Episode 76: How’s She Goin’, Eh?

Episode 76 is a nod to our Northern neighbors as Nathan records from Toronto, Ontario and we’re joined by Graeme Blake from Montreal, founder of LSAT Hacks. So kick off your ice hockey skates, grab a big mug of maple syrup, and listen in to the last episode before tomorrow’s LSAT exam!

An article from the Wall Street Journal claims the American Bar Association is working on a rule that will revoke accreditation from law schools with bar passage rates of less than 75%. We discuss the article, the possible unintended consequences of such a rule, and our ideas for more useful changes the ABA could make. (4:28)

Listener Matt asks for tips on staying focused during the Reading Comprehension section of the test. Ben suggests breaking sentences up into even smaller chunks and Nathan advises rereading any part that isn’t sinking in fully. We both tell Matt to learn to recognize when his mind is drifting early on so he can stop and re-focus without wasting time. (19:00)

Kurt emails about finding the best law school to attend for certain specialties he might want to practice. Our advice is to disregard any rankings he finds regarding a schools’ specialties and instead choose the best school for the lowest cost in the location you would like to practice in. (30:16)

We spend the second half of this episode working on two Logical Reasoning problems from the June 2007 LSAT. To play at home just download the free test, work through Section 3, Questions 10 and 11, and listen in as we discuss the solutions in detail. (#10 at 45:00 and #11 with Graeme at 1:05:30)

Got questions you want us to answer in a future podcast? Send us an email! Follow us at @thinkinglsat and tweet us a question!

Take a listen and let us know what you think.

 

7 Comments


  1. Totally irrelevant to the LSAT but Fall in Nova Scotia is gorgeous (and not humid like the summer). I spent a few months interning in Nova Scotia and can vouch it is a beautiful place for road trips. Oh and don’t forget about Vancouver, it is such a beautiful city to visit (:

    Reply

    1. Yes, Vancouver is one of my favorite places. I’ve been twice. Last time I went to Vancouver I also went to Whistler and Victoria, both of which are also spectacular.

      Reply

  2. What would you consider “bottom tier” schools in terms of usnews rankings?

    Reply

    1. It’s hard to say for sure, but in general, any school with a ranking over 100 has to give you a compelling reason to attend, such as a competitive price, a reasonable path to good employment in the area, and so on. To be clear, every school has to give you a compelling reason to attend, even Harvard and Yale. It’s just that the reasons are much more obvious with schools that are highly ranked. And I’d be hesitant about most schools with a ranking over 40, and pretty skeptical about all schools with a ranking over 100. Neither 100 nor 40 are magical numbers, but they’re not meaningless either—despite what all the ranking critics might justifiably say. It’s more of a rough continuum.

      Reply

      1. Agreed. When we refer to rankings and tiers, we’re almost always oversimplifying. There’s no magic number. When I say “top tier” I’m obviously referring to the Harvards and Stanfords and Yales of the world, but I also mean a few more than that–I’m not sure how many other schools I’m lumping in. Never more than 30, and frequently I might mean only the top 10, or top 5. It depends on context. When I say “bottom tier” I definitely mean the schools ranked 200, and frequently I might also mean any school not in the top 100, or top 50, or even top 30, again depending on context.

        Reply

  3. I totally agree that answer (E) was obvious for #11 but also got stuck on/considered answer (A) at first.

    Answer (A) COULD be true…

    For example, we can say that if a bird in 1880 ate 10 fish and 30 crawdads, and a bird today ate 10 fish and 5 crawdads, then the proportion of a seabird’s diet consisting of
    fish was not as high, on average, in the 1880s. Hence, both birds ate exactly the same amount of fish, even if at different proportions, so we MAY be able to say that the mercury levels in saltwater fish are higher now than they were 100 years ago.

    However, answer (A) could also be FALSE:

    For example, we can say that if a bird in 1880 ate 10 fish and 30 crawdads, and a bird today ate 20 fish and 5 crawdads, then the proportion of a seabird’s diet consisting of
    fish was still not as high, on average, in the 1880s. We cannot necessarily say that the mercury levels in saltwater fish are higher now than they were 100 years ago because today’s bird ate twice as many fish as 1880’s bird so the fish may have had the same amount of mercury.

    I think it is important to differentiate between proportion and amount.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

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