Tag Archive: flaws

BPPaaron-lsat-blog-cause-effect
/ / / /

Understanding causal relationships results in a better LSAT score.

Causal relationships are big on the LSAT. Failure to understand them causes problems. Causation comes up all over the place — in reading comp and in a bunch of logical reasoning questions. But causation is especially important in logical reasoning questions that ask you to strengthen or weaken arguments. A high proportion of these questions involve causation somehow.

BPPbranden-lsat-blog-super-duper-tuesday-2
/ / /

The 2016 Campaign, A Cornucopia of LSAT Flaws

As this rabid, flea-bitten cur of a presidential election comes mercifully to an end, we should try to find something — anything! — positive to come out of it. So, here is my feeble attempt to bind up the nation’s wounds: We got to see a record-breaking amount of logical fallacies, and now there are concrete examples to think of when you’re trying to get all the flaws down for the LSAT.

BPPphilip-lsat-blog-supercharge
/ / / / / / / /

5 Quick Tips to Supercharge Your Logical Reasoning Performance

During my time writing for this blog, I’ve repeatedly vented about my hatred for logic games. Fortunately for everyone, I won’t be talking about logic games this week; instead, I get to talk about a section that is near and dear to my heart — logical reasoning — and the dead horse that is my vendetta against logic games will get at least a weeklong reprieve. Without further adieu, here are my five quick tips for upping your logical reasoning score.

BPPalex-lsat-blog-favorite-flaws
/ / / / / / /

Flawesome!

Flaw Questions are the most common single question type on the LSAT. They also happen to be my favorite question type. I love pointing out people’s flaws, but people don’t always appreciate it. Like this one time, a guy at my house was about to say “glad,” but then changed it to “nice,” and it came out “glice.” I tried to point out the error, but somehow I was the bad guy?

BPProbert-lsat-blog-logic-flaw-correlation-causation
/ / / / /

LSAT Logic Flaws: Correlation vs. Causation

Ever had this experience? Your gooberish buddy stumbles up to you, a couple drinks too deep, and spouts out an epiphany that (to him) rivals Einstein’s Annus Mirabilis. You and your LSAT-prepped mind, however, are not impressed. Something about the logic doesn’t sit right. It gives you an uneasy feeling deep in your gut — a sensation exacerbated by the PBR and stale pretzels sloshing around down there.

Let’s take an example. Say your friend — let’s call him Elliot — adamantly insists that when he stood up, Sexy Sadie looked over. He’s convinced that his standing caused her eyes to linger longingly on his portly physique and freshly-starched robin’s egg Polo.

You tell him, in accordance with your studies, that there are three methods by which we may seek to weaken a causal claim.