Mika attended Claremont McKenna College before graduating from the University of Chicago Law School. She has extensive experience in the legal field; she clerked for the (ret.) Honorable Christopher S. Sontchi in the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware and worked as a corporate bankruptcy litigator for five and a half years in Delaware and New York before returning to consulting and teaching.
She was offered acceptance to several prestigious law schools, including Washington University in St. Louis, the University of Michigan, the University of Virginia, Vanderbilt, and the University of Chicago. Mika's experience as a brief-writing litigation associate meant learning to express topics in ways that judges could grasp: a skill she now imparts upon pre-law students. She is an adept writer, editor, and coach dedicated to helping pre-law students present their best selves in the admissions process.
Andrea (0:00):
My name is Andrea. I’m with Juris Education, and with me I have Mika, who will be introducing herself momentarily. Um, we make up part of the Juris Education team. So, tonight’s workshop—tonight’s discussion—is, well, a free LSAT discussion, and we’ll be speaking about how to score 165+.
Before we get into the nitty-gritty of tonight’s webinar, just a couple of housekeeping rules, so to speak. First and foremost, this webinar is recorded, and you will receive a recording in your inbox within a day or two. We just ask that you bear with us to make sure we can get everything in a row for you.
In terms of how long we’re looking at running tonight’s discussion, we’re hoping we can run it for about an hour. We’d love to leave some time for Q&A as well. Aside from speaking about the keys to a 165+, we’ll be going over some real LSAT questions with Mika, as well as having that open Q&A we just discussed.
Andrea (1:04):
I just want to take a quick moment because a lot of people in this room—and it might even be safe to say almost no one in this room—knows who we are. Juris Education, we’re a globally recognized law school admissions and consulting firm offering comprehensive support from test prep to law school admissions and even bar exam tutoring.
We’ve actually been around for 15+ years in this industry. On average, we have a 94% acceptance rate. Our students get into the top law schools in the United States. Alone, last cycle, our T14 acceptance rate was 35%, which is about six times higher than the national average of 5.7%. So, we definitely know what we’re doing.
So, what do we do? What do we believe in? We definitely believe in starting the law school application process as early as possible, which is why we offer something called pre-law advising and profile development. This focuses on building each student’s professional cover letter and résumé to highlight their most unique and meaningful experiences. We also help candidates boost their academic transcripts and GPA, find stellar internships, and create a timeline for their LSAT prep. All of this is done with one goal in mind: to get applicants into their dream law program, no matter where it may be.
We have our private LSAT tutors who really focus on, well, tutoring for the LSAT. These tutors assess each candidate’s strengths and weaknesses. This then creates a custom study plan structured for the days, weeks, and months ahead of the actual test. We tailor our approach to each student’s unique needs and schedule, providing the right assessments and lessons as students become familiar with the test content, strategies, and format. On average, we do see a 12-point increase for 45+ hours of studying, and we do offer a 165+ score guarantee with our 60-hour program.
Once we help shape an outstanding candidate, we help and support them in creating the perfect application. This guides students through the creation of a well-balanced list of target, safety, and reach schools. We also help build strong résumés and obtain letters of recommendation from the right recommenders—especially key.
Our admissions counselors, who are also writing experts, will outline, brainstorm, and edit your supplemental essays and personal statements until they are perfect. Our goal is to build the perfect candidate and application. We use every tool in our skill set to ensure that the products we create with our students stand out from the rest. That is the name of the game; that is what we’re here to do.
We’re really excited to be here tonight, and we’re looking forward to it. With that being said, I’d love to pass it over to Mika to introduce herself and go on with tonight’s webinar.
Mika (3:32):
All right, um, so hi, everyone. I am Mika McDonald. I’m an LSAT tutor and admissions counselor here with Juris. I also do a lot of webinars.
I took the LSAT twice, in 2011. I scored a 172 on my first attempt and then a 179 on my second attempt. I went to the University of Chicago Law School and then clerked for a bankruptcy judge in Delaware before working as a corporate restructuring litigator for about five and a half years.
During the pandemic, I left the practice of law and came back to teaching, which is what I had been doing before. I’m really excited for this presentation. It is going to be a fun one, and probably a very factual one, I hope, about what it takes to achieve an incredibly high score on the LSAT. So let’s just dive in.
Mika (4:36):
First and foremost, this is going to be a long endeavor. If you want to attend a T14 school, that doesn’t happen at the drop of a hat. Getting a top 10% score on the LSAT does not happen at the drop of a hat.
I focus first on the right-hand side here of “work, work, work.” I would estimate I put about 150 hours into the LSAT to get my 172, and another 150 or so to get my 179. It is extremely hard to get these high scores without putting in those hours.
To the extent that I can say, I confidently don’t know any tutor that just rolled up and did this. Maybe those people are out there, but they certainly don’t teach the LSAT, because every teacher I know also put in at least about that much time.
So this is a long endeavor. It’s something that is very prone to burnout, so committing to a reasonable, sustainable study schedule is wildly important. I can’t tell you how many students I’ve had falter and stop progressing because they literally aren’t ever taking any breaks.
I also can’t tell you—well, I can—I’ve had a few students who just wouldn’t commit to a consistent study schedule. From their point of view, they could just study haphazardly whenever they could fit it in. That’s a lot less effective. And honestly, you fit it in a lot less than you think you will.
Put it on your calendar and plan around it. It becomes unmovable. That sort of commitment is necessary to get to this level, and it’s definitely going to be necessary to succeed in law school and as an attorney.
The last point is: it is very easy to dive into this and then flail. There’s a lot to deal with—different question types, different skills, different types of logic. Finding and following a reasonable curriculum is really, really important.
Then we have tutoring, like me. Regardless of whether you hire me or someone at Juris or someone elsewhere, I can tell you that one of the most important things a tutor can do for you is guide you on what to do—not just meet with you for an hour and look over some questions, but help you develop a study plan, help you figure out what topics should be dealt with first, and how you should study. The actual act of studying and reviewing is kind of specialized for the LSAT, too.
Mika (5:59):
Second big point: Students like to jump in on a fully timed basis. This will do nothing but discourage you and slow down your progress. I will always tell students that you want to master the skills and then get faster with them. But you can’t get faster with skills you haven’t mastered yet.
So start on an untimed basis. Focus on a goal score and what accuracy percentage you’re going to need to hit on each section to get that goal score. A good rule of thumb is: once you can hit that goal score on an untimed basis, now it’s time to switch to timing. But if you can’t get your goal score on an untimed basis, switching to timed training is not going to help you get there any faster. It’s just going to be slower.
I mentioned earlier about being systematic. Not just with committing to your study schedule, but with how you approach your review. I don’t know if any of you have ever used a question journal in the context of the SAT or ACT or for one of your classes, but the research literature out there suggests that they are an incredible boost to learning.
The LSAT is also a test, in large part, about patterns. The same sort of logical structures show up over and over again. The same sort of argument flaws show up over and over again. Being able to see the commonality among these questions—being able to see the patterns and then develop your own attack based on those patterns—is, again, very, very important. So being systematic with how you review the mistakes you make really affects how quickly you progress.
Mika (7:03):
We’ve covered most of these points, but let’s get a little more specific. For example, there’s a certain type of argument structure called a “rebuttal.” Rebuttals are where the author, instead of just immediately making their own argument, introduces someone else’s argument or conclusion and then rebuts it.
Rebuttals typically show up in two question types: Flaw and Main Conclusion. When they show up in Main Conclusion, they’re used to mess with your head about which side’s conclusion is the main one. And when they show up in flaws, they’re trying to do the same thing. If you can spot that a rebuttal is happening, you instantly become aware of how the test makers are trying to use it against you.
Being able to say these things with confidence—to see how this structure appears and how they’re using it to create difficulty—that’s how you get to 165+.
One thing that I do have a problem with in certain test prep curriculums is a very, very direct approach of question type by question type. But there are core skills on this exam that extend beyond each question type and, in fact, are part of every question type.
No matter how much you study each question type, if those core skills are lacking, then your score will not improve—or at least not nearly as fast as it could. When I talk about core skills, one of them—if any of you have seen an LSAT question (we’ll get to some later)—is called “retranslation.”
The LSAT likes to use outdated, like 1950s-style, legalese. They use a lot of archaic wording. Being able to see the ways they’re writing English poorly and quickly rewrite it in your head so it’s more understandable is a core skill of this exam. And it’s just period, end of story.
There’s a question type called Main Conclusion. It’s what it sounds like: they give you a prompt, and you identify what the main conclusion is. That sounds like it shouldn’t be hard, right? Like, you’re in college; you should be able to identify conclusions. But yet there are a few five-star main conclusion questions in the history of the LSAT precisely because they’re playing word games.
Those word games, those attempts to confuse you, it’s not just in Main Conclusion—although that’s where it’s biggest—it’s throughout the exam. So core skills like retranslation have to be practiced. I talk about practicing them deliberately, not just incidentally, as part of doing a specific question type.
Lastly, be reflective. If something’s not working, you need to change it. Your approaches will probably need to change. I was working with a student on reading comp, and I told them that their approach to detail questions was wrong—that they were doing the steps in the wrong order, and that’s why they were moving so slowly. They went, “Oh, okay.” And yeah, last time I heard from them, things were going better.
So there are lots of little changes, little improvements, that really do require a lot of self-reflection along the way.
Mika (9:58):
There are three scored sections on the LSAT. Two of those are Logical Reasoning sections. Logical Reasoning sections consist of a short, one- to two-paragraph prompt—usually one paragraph, unless there are two speakers—and then a whole bunch of different question types built around that one-paragraph prompt.
I tend to classify them as the three “I’s”:
The LSAT tests every way you can interact with arguments: what are the components, how do we interact, and how do we make good inferences?Prompts and answer choices are written in deliberately confusing and frustrating ways. That’s part of the difficulty curve. For example, using the word “for” as a substitute for “because.” Nobody does that anymore, but they do it constantly on the exam because it messes with our heads. It forces us to slow down. It makes it more confusing.You’re sort of acquiring specialized reading skills as you work through this, which is actually really good, because you’re going to need specialized reading skills in law school.My example is always: I was researching an issue about Delaware state law for a bankruptcy case, basically about how to attach a judgment from a bankruptcy case to an asset via state law through a process called garnishment. The relevant statute was written in 1911 and had never been updated, no changes. I had to parse through a five-page subsection of that statute in 1911 language to figure out what process we needed to follow—wild stuff, but a very real thing that happens in law.
Mika (12:08):
The other scored section on the exam is Reading Comprehension. Obviously, all of you have seen reading comprehension setups before on the SAT or ACT or basically any entrance exam.
The LSAT, however, is a lot less focused on “Can you capture the substance of what’s being said?” and more on “Can you understand how the author is making their arguments, how they’re structuring what they’re doing, and how they’re resolving the issues they present along the way?”
Things like author intent, author opinion, and non-author opinion all play a much bigger role in this version of reading comp. This version is also incredibly time-pressured. It’s about a page and a half to two pages for four passages, each of which will have five to eight questions, for a total of 27 in the section. You have 35 minutes to read all these prompts and answer 27 questions.
On average, that’s a little over a minute per question, and that doesn’t include reading time for the passages, note-taking, highlighting, or thinking. Seeing what authors are doing is what you’re learning here. That’s the main skill to be acquired.
I think you could classify all the essays in Reading Comp into about seven frameworks, each of which is relatively distinct from the others and each of which tells you a lot about what the author intends to achieve by writing this. So, being able to see those things as they unfold—being able to say by the end of the first paragraph, “Oh, this is an old-new structure. I know exactly where the author is going with this now, and I bet the third paragraph is a big list of evidence”—being able to predict what’s happening based on learning the trends.
I am a big notetaker. Some people are big fans of highlighting; some are fans of just active reading. I think they’re wrong, but my pitch is that all the research literature in the world says that handwriting notes is the best way to retain information from reading.
I don’t know if any of you study for your classes by taking your class notes and rewriting them, but there’s a lot of research that says that’s a really effective way to learn. It just grinds it into your brain; you remember it once you’ve written it down.
One of the biggest problems we have in the Reading Comp section is the look-back. I’m on question four, and I have to look back. I’m rereading this, then I get to question five, I look back again, and so on. You can see how that would burn a lot of time.
Good note-taking not only gives you a good set of notes, but it also drives a lot more into your memory, which in turn cuts down on the constant looking back and forth over and over again. So that’s my opinion. I also think that note-taking can be done very poorly and be a big hindrance. It’s important to develop a good method of note-taking.
Lastly, a tactical treasure that a lot of students criminally underuse is the search box function. When the LSAT switched to digital, you used to be able to use Ctrl+F, and now there’s a built-in search box on the exam. Being able to tactically use that search box to look up details quickly, to find key phrases quickly in a passage and track down information, is a big time-saver when used well.
If there’s one thing you need most in Reading Comp, honestly, it is time. Even for me, I’d say the thing I worry about most in Reading Comp is something crazy dense that slows me down. So anything that can be efficient time-wise is going to bump your score up. Again, a key to becoming a 165+ scorer.
Mika (15:53):
Steps: There’s a difference between good studying and ineffective studying, right? There are a lot of good ways to study—it’s not like I’m saying that people who learn through one method are invalid in any way—but doing good, active review of your mistakes is wildly important.
I had one student, and I asked, “How much time do you spend taking the questions, and how much time do you spend reviewing?” They said, “Oh, I did like 35 minutes in my questions, and I did like 10 minutes of review.” And I was like, “You missed 12 questions on this section,” and they said, “Yeah.” And I said, “That’s not enough time reviewing. Less than one minute per miss is not enough time reviewing.”
That question journal really plays a big role here by creating a process for our studies. When we make mistakes, we go into our journal and journal about it. We look at the answer explanations we have from the test prep website or wherever, and then we put them down in our own words in our question journal—which is much better than passively reading those words and moving on.
Good analytics can be very helpful. I always struggle with the value of analytics because sample sizes are always a problem. If someone’s done 100 questions in the past week and there are 22 question types in LR, that’s not actually a big sample on a question-type-by-question-type basis.
That said, sustained analytical review, like, “In the past month, I did an average of 75% on conceptual logic, but my conditional logic was at 60%”—well, that’s a big, glaring weakness, and it’s important to know that. So I think having a good set of analytics—without obsessing about them—does, in fact, accelerate improvement.
Finally, if things aren’t working—if you’re plateauing and feeling frustrated—change it up a little. It might just be sort of a shock to the system. If you’ve been drilling non-stop, take three days off and do some reading and video review, and just a couple of questions related to that stuff.
When you see weaknesses, adjust. If you start to be much higher in Logical Reasoning compared to your Reading Comp, adjust your studies. Be thoughtful along the way.
Mika (19:02):
Finally, endurance. I said there are three scored sections on the LSAT, but every exam will have a fourth section—the experimental. It’s for them to test out questions they’ll use on future exams, which is pretty reasonable, but it does mean you have four 35-minute sections with a 10-minute break in between. It’s a pretty long exam—about three hours.
Staying focused in a highly intellectual challenge continuously for three hours is not easy. I always tell people I lucked out because I played chess competitively growing up, so sitting and staring and thinking non-stop for that many hours was just something I’d already done my whole life.
But the point is, you need to practice that. Take practice tests—full-length tests—to train that stamina, and also to teach you how to switch between question types easily. Students who focus on question type by question type without taking practice sections or practice tests…on test day, it’s not going to be 25 strengthen questions in a row. There are 22 question types; you’re going to have to change your mindset constantly, and that in itself is fatiguing.
Early on, I usually tell people: start studying and following a curriculum, and then three weeks to a month in, take your first test. While you are still in your untimed learning period, take untimed practice tests. You don’t need to force yourself to be doing them timed either; it’s still going to be exhausting, and it’s training you to handle that exhaustion regardless of which way you do it. Then, as you approach test day, you move toward a timed test.
I tell people to incrementally get there, and then by test day you’ve done 10, 15, 20, 30, 40 practice tests, and sitting down for three hours straight is whatever—not even a difficulty.
As you approach the test, you also want to mirror test-day conditions as best as possible. So, if you’re taking it at home, try to follow their rules for what can and cannot be in your apartment or office. Remember that if you’re taking tests at home with noise-canceling headphones, those are not allowed. You’re only allowed foam earplugs.
I had a student who told me afterward, “I felt so much more distracted because I didn’t have my normal headphones on,” and I said, “I told you three weeks ago.” So try to mirror those. If you’re going to be at a test center, do some tests in a coffee shop or a relatively high-activity section of the library. Get used to that noise.
Lastly—and probably the most underappreciated part of this exam—it’s really easy to tilt. This is a long exam; it’s easy to get thrown off, lose your cool, start rushing, feel overwhelmed. The whole process leading up to it is the same way. Studying is difficult. You might have three weeks in a row where your practice-test score doesn’t go up at all, and then there’s the question of, “Well, do you start hating on yourself and beating yourself down for it, or do you stay focused and keep working?”
So I tell people: pay attention to your mental and emotional health throughout the process, and especially on test day. It’s much better to pause and breathe for 10 seconds—sacrifice those 10 seconds—than to keep going while being tilted.
I’ve had a couple of students who had terrible scores compared to practice tests. One of them was pinging at a 168 average, and then she scored a 149. She was just upfront: “By the third section, I felt like I was totally out of control and had no idea what I was doing.” The emotional game here matters a lot. Think about mindfulness activities, calmness, and figure out how you’re going to handle it on test day if you suddenly get really thrown off.
Mika (26:00):
We’ve kind of talked about this: commitment. I worked hard for my 179, and I’m really proud of it because I earned it. I don’t know anyone—I went to UChicago, worked in law for years, I teach now—I don’t know anyone who got a score like that without working for it. Period.
If you want a big scholarship, if you want a 165+, if you want to go to the T14, then you need to be willing to commit.
Effective study means high-quality materials and test prep. I hate to be mean, but Khan Academy is not enough. I know that the pricing of the LSAT sucks. I know this is a very wealth-privileged endeavor, as is law school. But if you don’t use the good stuff, you’re just hurting yourself.
The point I always make is that each point on the LSAT is worth about $10,000 in scholarship money. So if you have the score to get into Harvard, and you increase that score by one point, that’s $10,000. Another point, another $10,000. Paying $65 a month for a test prep website—when you think about it in that context, it’s very much worth it.
I’m a tutor. I know, again, this is a very expensive endeavor. I will say the payoff is lower debt at a better school. I am very good at what I do, and I think most of the people on our team are very good at what they do. So consider us or tutoring in general. I do think good tutors are very much worth it.
Study schedule: When I was a lawyer, I lived off of my calendar. Now that I’m a tutor, my calendar runs my life. This is an hour, then I have a student, then I have another webinar later. You’re going to need to be able to live off of a calendar, and this is a good place to start if you’re not already. Schedule your sessions; do it at the same time every week. Don’t let other things push your sessions around. Your study comes first if you want to be a lawyer. That kind of goes without saying.
Then ego. It doesn’t happen with most students—well, it happens with all of us. This is a tough process. Being wrong over and over again sucks. It doesn’t feel good to look at a test and see a bunch of red X’s. I know that, you know that, anyone who’s gone to public school knows that.
You have to be willing to say, “This is a long process, and I know I’m going to be better,” because you will. If you commit to the studying, if you use good resources, you will improve. Don’t let the temporary pain or the letdown of being wrong repeatedly stop you from that improvement.
Lastly, emotional resilience. Students do burn out. Part of being a good tutor is also recognizing when one of your students is burning out and needs a talking-to and to put the test down for a few days. The ego challenge is tough, and it’s pretty exhausting. This is tough material; it’s intellectually intense. There are so many ways to burn out here.
Focus on your goals and really focus on what’s a reasonable number of hours you can do per week. Commit to that number of hours. If that number is eight and you’re a junior, great! You’ve got so long before you have to take the exam; you’re going to get to 200 hours if you commit eight a week. But if you wait until August of your senior year to start studying for an exam in October, that’s not good. That’s a lot of intensity and a really easy route to burnout. So think about what’s reasonable, commit to it, and build a long study timeline.
Andrea (31:20):
I know that was a ton of information, and we are not done yet. So what we want to do is check in with our audience. If you have any questions so far, please put them in the chat. We’ll give everybody a minute.
In the meantime, we want to let you know that for joining us here tonight—and for having us here tonight—we wanted to offer anyone on this call, and anyone from your society watching this at home, a 10% off code for any one of our programs. If you have been considering any sort of tutoring and finances are a little bit tough, we totally understand that. Hopefully, this will offer that extra support.
We’ll give everyone a minute to get their questions in the chat, because after this, we’re going to go through a few LSAT questions. We’re going to do that live walkthrough.
We’ll give everyone a minute. It’s okay if there are no questions so far; we do have that Q&A coming toward the end as well. I know it takes a minute for all that information to sink in. I think we do these every single week, and every single week I learn something new. I am not a law student—never have been a lawyer—but I learn something new every week. It’s funny, Mika, that tip you gave about one point equaling $10,000 in scholarships? I actually found myself quoting you to somebody outside of work, and they looked at me like, “How do you know this?” And I—
Andrea (33:05):
Oh, we have a question!
Q (33:05):
If I plan to apply next fall, when should I aim to take the exam by, and how many attempts do most students tend to need?
Mika (33:10):
Application cycles for law schools are rolling admissions, and those admission cycles usually open in November. Most schools issue their first big batch of decisions in early December to mid-January, depending on the school. The point being, ideally, you will have your final score and all your application materials ready to go at the beginning of November.
I think it is smart to plan for a retest, for the possibility of it. So I would suggest something like July/September, or July/October. I think aiming for the June, July, or August exams and then having October as a backup is probably the best approach.
I do caution people: there’s no point in doing a retake one month after your prior take. That’s just nuts. That’s not time to reflect and study. That’s why I say take it in July, then October. Give yourself a few months in between to keep improving and learning, rather than just jumping right back in and expecting it to be different.
As to how many attempts do most students tend to need? That depends on your definition of “need.” I’ve had a few students who were perfectly happy with their first take. I still thought they could score higher, but they were happy with it. That’s not my place to tell them to be unhappy. I just pointed out that a few points higher might be a scholarship.
I took it twice. Most tutors I know took it two or three times. I can say I don’t know anyone who took it once and maxed out on their first attempt.
Q (36:00):
Will a retake with a lower score hurt my application?
Mika (36:05):
Yes, and again, that’s why I tell people not to take it one month later, because there’s a good chance that randomness alone could result in you having a lower score. It does not look good to admissions officials when people retake and do worse.
It does look good when people retake and do better. I always tell that to people. Admissions officers know this is a big test and that lots of studying helps you improve, so if you retake and improve, I don’t think they doubt you’re that good or that smart. If anything, I think they’ll see you as hardworking, wanting to achieve more, and working hard to achieve more, which is exactly the sort of person they want at their law school. Yes, it will hurt to retake and get lower, but it’ll also be good to retake and get higher. So make sure you’re going to get higher if you retake.
Andrea (37:02):
Amazing! Okay, so let’s answer one more.
Mika (37:02):
Yes, let’s answer this: “Will a retake with a lower score hurt my application?” Yes…and if anything, just be careful.
Andrea (37:12):
Amazing. Sorry.
Mika (37:13):
No, no, it’s okay. So do we want to go into the LSAT questions now?
Andrea (37:16):
Yeah, let’s do it.
Mika (37:18):
All right. I’ve got three real questions for us today, three different question types from Logical Reasoning. The first is Weaken—pretty straightforward. The author makes an argument, and we choose an answer that would most weaken the argument being made. The second one is a paradox. We have a seemingly paradoxical outcome or contrast in the prompt, and we’re asked to find something that would best resolve the paradox. Finally, we have a Most Strongly Supported question. We get a series of related statements, and then we’re asked, “What’s the most reasonable inference we can draw from those statements?”
Let’s roll over to this first example. I’m a fan of reading out loud with students, so I’m going to do that here.
Mika (38:00):
Art Historian says:
“A recent excavation uncovered a marble bust of Pope Leo IX that my colleague has attributed to Michelangelo. He argues that the proportion of the bust, its distinctive gaze, and the Calotta marble from which it was crafted are all trademarks of Michelangelo. I agree that these factors are all typical of Michelangelo’s work, but are equally applicable to Raphael’s early period. Moreover, the excavation took place in a region that Michelangelo is not known to have visited. Therefore, the bust should be attributed to Raphael.”
In this question, the author is basically giving us an argument about who made this bust—was it Raphael or Michelangelo? We get a list of evidence. The colleague says, “Hey, all these things make it seem like it’s Michelangelo.”
The art historian says, “All of those things are also equally applicable to Raphael in his early period.” Then the art historian adds on one new fact—just one: The excavation took place in a region that Michelangelo never visited.
So when you think about this argument, there’s actually only one premise—one piece of evidence—pointing toward Raphael, and that’s the fact that Michelangelo never visited the region where this was excavated. They do that a lot: you’ll get a big chunk of text, but in reality, there’s only one little piece of evidence to support the conclusion.
Which of the following statements, if true, most undermines this argument? I’ll walk us through:
“The region where the bust was found was also never visited by Raphael.”
So, instead of it being one extra thing on top for Raphael, we’re back to nothing. All of this stuff is equally indicative of either person. (B) is the correct answer. It’s what I would call “assuming a difference” was the flaw in this argument.
The art historian assumed that Raphael had been to that region by claiming, “This evidence about Michelangelo is important.” They made this implicit assumption, and our weaken answer choice calls them out on it, which really hurts the argument.Being able to see why wrong answers are wrong is critical to the timing aspect of this exam. If you think deeply and fully about every single answer choice, you won’t finish in time. You have to be effective and decisive in getting rid of the bad ones. So:
So, the best answer is (B).
Mika (41:26):
Prompt:
“The American Motor Company prioritizes vehicle performance over safety and, as a result, produces vehicles that consistently rank as the least safe to operate in the event of a collision. Despite this, American Motor Company vehicle owners are far less likely than the average driver to be involved in a collision resulting in injury.”
Another concept I love to bring up here is the idea of “anticipation.” It’s very tempting to read a prompt and jump into the answer choices, but for the vast majority of question types, that’s not optimal. You really want to pause and take 5 to 20 seconds to theorize your own ideas.
We have a very clear paradox here: these vehicles are supposed to be unsafe, and yet the drivers of these vehicles are not getting into collisions that have injuries. That’s a big conflict.
What are some ideas that would resolve this conflict, just in the abstract? One that pops up a lot in the LSAT is “relative skill.” What if American Motor Company is producing cars for extremely high-skilled drivers? That would be a good answer. Even though they’re driving a more dangerous car, they’re just more skilled.
Another possibility is the detail that says the drivers are far less likely to be involved in a collision resulting in injury. Maybe the people driving these cars basically have some advantage, or perhaps it’s safer for them but more dangerous for others on the road—though that’s not a great idea. Still, we spitball.
Let’s look at the answer choices:
So the best resolution is (D).
Mika (44:49):
Prompt:
“In recent years, scientists have discovered two variations of Avian Virus 1. ‘A’ targets the central nervous system; ‘B’ targets the circulatory system. Recently, a vaccine has been developed that immunizes patients to both versions of the virus, while a previous vaccine immunized patients only to version B of the virus.”
Sometimes, only one sentence in the entire prompt matters, or only two of the four matter. I’m thinking: previously, the vaccine only helped people with the circulatory-system version. Now the new one helps both.
Let’s look at the choices:
So (C) is the most strongly supported.
Mika (57:18):
I will just say this, y’all: These scores are possible. It’s not a matter of just being talented or intelligent. You’ve got to work for this, but you can work for it, and you can achieve it—just like I did. It’s a matter of committing and putting in the time and effort.
Reach out to us if you have any questions of us during the process, but otherwise, just stay committed and focused, and you’ll get what you want.
Andrea (57:30):
With that being said, we’d love some feedback from you. You’ve been with us for about an hour. Scan the QR code—it’s about five questions or so—and give us the opportunity to take that information back and continue developing our webinar program and future sessions, really creating the best of the best for students. That’s something we absolutely want to do.
So if you could do that for us, we would greatly appreciate it—myself, Mika, the entire Juris team.
It is Q&A time. Mika, are you okay to go a few moments over?
Mika (58:07):
Yeah, I can do five minutes. That’s fine.
Andrea (58:09):
Amazing. We want to hear your questions. You can type them in the chat if you’re comfortable, or we can unmute you and you can speak your questions—whatever you’re more comfortable with. We want to make sure you’re utilizing the next few moments we have with Mika.
How many times should I retake?
Mika (1:00:38):
You’re allowed, I believe, five times in a five-year period. I wouldn’t take it more than three, just because it starts to give the perception that you weren’t taking the earlier ones very seriously. It’s more of an optics thing that might be picked up by admissions officers.
At the end of the day, if you have a 168, you have a 168. But there can be some bad optics from taking it that many times.
Mika (1:01:07):
I’m not exactly sure which other exam, but maybe GRE or GMAT. The LSAT is very different in that it has no math and some really wacky stuff in LR. GMAT is much deeper on the math. You could study for both at the same time, but it feels like you’re just splitting your time.
I will again plug the fact that our parent company does GMAT, GRE, and all that stuff, too, if you’re interested.
Andrea (1:01:32):
That’s amazing. If that is something you’re interested in, please let us know. We can put you in touch with an admissions counselor who has gone through dual programs.