Ep. 110: ABA 509s and Logic Games Worlds

Episode 110 is all about how to access and easily understand ABA 509 reports, AKA “the-one-thing-you-should-be-legally-required-to-read-before-going-to-law-school” report. Plus, the guys give some expert advice on Logic Games, walking you through how and when to create “worlds.” It’s exactly the type of score-changing info you’d get from Nathan’s free online LSAT prep class, or Ben’s free online prep class. But first, Ben and Nathan discuss Ben’s latest purchase, and jump into vanity-plate minutiae of the Del-Mar-Va peninsula.

06:01 – OK listeners. You’ve heard the guys talk about them before. You know they’re important. But it’s entirely possible that you haven’t actually typed the search term into Google yet. Well today’s the day! Nathan and Ben do a deep dive into ABA 509 reports. The ABA 509 report is a disclosure form that ABA-accredited law schools are required to publish. They give you a TON of data about a given law school, from scholarship stats to bar passage rates and much, much more. The guys do a complete breakdown of the Georgetown 2016 ABA 509 report from top to bottom. Tune in to find out where to access ABA 509 reports, and learn how to read them line by information-rich line.

48:16 – Let’s face it. The Logic Games are pretty fun, but they can be a lot of work. Some games require creating a diagram and taking notes for each question, which can be super time consuming. Happily we’ve got some good news for you. There’s a potentially potent and time-saving technique you’ve probably heard the guys talk about. It’s called creating “worlds.” And the guys discuss exactly when and how they create worlds for the games to give themselves the tools to answer multiple questions from a single setup.

Don’t forget to do Ben’s free LSAT lesson and Nathan’s free online LSAT course. What are you waiting for? If you like those, you can also try Ben’s 100-Hour Online LSAT Course and Nathan’s Fox LSAT On Demand.

Give yourself some warm fuzzy feelings by giving us a rating and/or review on iTunes. Thanks for listening!


  1. What do you guys think of curriculum that emphasizes NOT doing “worlds”? I know that Velocity LSAT emphasizes doing work on questions and thinks that making “worlds” is something that requires fairly advanced understanding that is unnecessary to complete games sections. It does appear to be the case, from personal experience, that almost every section can be completable in 35 minutes without doing worlds if one is strategic about question order, uses prior work, and has a strong understanding of which answer choices are worth trying and which ones are unlikely to be correct or cannot be correct due to interchangeability of variables and other “clever” issues. There are certainly some games with insanely hidden inferences where “worlds” make the game a LOT faster. But there are others where it’s a total waste of time. And there’s always the issue of making worlds based on some misunderstanding, which is a huge blow. It’s almost like there’s more risk/reward with “worlds,” and that you have to be a MASTER of LG for it to consistently pay off with minimal downside, whereas if you try it without being a MASTER of games, there are some sections where it can blow up in your face. What do you think?


    1. I disagree that it requires any “advanced understanding.” There are very obvious examples (like June 2007, game one) where the most intuitive, commonsense approach is making two templates.

      Some people will find it easier than others. Some people will want to do it all the time, some people will do it only rarely. We aren’t saying that you HAVE to do it for any particular game. But it’s a very powerful attack, and one that you should at least have in your arsenal.


    2. The best path is to develop both skills. First, learn how to recognize situations in which worlds are likely to pay off “big league” (such as the ones that we mentioned on the show), and then do worlds. Second, in games that worlds are less helpful, do the “if” questions first so you can leverage previous work, use interchangeable variables to eliminate answers, and so on.


  2. You two are beast bruh. I got a 129 on my first cold practice test diagnostic and after listening to this podcast and doing two and a half untimed preptests, ive been able to get my score up to a solid 135; law school here I come – can’t nothing stop me now (Diddy shake)! My goal is Barry Law and I have a 2.6 GPA so I need need need a 146 to hit the 25 percentile mark and make scholarships possible. Anyways, like I’ve seriously learned a lot, like for instance the difference between how an argument needs something required to assume it (negate and you got yourself the right answer!) and filling in holes with the SA types.

    I’m not that good at logic games but I’m saving some money for the Fox logic games bible and finding flaws in paragraphs with big words still give me some troubles. But I think this podcast will push me past the threshold. Like You guys I never thought of worlds but I feel like this advice is CRITICAL for these games. I’ll remember both y’all (Ben & Nate) on my way to the top.

    Ps. Sorry can’t donate now but soon.


Leave a Reply to On the fence on "worlds" Cancel reply

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