted by answer choices that seem relevant to some particular part of the argument that ends up not mattering so much. This leads to wrong answers. Read more