Advise-in Blog

Most Recent Posts

The Virtues of Simplicity on the LSAT

One of my LSAT clients recently told me about a debate he had with a couple of co-workers who were also planning to take the LSAT. He was helping them with a certain kind of question in logical reasoning that they were having trouble with.

He showed them how to get the correct answer on a few sample questions, and immediately ran into resistance. Both of his co-workers were in a big-box company classroom LSAT prep course, and they pressed my client with, “But what about these techniques [which they’d been taught]—you didn’t use any of them, and what about the contrapositive…?”

My client’s answer cut through the jargon-y malarkey—“Whatever, I got them right and you didn’t. Take my word that this is the way to do these
or not but…”

Now, my client, by this point, was very, very good at the LSAT—he got that good by keeping his analysis and attack simple and straightforward. As I’ve said before, the LSAT is a hard test because the writers are very good at writing tests. What makes it hard is just that—not that it’s complicated because it’s not. The writers have a clear theory of argument in mind and they stick to it; no tricks, no sneak attacks, no changing of the rules; they play by the rules and are simply asking you whether you can play by the same rules they do, and can do it as well as they do. If you can, you get the answer; if you can’t,
you don’t.

I got a perfect score on the LSAT the only time I took it because I understood that—and I understood that all the jargon and complicated techniques employed by various programs (which I didn’t use exactly because of the jargon and complications) get in the way of understanding and breaking down
the argument that’s sitting on the page, and accepting and rejecting answers for the right reasons—not because they feel right or don’t but because they work or don’t. Simplicity has two virtues: it makes you both more accurate and more efficient.

My client understood all that, too. He doesn’t have his score back yet, but I’m very confident that he did very well, at least matching my clients’ average near-12-point and 25-percentile improvement from their initial test or their last test in other programs. Although I’ll never know, I’m pretty sure he’ll have done better than the co-workers who made the test as complicated as possible because it made them feel like they had some secret knowledge that the guy who got the right answers didn’t have. Whether they sound less sophisticated or clever than others, clients who buy into what I do will settle for getting the answers right. And I’ll settle for helping show them how to do that.

by Kyle Pasewark at Advise-in Solutions on June 17, 2019.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Tag List

university of iowa law school, university of arizona law school, top lsat percentile, ryan calo, perfect lsat score, lsat techniques, lsat study techniques, lsat study guides, lsat repeater data, lsat primer, lsat preparation, lsat prep, lsat logic games, lsat dates, lsat, legal services demand, legal job market, legal hiring, legal employment, legal education, legal careers, lawyer satisfaction, lawyer happiness, law schools, law school tuition cuts, law school rankings, law school financial aid, law school employment statistics, law school education, law school debt, law school costs, law school applications, law school application data, law school application advice, law school admissions data, law school admissions council, law school admissions, law school, law firms, kyle pasewark, highest-ranked law school, highest lsat score, harvard law school, gre, best lsat score, best lsat preparation courses, best lsat preparation, best lsat prep courses, best lsat prep, best law school admissions consultant, attorney jobs, analytical reasoning, american bar association, advise-in solutions, aba law school employment data, aba, 2014 law school application,