Stay ConnectedBen Olson and Nathan Fox started the Thinking LSAT Podcast to become better LSAT teachers and have some fun. Please 1) subscribe, 2) rate and review, and 3) send us questions: help@thinkinglsat.com. Don’t pay for law school!
Learn more at lsatdemon.com
Copyright: © Nathan Fox and Ben Olson
Today on the show, Ben and Nathan discuss a turd regarding LSAT diagnostic tests. They explain why they advise new students to just start with a practice test. The guys also go over LSAC’s recently released data comparing August test scores from 2019 through 2021. Then, they answer a harder LR Weaken question and host the personal statement grand finale.
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.
Read more on our website!
Ben and Nathan continue the series of reading bad personal statements and calling out violations. But first, they tackle a Flaw question from PrepTest 73 and read emails from Demon students finding LSAT success. If you are still wondering what NOT to do on your personal statement, this episode is for you.
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.
Read more on our website!
Ben and Nathan have read a lot of shoddy personal statements on the show in recent weeks. If you’re wondering what a really good one sounds like, you don’t want to miss today’s first submission—one that actually follows the guys’ advice. The best personal statement in weeks is followed by a frenzy of violations. But first, the guys tackle a Parallel Reasoning question from PrepTest 73 and dispel a myth about diagramming arguments on the LSAT.
First, Nathan reiterates the pearl of LR advice from episode 317: Mentally blur out the question and answer choices as you read the passage. Focus on one sentence at a time, and make sure you actually understand it.
The first sentence is an if-then statement. Does that mean you should write it out with symbols and arrows and diagram the contrapositive? No! Doing that is counterproductive. Instead, just think about what the sentence means. Ben puts it simply: Either Suarez or Anderson is the most qualified.
Halfway through the next sentence, Ben predicts what the argument can logically conclude. The conclusion matches his prediction, so the argument is valid. That is, the evidence forces the conclusion to be true.
The question asks for a parallel argument. The given argument is valid, so the correct answer must be valid as well. Nathan describes the type of argument he’s looking for as, roughly, “It’s gotta be one of these two things. So, if it’s not this one, it’s that one.” Answer B is a perfect match.
Read more on our website!
Today on the show, Nathan and Ben uncover a rare pearl of LSAT wisdom. This listener-submitted advice promotes a deeper understanding of the test and can be applied to both Logical Reasoning and Reading Comprehension. The guys also relay some important announcements from LSAC and discuss why September is the best time to submit law school applications. Then, they review some cringey personal statements and wrap up with another list of rule violations.
“Read more on our website!”
Listener personal statements have been rolling in, and Ben and Nathan are doing their best to respond to as many as possible. In what may be a new record, today’s episode features ten submissions. The guys pull no punches as they critique each one and compile a list of rule violations. But first, they hear from a listener who improved his official score by 27 points using LSAT Demon, and they tackle a Reasoning question from PrepTest 73.
Reminder: If you want to submit your personal statement to be read on a future episode, go to lsat.link/statement and answer the questions first.
5:45 – Major Score Increases
Listener Volodymyr studied with LSAT Demon for six months and increased his score by a whopping 27 points—from a diagnostic 142 to an official 169. Way to go! That 97th percentile score and his impressive 3.86 GPA make him an excellent candidate.
Nathan and Ben revel in the fact that major score increases are becoming so common among dedicated Demon students, they’re almost unremarkable. The thing that sets LSAT Demon apart from other test prep companies is the emphasis on actually understanding the test—not on gimmicky shortcuts.
14:13 – Logical Reasoning Question 16 from PrepTest 73
Nathan breaks down the argument and summarizes the main point: The top award for architecture should go to the best building just as the top award for movies goes to the best picture. Why? Because creating a building is a team effort, much like creating a movie. Ben and Nathan are sympathetic to the argument but also point out its weaknesses. They then discuss their strategy for answering a Reasoning question. The right answer must accurately describe something that the argument did—nothing different, nothing extra. Ben adds that it’s okay if an answer describes the argument incompletely, but it can’t be inaccurate.
Answer A makes perfect sense. The argument did use an analogy to reach its conclusion. Answers B, C, D, and E have a lot of the right words, but they’re all inaccurate and thus wrong. Nathan reminds listeners that the most efficient way to improve your Logical Reasoning score is to dig into one question at a time.
43:12 – Z’s Personal Statement
The first few sentences of Z’s statement are somewhat vague and fail to capture Ben’s or Nathan’s interest. There are some awkward sentence constructions and too many uses of the word “would” throughout the first paragraph. (Instead of saying that you would do something, just say that you did something.) Z then claims to teach students how to construct “the clearest possible prose.” Meanwhile, Z’s prose is unclear and contains several grammatical errors. Nathan and Ben both say they’d stop reading at that point.
49:30 – Kamilah’s Personal Statement
Kamilah’s first sentence can be edited down significantly. Ben and Nathan recommend losing the adjective “interesting.” If something is interesting, show the reader why it’s interesting—don’t force the conclusion. Kamilah follows with several more conclusions and too much detail about her attorney uncle. The reader cares only about you, the applicant. Don’t talk about family members.
Skimming a couple paragraphs ahead, the guys learn that Kamilah has worked in HR for 18 years and is now “responsible for the investigation of statutory complaints raised by and against Intel employees and its contractors.” They encourage her to cut the entire first paragraph and lead with the important work that she does today.
Read more on our website!
With the 2022 application cycle underway, more and more law school hopefuls are seeking feedback on their personal statements. Nathan and Ben are happy to continue reviewing them on the show. But too many submissions seem to flout their advice. So they’re introducing a new touchstone—one that hopefully will encourage everyone to take advantage of existing resources before submitting. Going forward, the guys will be accepting personal statements only from listeners who fill out a prerequisite questionnaire here:
Today’s show features answers to personal statement questions from the listener mailbag and five more personal statement critiques. But first, the guys tackle another Logical Reasoning question from PrepTest 73 and evaluate an admissions tip for Pearls vs. Turds.
“Read more on our website!”
The personal statement queue continues to grow. This week, the pod received a special request for a good personal statement example. Unfortunately, most statements submitted to the show are not so good—some might even be described as torturous.
Today, the guys review six more personal statements. One is great but could be better. The others are confusing, irritating, or worse. (Hint: Don’t use blood metaphors in a law school personal statement.) But first, it’s back to some classic Thinking LSAT content, including an Excuse of the Week, Pearls vs. Turds, and a Logical Reasoning question. Read more on our website!
Nathan and Ben kick off this week’s episode with a logical reasoning question and explain their two-step strategy for identifying a flaw. They hear from an August LSAT taker about an overly officious proctor. Then, they evaluate four more personal statements. It’s the time of year when many students are getting their law school applications ready and asking for advice. Today’s featured statements are better written than most but still lacking in relevant content. Spoiler: Law schools probably don’t want to hear a story about feral cats. Read more on our website!
Today on the show, Ben and Nathan tackle another batch of personal statements. These are better than average but still not great. They all at least have a good foundation to work with. The guys deliver their constructive criticism—and offer up a bonanza of advice to anyone who wants to improve their personal statement or their writing in general. Read more on our website!
By popular demand, the guys spend yet another episode shredding listener personal statements. It’s that time of year. This week, six brave participants will each have their personal statement read and critiqued for 10 minutes—on the clock. Nathan and Ben remind our listeners that, often, the first step to construction is demolition. Learn what to do and what not to do on your statement by listening to their feedback. Read more on our website!
Our TOPPODCAST Picks 
