On this week’s podcast, the guys break down a Must Be True question with a tricky wrong answer. Then, they evaluate an English professor’s tips for professional writing in a lengthy Pearls vs. Turds submission. They close the show with a solid personal statement from an engineer interested in patent law.
As always, if you like the show and you want to get more from the Thinking LSAT community, check out the links below. You can connect with other folks studying for the LSAT and get more useful resources from Nathan and Ben.
11.12.2021 — November LSAT
12.3.2021 — January LSAT Registration Deadline
2:04 - Test 73, Section 2, Q21
Nathan and Ben pick apart this argument, beginning with the first sentence. They remind listeners that “most” means 51% or more. It could mean all, barely more than half, or anything in between. After dissecting this short argument and making sure they fully understand it, they go into the answer choices knowing exactly what to look for. Focus on what you KNOW, and Must Be True questions are easy.
Nathan reminds students how important it is to always read all five answer choices. Don’t get tricked by an answer like C and just move on. Doing so could cause you to miss an answer that is clearly correct (in this case, answer E). Try this question here.
15:20 - Pearls vs. Turds
Listener Alyssa shares a document full of professional writing advice by a former professor. She uses it to edit all of her written assignments and her personal statement. The guys find some bits of pearl-worthy advice in the document. But the majority of the advice is either too vague or incorrect. The overall pearl found in this submission? Check. Your. Grammar.
Got a Pearls vs. Turds candidate? Email firstname.lastname@example.org, or find us on social @thinkinglsat.
44:38 - Anthony’s Personal Statement
Before diving into this personal statement, Ben has a recommendation for all listeners: Read Five Ways to Write Like John Roberts before writing or making final edits to your personal statement.
Anthony’s personal statement has a solid first paragraph. While “I” statements are generally desirable, Nathan recommends not starting every sentence with “I.” The guys think that Anthony is clearly taking their advice. He gets straight to the point and focuses on what he actually did. They just wish his writing were a little more conversational.
Nathan and Ben decide to skip to Anthony’s last sentence since the rest of the statement is pretty straightforward. They like that he includes information about studying for the patent bar. They suggest that Anthony mention that in his opening paragraph so the reader understands right away “why law school.” Once Anthony makes those few tweaks, the guys would score his personal statement in the mid 170s. Nice work, Anthony!