Episode 96: Ann Levine, big news from LSAC

Ann Levine joins the top of the show to discuss the big news of the day, including:

00:01:20 – LSAC eliminates the “3 times in 2 years” rule

00:03:20 – What’s it going to look like when applicants take the LSAT 7 times?

00:08:33 – “People get these goal scores in their head that sound pretty”

00:14:49 – Harvard Law School junior referral program

00:16:59 – It’s still important to take the LSAT over the GRE, even though Northwestern may begin looking at GRE scores

00:25:26 – The new Above the Law law school rankings, and why they’re better than US News

After Ann says goodbye, we turn to listener mail and other assorted goodies like:

00:33:00 – MJ delights us by explaining how she was able to negotiate for a stipend in addition to her full ride

00:37:50 – Nate talks about Southwest Airlines the impossibility of asking for booze during a tarmac delay

00:42:48 – Why do some applicants get full rides?

00:44:16 – Norm, with perfect scores on his last few practice tests, offers us $1 per point correct

00:48:06 – Justin asks about Principle questions, which basically don’t exist

01:09:26 – We dissect a difficult question stem, and talk about Sufficient vs Necessary Assumption questions

01:18:13 – Annabelle asks whether a gap in her resume will be problematic when applying to law school? (No.)

01:23:20 – “As long as” – does this introduce the sufficient or necessary condition?

01:27:00 – The 160s is actually quite solid—folks shouldn’t get caught up with perfectionist tendencies when their current abilities are well above average

01:30:46 – Are older LSAT tests easier, particularly in reading comp, compared to the new ones?

Forgot our birthdays, and want to atone? Give us a rating and/or review on iTunes.

Suck at the LSAT and wish you didn’t? Try Ben’s 100-Hour Online LSAT Course or Nathan’s Fox LSAT On Demand. Ben offers a free LSAT lesson, and Nathan has a free trial LSAT course.

3 Comments


  1. Hi Ben and Nathan, thanks for delving a little deeper into sufficient vs necessary assumptions on this episode (at 1:09-1:18). I’ve had a nagging question in the back of my mind for awhile: can a correct answer (for either type of question stem) conceivably be both sufficient and necessary?

    I recently got stuck on a necessary assumption question where, I am convinced the correct answer is ALSO sufficient to say ‘case-closed’. Can you speak at some point in a general way about whether I am right in thinking that this is possible? If so does the LSAT ever do this?

    (PS if youre curious, the Q was PT 71 section 1 #22 just FYI – but not looking for free tutoring, please don’t think I’m expecting you guys to delve into that specifically and I’m very clear that you can’t)

    Thanks again for your advice in the past that helped me decide to wait for another year to apply and try for a better LSAT. Will send updates once my June LSAT is complete!

    Reply

    1. Great question, Peter! The short answer is yes.

      In my mind, assumptions can be necessary, sufficient, both, or neither. Granted, in a sufficient assumption question, the correct answer would have to be a sufficient assumption or both; and in a necessary assumption question, the correct answer would have to be a necessary assumption or both.

      Thanks for listening and good luck as you prepare!

      Reply

      1. Thanks Ben! Please keep up the great work.

        Reply

Leave a Reply

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