Ep. 159: Moderately Delicious

We’re in the wake of the September LSAT and the guys are already firing up their new classes to get 1L’s-to-be prepped for the November test. Nathan’s been enjoying ridiculously low rent at his teaching space, but—perhaps as a result—the business he was renting from went belly up. He wasn’t displaced for long, however, and he gives us a glimpse into his new classroom. Then the guys settle in for a fun show. Students write in with an update on the September LSAT. Tune in to hear reports from the field about test day. You’ll also hear about some effed up and amusing proctoring situations. Then Ben and Nathan answer an admissions question, and in the second half of the show they smash out two LR questions from the June 2007 LSAT.

If you dig the show and want to connect with the guys in person, come hang in Chicago for Thinking LSAT Live on October 20-21.  And, as always, if you’d like to get even more out of the Thinking LSAT community, check out the resources in the links below.

The Thinking LSAT Facebook Group.

Our Instagram.

Find us on Twitter. Nathan’s Twitter handle. Ben’s Twitter handle.

YouTube Page.

Support us on Patreon.

The LSAT Demon.

Ben’s LSAT prep company.

Nathan’s LSAT prep company.

The Thinking LSAT personal statement review.

14:56 – Email 1—Alex, one of Nathan’s tutoring students, writes in to share his thoughts on the September LSAT. His impression? The test was “pretty average.” But it turns out the proctor forgot to give the class a 5-minute warning, prompting outrage from the test takers. They bullied the poor proctor into giving them another minute to fill in their bubble sheets. Alex? He felt like the reaction was overblown. The guys have a chuckle over this story of mutiny and muse on Alex’s experience.

29:06 – Email 2—It’s another pretty humorous report from the September LSAT. This time, it’s from Senna, who attended the Thinking LSAT Live class in NYC and is headed out to Chicago in a few weeks to review this test with Nathan and Ben. Senna’s proctor was an angry, old, pistachio-eating man who took phone calls after lambasting Senna for bringing pencils that had writing on the pencil. You know. Like, “No. 2 Pencil.” She also was one of two folks taking the test in her classroom. The other person had double time accommodated testing. So the proctor was speaking to them both at different times throughout the afternoon. For all the damn commotion, Senna reports that LR was some of the easiest she’s ever seen, and that the games were laughably easy. RC was a bit tough, but she’s looking forward to another shot at the test in November if she didn’t absolutely crush this one.

37:24 – Email 3—Will, AKA Chocolate Bear, AKA Eager Beaver—JK, I just gave him that nickname on account of his inquiry—ALSO just sat for the September LSAT and is eagerly awaiting his score. But he’s neither twiddling his thumbs nor sitting on his paws. Nope. Chocolate Bear is trying to get his applications in order so that he can get his paperwork in as soon as his score comes back. He wants to know if the guys recommend asking for application-fee waivers before he even gets his LSAT score. The guys kinda give him a lukewarm “sure…g’head.”

41:56 – The guys tackle a logical reasoning question (question 2 in section 2) from the June 2007 test. Maybe they did it before on the show. Maybe they didn’t. Chances are you haven’t heard it. So buckle up and get ready for a first-hand look at how the guys dismantle an LR question.

1:01:04 – If you liked that last question, consider your appetite whet, because this bad boy is the main course. The guys hit up LR question no. 24 in section three of the June 2007 LSAT. Nathan and Ben do a deep dive on this complex strengthen question and show you what legit question review looks like. They take the question sentence by sentence and show you how they think about a passage each step of the way. Nathan also explains why calling this a “principle” question is total BS.

2 Comments


  1. aren’t u guys exaggerating the idea that people don’t look for weaknesses in strengthen questions? even stem first prep materials say that you have to identify flaws in the argument before you can think about strengthening…

    Reply

    1. By evaluating the argument in a flaw question (or a strengthen question) before you know whether it has a flaw, you’ll know that you missed something if you don’t find a flaw. You wouldn’t believe how many people say they found a flaw (when they know that there is a flaw because they identified the question type first) and yet can’t actually identify the flaw they supposedly just found. “Yeah, this argument sucks!” But why? “Ahh, it’s just bad. I mean the conclusion is wrong.” Okay, but why?? In short, I don’t want you getting ahead of yourself. You need to find the flaw (if any) on your own to actually find it.

      Reply

Leave a Reply

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