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
Laughter is the best medicine, Ben credits Melissa McCarthy’s Sean Spicer skit with adding three years to his life. He also enjoys the absurdity of a clip demanding unquestioning submission to the power of the President. Even with the real-life stress of Trump’s presidency, Ben hopes comedic therapy will yield an overall increase in his longevity. (0:40)
Ben recommends an article discussing the emergence of LawGeex, a company that built an algorithm for automatizing contract review. This review platform is just the beginning for LawGeex; over the next few years, the company is looking to “automate the entire legal world.” (3:20)
Alexis was consistently missing 4-6 Logical Reasoning questions per section. Taking advice given frequently on the Thinking LSAT Podcast, she forced herself to slow down on these problems until she thoroughly understood each one. After making this adjustment, Alexis did a Logical Reasoning section, where she finished all but the last question and only got one problem wrong. Another successful convert! (14:12)
Nisha is interested in law school but is getting frustrated with the application and admission processes. As a single mother with a career, she needs to know how to balance work, school, and her child so she asks Nathan and Ben for some clear answers. They advise her on how to prep for the LSAT, when to apply and when to wait, and how to decide which law school is the right one for her circumstances. (18:07)
A new mother writes in with a question the guys haven’t considered before—breastfeeding breaks at the LSAT. When she takes the test in June, she will still be nursing her baby and is wondering what accommodations the testing center will make for her. Ben’s wife, a certified doula and mother of four, helps this listener by talking to an LSAC rep and suggesting ways to determine her options on test day. (35:45)
Subscribe to the Thinking LSAT Podcast! Then subscribe your friends and family! And then your pets!
We continue working through the June 2007 LSAT with Logical Reasoning Section 3, Question 18. This flaw question turns out to be one of the trickier ones of its type, forcing the guys to discuss the answer choices in detail to find the correct one. To play at home, just download the free test; work through Section 3, Question 18; and listen in as we discuss the solution. (48:59)
Got questions you want us to answer in a future podcast? Send us an email at help@thinkinglsat.com or follow us @thinkinglsat and tweet us a question!
Take a listen and let us know what you think.
Nathan has two recommendations this week: Cadillac Desert, a thorough history of the American West’s pursuit of freshwater by Marc Reisner, and Keep Talking and Nobody Explodes, a cooperative video game where the players work together to defuse a virtual bomb that only one of them can see and manipulate. If you squint hard, this game can almost count as LSAT prep. (1:53)
Matt in D.C. took the LSAT in February and is having post-test emotions he wants help processing; his range of feelings runs from sadness to happiness and back to anxiety. He asks the guys if they have experienced similar reactions and how they dealt with them. Nathan suggests boozing it up while Ben gets in touch with his inner Nietzsche (who knew Ben would be the darker one?!) (9:10)
Calvin attempted his second LSAT in February and found this test to be quite similar to the one in December. He does a comparison of the exams; do you agree with his assessment? (29:40)
Not to be outdone by his cohost, Ben recommends a book of his own, Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind by Yuval Noah Harari. This book was one of Obama’s Top 10 and possibly the reason behind Ben’s newfound nihilism. (32:40)
Madison is studying to take the summer LSAT with the goal of scoring a 178. She has an undergrad GPA of 3.2 from a top public university, a resume chock-full of community service hours, and a dream of attending Stanford Law School. While admiring Madison’s lofty goals, the guys encourage her to toss out her specific score idea, broaden her list of dream schools, and follow the application instructions to the letter. (37:20)
Your friendly reminder to subscribe to the Thinking LSAT Podcast is coming up…now! Please subscribe to automatically receive new episodes and updates from your favorite LSAT nerds. (53:30)
We continue working through the June 2007 LSAT. To play at home, just download the free test; work through Section 3, Question 17; and listen in as we discuss the solution in detail. (1:00:26)
Nathan continues Episode 83 with Eliza Ghanooni, a bankruptcy attorney with her own firm in Los Angeles. Ms. Ghanooni works with corporate and individual clients, including students, who need help managing their debt. (1:21:40)
*Correction from the show: the lawsuit needed to get rid of student loans is actually an adversary proceeding to declare student loan debt dischargeable, not a non-dischargeability action.
Got questions you want us to answer in a future podcast? Send us an email at help@thinkinglsat.com or follow us @thinkinglsat and tweet us a question!
Take a listen and let us know what you think.
Ben recommends an article from The Atlantic, “The For-Profit Law School That Crumbled,” which discusses the downfall of the Charlotte School of Law due to its students' low LSAT scores, 45% bar passage rates, and dire employment stats. The piece spurs discussion about for-profit vs. not-for-profit schools, admissible LSAT scores, and whether helping disadvantaged students is really hurting them. The guys also get into the larger question of who should be held responsible when a law school graduate is unable to pass the bar or get a job. (5:32)
Kelly has a degree in community development, a 3.2 GPA, and a seat reserved for Saturday’s LSAT. After studying for only a month and a half and achieving a high practice score of 157, he is wondering if it might make sense for him to postpone his test date. Ben and Nathan reply with a resounding “Yes!” and explain why this decision should be an easy one for Kelly. (21:56)
“Joe” is sure about a lot of things: he wants to go to law school part-time at the University of Houston, he received a 150 on December’s LSAT, and he is taking the test again this Saturday. Joe is not as sure, however, about when he should apply to UH. (30:50)
JoshDougBob is a 32-year-old pharmacist who has always been interested in health care law. He’s spent the last few months studying and feels prepared for the LSAT on Saturday. One possible snag—while JDB holds a doctorate in pharmacy, he never actually finished his bachelor’s degree. The frustrating non-advice from one admissions committee forced him to email the podcast to see what the guys think. (40:01)
And now… your friendly reminder to subscribe to the show! Don’t make yourself remember to check the site for new episodes, save those brain cells for test day. Sign up now and you’ll automatically get all the Thinking LSAT Podcast news as soon as it comes out. (49:08)
Scott is registered for Saturday’s LSAT—his third and final attempt. He wants strategies for tapering off of his heavy study schedule in the last few days before the test. Ben recommends Scott do what feels comfortable to him, and Nathan suggests a stroll in the fresh air, time with friends, or catching a movie (preferably La La Land and preferably watching it over and over again). (50:30)
A tweet to @thinkingLSAT from @BenjaminHarkins describes his situation as a law school hopeful with an official LSAT score in the mid-160s and an undergrad GPA of 3.97. Benjamin asks whether his high GPA and LSAT potential warrants a retake and waiting on his applications or if the opportunity cost of postponing another year is too steep. (1:06:16)
After signing off with Ben, Nathan interviews his past student, Ken, to get a first-hand account of present-day testing conditions. Ken describes the test center, checking in with the proctor, what people did during the break and the marginalization of left-handed students. After receiving his score (a 170!) Ken planned to withdrawal from his February 4th retake reservation; Nathan, however, has some surprising advice for him… (1:11:57)
Got questions you want us to answer in a future podcast? Send us an email at help@thinkinglsat.com or follow us @thinkinglsat and tweet us a question!
Take a listen and let us know what you think.
Remember to subscribe to the Thinking LSAT Podcast to be automatically notified each time a new episode goes online!
“Timmy,” a 44-year-old who is established in a successful non-law career, is looking to achieve his Bucket List goal of earning a JD. After taking the December test and receiving a 162, Timmy is wondering whether he should continue studying to increase his score or just apply with his score as is. (9:38)
Brian is about to turn 30 and, after completing his undergrad degree in 2014, is looking forward to the next stage of his professional life. His family runs a successful law firm that he spent a lot of time helping out at, and Brian has finally agreed to join this enterprise as a full-fledged lawyer. Now that he’s made his plan, Brian wants to speed through the LSAT and law school so he can “hit the ground running” at the family firm. Nathan encourages him to take the time necessary to decide if law is truly the profession that will make him happy. Ben shares a story of his own legal experience at the Department of Justice and how it affected his career. Both guys suggest Brian spend more time prepping for the LSAT so he can both earn scholarships and get a better feel for what he’ll be up against when he takes the Bar exam. (29:38)
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 15 and 16, and listen in as we discuss the solutions in detail. (#15 at 55:03 and #16 at 1:07:01)
Got questions you want us to answer in a future podcast? Send us an email at help@thinkinglsat.com or follow us @thinkinglsat and tweet us a question!
Take a listen and let us know what you think.
The (self-proclaimed) Greatest Podcast Hosts That God Ever Created discuss Donald Trump’s recent press conference. Ben wonders about people’s news and filter bubbles, while Nathan transforms current events into sufficient and necessary conditions. (0:30)
A 30-something listener is concerned about her chances of law school admittance and success. She needs advice on who to use for references, how to make her application stand out, and whether or not she can be a lawyer and still have a life outside of her career. The guys recommend she make the most of her age in her application, focusing on maturity and life experience to set herself apart. (13:30)
It was the best of answers, it was the second best of answers…an email from Canadian Nathan describes the trouble he’s having choosing the correct answer out of the two best answers in the Logical Reasoning sections. We discuss this common issue and what steps to take to overcome it. (31:38)
Lynn is only completing two of the four Logic Games sections on her practice tests and needs help speeding up. Nathan reiterates his past advice on accuracy vs. speed and encourages Lynn to slow down even more until she achieves 100% accuracy on all questions. (48:02)
An anonymous listener is worried she won’t be admitted to an LSAT testing center if her current hairstyle is radically different than the one on her uploaded ID. She also mentions she will soon be getting a “protective style,” a term that mystifies the hosts. The guys don’t know anything about natural hair, but they do know that supplementary photos and documentation, along with some charm, should convince the test proctor of this listener’s identity on test day. (58:50)
Peter, another 30-something listener, has a PhD in classical piano but is now considering a career in law. He studied for two months, got a 164 on the December LSAT, and thinks he can improve his score with more prep. Peter’s wondering if he should apply to schools now “just to see” whether he gets admission with the scholarship offers he wants or if he should wait until after retakes. Both Ben and Nathan start by begging him to remain in the field of music rather than become a lawyer. If that plea doesn’t convince him, then Peter should keep studying, take another LSAT, and wait to apply in the next cycle. (1:10:02)
Got questions you want us to answer in a future podcast? Send us an email at help@thinkinglsat.com or follow us @thinkinglsat and tweet us a question!
Take a listen and let us know what you think.
Nathan gives five (death)stars to “Rogue One: A Star Wars Story,” while Ben shares a far more lukewarm review of his family’s new dog, a “Mountain Swissy” kind. (0:30)
In Episode 78, the guys read part of an email from Alec, a student who took the December LSAT but canceled his score after encountering an “unusual” Logic Game. They continue with Alec’s questions here in Episode 79. Topics covered include: dealing with the experimental section, choosing the best study materials, combining rules to make inferences, and deciding when to diagram on the test. (6:34)
An anonymous listener asks whether or not she should submit an addendum that uses a “white lie” to explain an LSAT absence from two years ago. Ben says the fib is not worth the risk and if the truth ever does get out it could have devastating consequences on her career. Nathan agrees that the truth is best in this and every case, as small lies lead to bigger, more complicated lies that are too difficult to keep track of. No matter the reason, the guys concur and urge people to be completely honest on their applications. (42:30)
We continue the June 2007 LSAT with a lengthy Logical Reasoning problem. To play at home just download the free test, work through Question #14 in Section 3, and listen in as we discuss the solution in detail. (48:30)
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.
The guys open Episode 78 by discussing the need to submit a diversity statement with a law school application. Both agree it can be a valuable addition but caution applicants to beware of wasting the admissions officer’s time. (1:28)
Nathan admits he has a drinking problem; the problem being his need to discuss the LSAT while drinking. The good news is he left a note for his sober self to discuss an important issue on the show today! After noticing students’ tendency to misunderstand the question type “the argument proceeds by…” he and Ben clarify what the question is actually asking you to identify. (4:51)
Drew’s email shares his lofty goal of a score in the 170s on the February LSAT. He feels his accuracy is on target, only missing about two per section, but is worried about his pace being too slow to finish all the sections. Ben encourages Drew to deeply review the questions he’s getting wrong to identify what idea he is missing. Nathan agrees and counsels Drew to ignore the clock and focus only on accuracy, as that is what will increase speed and lead to higher scores. (8:50)
Subscribe to the Thinking LSAT Podcast to join our mailing list and be instantly notified when a new episode is released. Hurry and do so before we fill the site with all those lucrative pillow advertisements Ben has lined up! (30:00)
Ferris Bueller admits he didn’t like going to classes so he focused on working and extracurricular activities (presumably parades) instead. Now he wants to know if he should include an addendum with his application to explain his 3.0 GPA to admissions. Ben suggests Ferris use his resume to show his busy schedule and Nathan thinks he should write the addendum but to not be so honest about his disinterest in school. Ben and Nathan both recommend that Ferris focus the issue entirely on his need to work to support himself and not the extracurriculars he enjoyed. (31:37)
Omar worked hard to receive good grades in undergrad but one devastating semester is dragging his overall GPA down. An addendum to explain that outlier is perfect for this situation and we discuss striking the right tone in the addendum. (37:00)
The final email is from Alec and asks how to avoid “overthinking” in the Reading Comp section. Nathan is appalled at the idea of overthinking on the LSAT and encourages all test takers to leave their brains on for the entire test. (42:00)
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.
Nathan shares an email he received from David Faigman, Acting Chancellor and Dean of the University of California Hastings College of the Law. The email, sent to students and alumni of the program, discussed Hasting graduates’ “horrific result” on the July 2016 Bar exam. We talk about who and what is to blame for the low passage rate and what might be done to improve it. (2:36)
Arye asks the guys to explain why it’s better to read the question stimulus before reading the question stem. We discuss this and more from Arye, including score plateaus and preparing for the February LSAT. (12:35)
One of Nathan’s students recently took the LSAT in Mexico City and shares his impressions of the experience. He was very pleased with the helpful test proctors, less so with the restrooms, and completely mystified by the stickiness of his desk. (30:30)
Calvin emails to thank the show for test day tips he utilized while taking the December LSAT. Nathan’s insistence that there is no such thing as a “weird” Logic Game kept Calvin calm and confident when he encountered a new-looking game on the test. (31:48)
We continue working our way through the June 2007 LSAT with two more Logical Reasoning problems. To play at home just download the free test, work through Section 3, Questions 12 and 13, and listen in as we discuss the solutions in detail. (#12 at 37:20 and #13 at 49:06)
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.
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.
Phillipe (not his real name and probably not the horse from Beauty and the Beast…probably) is wondering whether he should quit his full time job so he can focus on studying for the LSAT. We both advise against this drastic plan and encourage Phillipe to focus on the quality of his study time rather than the quantity. He also asks for suggestions on managing stress and fatigue and we share some of our favorite techniques. (7:30)
Brett is a 30 year old professional who has a 3.65 GPA, a 164 average practice LSAT score, and a clean bill of health after recovering from surgery for kidney cancer in August. We’re so glad to hear you’re cancer-free! As he prepares for the December LSAT, Brett worries his application will be submitted too late to be considered for the big scholarships that he needs to attend law school. We talk about when applications are considered “late” and what that means for scholarship opportunities. Nathan counsels Brett on baller negotiating tactics, while Ben suggests he include his cancer story as an addendum to his application. (28:16)
We work on two Logical Reasoning problems from the June 2007 LSAT. To play at home just download the free test, work through Section 3, Questions 8 and 9, and listen in as we discuss the solutions in detail. (#8 at 52:20 and #9 at 1:05:02)
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.
Our TOPPODCAST Picks 
