Taking the Law School Admission Test (LSAT) is fun. Really fun. That’s F-U-N?fun! So fun, in fact, that you may want to skip that date with the hottie next door and take some practice LSATs instead. Seriously, it’s better than?Cats. You’ll want to take it again? and again? and again?
OK, we did our best to convince you otherwise, but the truth is that the LSAT is a royal pain. An evil combination of #2 pencils, ugly proctors, and silent stopwatches, to get into any accredited law school in the country, you are required to take the LSAT.
But there is good news: even though you have to take this standardized test, there are many methods to cracking the test and getting a much better score than you deserve. After all, a secret to those standardized tests is that the writers always write the same types of questions. So if you can just study the question?types?(and practice them a lot), you’re virtually guaranteed to get a higher score and getting a respected law degree (or at least one that won’t appear on Sally Struthers commercial alongside TV/VCR repair).
By the way, since you’re obviously interested in going to law school (people do not take the LSAT for kicks), you may as well read our excellent SYW titled “SYW get into law school?” With these two SYWs, you’ll be fully on your way to out-legalizing Ally McBeal. (While you’re at it, please buy her some food.)
First thing’s first: the LSAT is a test. Need more details? The LSAT is a tricky test that will make your brain hurt. The test basically poses many puzzles to you that you have to solve. The more puzzles that you solve correctly, the better legal mind you supposedly have and the higher score you’ll receive.
Format
| Section Type | Number of Sections | Number of Questions | Time Per Section |
| Analytical Reasoning (Games) | 1 | 24 | 35 minutes |
| Logical Reasoning (Arguments) | 2 | 24-26 | 35 minutes |
| Reading Comprehension | 1 | 26-28 | 35 minutes |
| Writing Sample | 1 | 1 essay | 30 minutes |
| Experimental (another Arguments, Games, or Reading Comprehension) | 1 | Depends which type it is | 35 minutes |
As you can see, there are three main types of questions on the LSAT:Analytical?reasoning?questions (which involve solving logic puzzles);logical reasoning?questions (which involve finding the weak point of an argument); and?reading comprehension?questions (which involve reading boring passages and answering questions about them).
The LSAT has a bunch of rules you have to follow. We’re not going to bore you with them here, so when you do your?practice tests, read all of the rules carefully. But because we don’t want you to forget, here are the most important rules:
It would really stink to show up at the test center and then not be able to take the LSAT. No, law schools wouldn’t accept that excuse, crafty one! To make your life easier, the LSAC allows you to register?online?Have your credit card handy, because it’s gonna cost you $90.
If you miss the deadline, you can also register up to the day before the test, as long as you pay the $54 late fee and you find a center that has room.
Not every LSAT-taker prepares in advance, so you’re already one step ahead of the game by reading this SYW. OK, enough hand-holding. Now it’s time to really learn about the questions on the test and know what to expect.
The secret to acing the analytical reasoning section of the LSAT is to merely think of the section as one big game. Kinda like Chutes and Ladders. Each game will requires you to use basic logic skills to order, group, or assign characteristics to things or people.
Here is an example of how a game may be set up:
| Each of seven travelers — Anton, Brendan, Charles, Deiter, Echelle, Fanny, and Geoff — will be assigned to exactly one of nine airline seats. The seats are numbered 1 – 9 and are arranged in rows as follows: |
| Front row: | 1 2 3 |
| Middle row: | 4 5 6 |
| Last row: | 7 8 9 |
| Only seats in the same row as each other are immediately beside each other. Seat assignments must adhere to the following conditions:1.??? Brendan’s seat is in the last row.
2.??? Charles’ seat is immediately besides Deiter’s seat and also immediately besides an unassigned seat. 3.??? Deiter’s seat is in the row immediately behind the row that Anton is in. 4.??? Neither Echelle nor Geoff is sitting immediately besides Anton. |
You will then be asked a bunch of questions about this scenario (possible seating arrangement’s, who can’t sit in seat 8, etc.). Every single game will start out just like the scenario above: you will be given a situation with particular rules, and you’ll have to figure out what those rules mean.
Here are our tips to acing these game questions:
Before you begin?
The first rule?says that Brendan’s seat is in the last row, so let’s put him there.
The second rule?says that Charles is next to Deiter AND an unassigned seat. So write it down. That means that there always must be a row only containing Charles and Deiter, and Charles must be in the middle. And because Brendan is in the last row, Charles and Deiter must either be in row 1 or 2. So at this point, your sketch may look like this:
The third rule?says that Deiter is the row behind Anton. That means that Deiter can’t be in row 1. Since we earlier established that Deiter can’t be in row 3, then Deiter and Charles must be in row two, with Charles in the middle. This means that Anton must be in row 1. So now your sketch might look like this:
The fourth rule?states that neither Echelle nor Geoff is sitting immediately besides Anton. Not that this doesn’t mean that neither can go in row 1; it just means that they can’t sit next to each other.
So your final sketch might look like this:
Now you’re all ready to start answering the questions! So imagine getting this question:?Which of the following passengers can be assigned to seats 2 and 8, respectively?
So look at your picture and figure it out! You know that B is out, because Brendan must be in the last row, so he can’t sit in seat 2. You also see that Charles must be in seat 5, and Deiter must be in seat 4 or or seat 6, so you can cross out C and D. You finally realize that Geoff can’t be in seat 2, because that would force him to sit next to Anton (thus breaking the fourth rule), so E is out. So the only choice is A! See how quick that was? And all because you drew the picture in advance.
There are other types of rules that you should write down:
therefore A –> F
You want to be a lawyer, right? So you should love arguments! And the logical reasoning section is nothing except handling arguments.
While there’s only one reading comprehension and one games section that will count toward your final score, TWO logical reasoning sections will count, so you should spend twice as much time practicing these questions.
The main tip we can give you is to remember, above everything else,?that you must ONLY consider what is said in the argument you are given. Yes, you may be asked to prove a blatantly false argument, but welcome to LSAT Land. The test-writers don’t care about whether you agree or disagree; they only want to see if you’re able to see where the weaknesses in the arguments lay. So read every question VERY carefully.
The secret to acing the logical reasoning section is to realize that almost every question is trying to find out how well you can find “assumption gaps.”
| Premiums for automobile accident insurance are often higher for red cars than for cars of other colors. To justify these higher charges, insurance companies claim that, overall, a greater percentage of red cars are involved in accidents than are cars of any other colors. If this claim is true, then lives could undoubtedly be saved by banning red cars from the roads altogether.The reasoning in the argument is flawed because? |
So before you even see the choices, you know that you’re looking for the hole in the argument.
These assumption questions make up the VAST majority of the LSAT. There are lots of different ways of asking about assumptions. Here are some common phrases:
| LSAT question: | Your job: |
| The argument depends on which of the assumptions below? | Find the assumption. |
| Which of the following, if true, undermines the argument? | Recognize the assumption, and find the opposite of it in the choices. |
| Which of the following is the error in the arguer’s reasoning? | Recognize the assumption, and translate that into a general logical principle. |
| Which of the following must be true for the argument to be correct? | Find the assumption. |
| Which of the following is the argument’s logical conclusion? | Recognize the assumption and its logical extension. |
| Which of the following would strengthen the argument? | Pick the piece of evidence that supports the assumption the strongest. |
| Which of the following would weaken the argument? | Pick the piece of evidence that destroys the assumption the best. |
| The argument is flawed because: | Find the assumption. |
| Which of the following, if known, would support the argument the best? | Find the assumption. |
We could go on and on. The point is, you will always be a step ahead if you search for the argument’s central assumption. The way to solve these is to:
“EXCEPT” questions: Those LSAT-writers are tricky? they will often present you with an argument and tell you that all five options are correct EXCEPT for one? which you have to find. These can be intimidating, because you have to think backwards — but they’re just the same as normal assumption questions.
Let’s go back to the question above:
| Premiums for automobile accident insurance are often higher for red cars than for cars of other colors. To justify these higher charges, insurance companies claim that, overall, a greater percentage of red cars are involved in accidents than are cars of any other colors. If this claim is true, then lives could undoubtedly be saved by banning red cars from the roads altogether.The reasoning in the argument is flawed because the argument: |
The central assumption is that because red cars are in more accidents, then removing red cars would remove the accidents. Before you even look at the choices, you have a “feeling” that this is a flawed argument. These might be some of the flaws you noticed:
So let’s look at the possible choices:
| The reasoning in the argument is flawed because the argument:A) Accepts without question that insurance companies have the right to charge higher premiums for higher risk clients.
B) Fails to consider whether red cars cost the same to repair as cars of other colors. C) Ignores the possibility that drivers who drive recklessly have a preference for red cars. D) Does not specify precisely what percentage of red cars are involved in accidents. E) Makes an unsupported assumption that every automobile accident results in some loss of life. |
So what’s the answer? Let’s go through one by one:
| A) This has nothing to do with the conclusion that removing red cars would save lives. It’s not the answer.B) This has nothing to do with the conclusion that removing red cars would save lives. It’s not the answer.
C) Hmm? this IS a problem with the argument. The argument does not acknowledge that bad drivers prefer red cars, so getting rid of red cars won’t help. D) It doesn’t matter what the exact percentage is. Higher is higher. It’s not the answer. E) It never says that EVERY accident results in loss of life. It’s not the answer. |
So there you go! The answer is C.
A quick hint: be wary of the words every, never, all, always, and none. They usually indicate a wrong answer, because nothing is that simple.
There are some other types of questions in the arguments section, including:
At the risk of being repetitive, all you have to do is identify the assumption, and you’re 95% home free.
Of the three sections you’ll encounter, Reading Comprehension is the most old school – you’ve been taking tests since second grade that require you to read something and then answer questions on it. Not so bad, right?
A reading comprehension section will offer?four?passages, about 500 words each, and some questions following each passage. The good news is that this section tests how well you read, not what you know. So this means that you could have a passage about the biological mating patterns of the tsetse fly, and you’ll still have the chance to do fine. The reading comprehension does?not?test your knowledge, just how well you’re able to gleam hidden information from the passage. Again, it’s like a puzzle!
Here are our tips:
| Main Idea: Look for the thesis in the first or last sentence of the first paragraph, or in the passage’s concluding statement. What’s this about?Description: These refer to less significant points, and usually paraphrase a statement in the passage.
Writing Technique: A few different kinds of technique questions, asking you to look at the passage structure. These come in the form of compare/contrast; cause/effect; and position/supporting evidence. Extension: Sadly, these are not questions about hairstyles or cords. Rather, you’ll be asked to draw an inference or conclusion, or to tease out the author’s (drumroll please?)?assumptions! Application: Apply what the passage taught you to a hypothetical situation. Joyous, we know. Tone: Try to look at things from the author’s point of view. Is the author being critical? Complimentary? Cautious? |
This is the most important point we can make about acing the LSAT. More important than any little tricks and tips, more important than what you have for breakfast the morning of the test, and more important than how much your mom loves you.?YOU MUST PRACTICE LIKE CRAZY FOR AT LEAST 3 WEEKS.?This means that you must take constant practice exams, and even take each one two or three times. Get your hands on at least 20 former LSATs, and take every single section multiply until you’ve figured out the patterns. Yes, this is a lot of work, but it’s cheap and easy (just like us!).
Some people lack the self-discipline to just sit and practice, so here’s our advice:
You know this test, and you are ready to show the LSAT that you can take it down. Grrrrrrrrr?! Thanks to weeks of preparation and studying, you’re good to go.
To help you deal with your nerves, here’s some last minute advice on how to deal with the butterflies:
|
WINTERBOTTOM v. WRIGHT In the Exchequer, June 6, 1842. Reported in 10 Meeson & Welsby,…
Filed 7/21/25 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA…
Filed 7/21/25 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA…
140 S.Ct. 1683 (2020)590 U.S. 573 Nidal Khalid NASRALLAH, Petitioner, v. William P. BARR, Attorney…
140 S.Ct. 1615 (2020)590 US 538207 L. Ed. 2d 85 James J. THOLE, et al.,…
140 S.Ct. 1698 (2020)590 U.S. 504 Gregory Dean BANISTER, Petitioner, v. Lorie DAVIS, Director, Texas…