Welcome to LSAT Logical Reasoning, the Argument-Type Playbook. I'm Adrian Calloway. For years I was a litigator, and now I coach the part of the LSAT that, honestly, decides most people's scores. Over this course we're going to take Logical Reasoning apart one question type at a time, and put it back together as something you can do on demand, under a clock. And I'm Nora Ashford. I took this test not that long ago, studied on my own, clawed my way into the 170s. So I remember exactly where this stuff stops making sense. My job here is to be you, the listener. When Adrian skips a step, I'm going to make him go back and fill it in. Which she does, relentlessly. Here's the deal with this course. It's finite. Twelve episodes, each one a specific skill, and then you're done. Think of it as the review and recall layer. You listen, the patterns sink in, and then you go drill real timed questions in a question bank. Audio plus a question bank. That's the combination that actually moves a score. Neither one alone does it. So today, episode one, we lay the foundation everything else sits on. Two things. How the test actually works now, because it changed. And then the single most important habit in all of Logical Reasoning, which is learning to see the skeleton hiding inside any argument. So before arguments, set the table for me. If someone's been away from this for a few years, what does the LSAT even look like today? It changed in a way that really matters for this course. The old LSAT had a section everyone called Logic Games, officially Analytical Reasoning, the one with the diagramming puzzles. As of August 2024, it's gone. Permanently. Gone gone. Not coming back. Not coming back. And here's the part that matters. They didn't just delete it. They replaced it with a second section of Logical Reasoning. So the scored test today is three sections that count. Two are Logical Reasoning, one is Reading Comprehension. There's also a fourth, unscored section they use to try out future questions, and you won't know which one it is on the day. Each section is thirty-five minutes, the whole thing runs about three hours, and your score lands between 120 and 180. And the writing part everyone worries about? Required, you do it separately from test day, and it is not scored. So we are not going to spend your time on it. Okay. So two of the three scored sections are Logical Reasoning. Which is exactly why this course exists. And let me put the leverage in actual numbers, because it's bigger than people realize. Say you get just three more questions right per section. You now have two LR sections, so that's a six-question swing on your raw score. On the scaled score, that is a big jump. Way more than squeezing one more right answer out of a dense reading passage. Logical Reasoning is the highest-leverage real estate on the entire test. Six questions out of one skill. Okay, I'm sold. So how do we start winning them? We start by noticing one thing. Almost every Logical Reasoning question hands you a little argument. And I don't mean an argument like a fight. I mean it in the logic sense. Someone is trying to convince you of something, and they're giving you reasons. And every one of those arguments has the same three-part skeleton underneath it. A conclusion, some premises, and an assumption. Find those three fast, and you are most of the way to the answer, no matter what the question goes on to ask you. Say what each one is, as plainly as you can. The conclusion is the main point, the thing they want you to believe. The premises are the support, the reasons they offer. And the assumption is the part they don't say out loud, the leap from the reasons to the point. Claim, support, and the unstated gap between them. Claim, support, gap. And you're telling me every argument has all three, even when it doesn't feel like it? Especially when it doesn't feel like it. Let's prove it. Small argument. The new cafe on Elm Street must be doing well. Its tables are full every time I walk past, and they just hired three more people. Nora, what's the conclusion? The cafe is doing well. How did you know? Be honest about the move you just made in your head. Honestly? It just felt like the headline. The full tables and the hiring felt like the evidence for it, not the point itself. That instinct has a name. We call it the Why Test. Take the sentence you think is the conclusion and ask, why should I believe that? If the other sentences answer the why, you've found your conclusion. Why is the cafe doing well? Because the tables are full and they're hiring. The reasons point up at the claim. And there are signal words too, right? Therefore, thus, that kind of thing. There are. Therefore, thus, hence, so, consequently tend to sit in front of conclusions. Because, since, for, given that tend to sit in front of premises. Use them, but don't trust them blindly. A therefore can introduce a smaller, intermediate conclusion that isn't the main point. And here's a trap the test writers love. They'll hide the real conclusion in the middle of the paragraph, often right after a contrast word. You'll see something like, many people believe the cafe is struggling. However, that view is mistaken. That phrase, however that view is mistaken, that's the conclusion, buried in the middle and dressed up as a throwaway. So don't just grab the first or last sentence. Ask which sentence everything else is supporting. Right. So, clues, not rules. The Why Test settles it, and watch the middle for a however. Once you've got the conclusion, the premises are easy. They're whatever is left that's doing the supporting. In the cafe argument, the premises are, the tables are full, and, they hired three people. So the premises are just the reasons. The stuff you'd naturally put after the word because. Exactly. And build this habit. In your head, restate the whole thing as, because premises, therefore conclusion. Because the tables are full and they're hiring, therefore the cafe is doing well. If that sentence holds together, you've got the structure right. I'll tell you, when I say it out loud like that, the argument suddenly sounds, um, shaky. Like, full tables, sure, but that doesn't automatically mean... Hold onto that feeling. That shaky feeling is the single most valuable instinct on this entire test, and it is pointing you straight at the third piece of the skeleton. The assumption is the unstated leap. The argument jumps from, tables are full and they're hiring, all the way to, the cafe is doing well. And it needs something to be true to make that jump work. Like, that full tables actually means money. But a cafe could be full of people nursing one coffee for two hours and buying nothing. Right. Or the hiring means they're desperate because everyone just quit, not that they're thriving. The argument quietly assumes full tables and new hiring are signs of a healthy business. It never says it. It needs it. That is the assumption. The bridge between the support and the claim. And the LSAT basically lives in that gap. It lives in that gap. Almost every question type we'll cover is just a different way of poking at the assumption. A weaken question hands you a fact that breaks the bridge. A strengthen question reinforces it. An assumption question asks you to name the bridge out loud. Find the gap, and you know what the question is really about before you even read the answer choices. Let's do a couple fast, and you drive. First one. Our neighborhood should add more bike racks. Two new apartment buildings opened this year, and both have tenants who cycle to work. Conclusion? Conclusion, we should add more bike racks. Premise, two new buildings with tenants who cycle. And the gap, it's assuming those cyclists will actually use public outdoor racks. Maybe they keep their bikes inside their apartments, or the racks we already have are sitting half empty. Fast and clean. Next one. The town should put speed bumps on Maple Avenue. Last year there were twelve traffic accidents on Maple, more than on any other street in town. Walk the skeleton. Conclusion, install speed bumps on Maple. Premise, twelve accidents last year, the most in town. And the gap, it's assuming speed is what's causing the accidents and that bumps would fix it. But maybe it's a badly designed intersection, or ice in winter. Or, here's the big one, maybe Maple is just the busiest street in town, so of course it racks up the most accidents. That is a clean dissection. And notice, you found several assumptions, and each one is a place the test could attack. Maple is just the busiest street would weaken it. A study showing speed bumps cut accidents in half would strengthen it. You didn't memorize a single rule. You found the skeleton and the gaps fell right out. And it took, what, fifteen seconds each once I knew to look for the three parts. That's the episode. The skeleton is three things. The conclusion, the main claim. The premises, the support. And the assumption, the unstated bridge between them. Find those three on every argument, and every question type from here on is just a variation on poking that bridge. Homework from me, since I'm the student of the two of us. Next time you read anything, a headline, an ad, a hot take in your group chat, find the conclusion and find the gap. Do it enough and it becomes automatic. And automatic is the whole goal, because on test day you do not have time to think this hard from scratch. Well put. Next episode we go one level deeper, into the language the test is quietly built on. Conditional logic. If-then statements, the words unless and only if, and the one move, the contrapositive, that the test rewards more than almost anything else. It sounds dry. It is worth more points than anything else we'll do. Bring your if-thens. And remember, this is the review layer. Go put these three parts to work on real, timed questions in a question bank. We'll see you in episode two.
Audio Coursesby Jellypod