I have been an LSAT tutor since 2012. My methods enabled me to score a 175 on this challenging exam, and my students frequently break 160. Below are a few features which help define my LSAT tutoring style.
• Emphasis on logical fundamentals: Understanding the basic rules of logic is crucial throughout the LSAT, especially in Logical Reasoning. I can help you learn converses, contrapositives, and other concepts with easy-to-remember examples and multiple diagramming options.
• Advice on how to process answer choices efficiently: Timing is one of the major LSAT challenges, and you can’t save much time by trying to read questions more quickly. However, you can save lots of time by processing answer choices in a strategic way. I can help you build this important skill.
•Flexibility and creativity: A good LSAT tutor should be able to work largely within your mental framework, only overhauling your approach when absolutely necessary. I will find methods and explanations that work for you, even if they are somewhat nonstandard.
Visit my testimonials page to get a better idea of what working with me is like.
Looking for a challenge? Below are a couple Logical Reasoning questions and solutions I have composed. They give you some insight into how I approach LSAT tutoring.
The tax code requires each citizen of Country X to submit a completed tax form by April 1st unless that citizen files an extension request by March 31st and the extension request is approved. If an extension request is filed by March 31st and is approved the tax code permits the citizen filing the request to submit the completed tax form as late as October 1st. If an extension request is filed by March 31st and is accompanied by a note from a physician verifying the requesting citizen’s serious illness, the extension request will be approved. Any extension request found to be frivolous will not be approved, and the requesting citizen will be subject to a fine.
If the above statements are true, which of the following must also be true?
(A) If an extension request is accompanied by a note from a doctor explaining that the requesting citizen does not have a serious illness, the extension request will not be approved.
(B) If a citizen does not file an extension request by March 31st and does not submit a completed tax form by April 1st, that citizen will be subject to a fine.
(C) If an extension request is not approved, it was found to be frivolous.
(D) If an extension request is filed by March 31st and is found to be frivolous, it was not accompanied by a note from a physician verifying the requesting citizen’s serious illness.
(E) If an extension request is not found to be frivolous it will be approved unless it was not filed by March 31st.
Notice that, in general, if X -> Z and Y -> ~Z, then X and Y are incompatible, since Z cannot both occur and not occur. So in this situation, X -> ~Y and Y -> ~X. Consider answer choice D: If an extension request is filed by March 31st and is found to be frivolous, it will not be approved. Meanwhile, if an extension request is filed by March 31st and is accompanied by a note from a physician verifying the serious illness, it will be approved. So, for an extension request filed by March 31st, the finding of frivolity and the inclusion of a physician’s verification lead to contradictory outcomes, and hence cannot both occur. So if we know the request was found to be frivolous, it cannot possibly have been accompanied by the physician’s note verifying the serious illness. D is correct.
Answer choice A confuses necessary and sufficient conditions: We know a doctor’s note explaining that the requester is seriously ill is sufficient for the extension, but it might not be necessary. We don’t know what other conditions might also lead to extension approval. B results from misreading the question: The fine is the penalty for filing a frivolous extension request. We don’t know the penalty for failing to submit the tax form on time. C again takes a sufficient condition to be necessary: Filing a frivolous request is sufficient for rejection, but there might be other reasons for a request to be rejected. Hence, just because a request was rejected, we cannot say for sure that it was frivolous. As always, necessary/sufficient confusion can also be understood as an instance of the converse fallacy: “frivolous” -> “rejection” does not mean “rejection” -> “frivolous.” E takes a necessary condition to be sufficient, claiming that if an extension request is not found to be frivolous and is filed on time, it will be approved. However, we do not know what other conditions might be required in order for an extension request to be approved; apart from the physician’s note, the question does not specify any scenarios in which approval is guaranteed.
For as long as Physics 137 has been offered, most students who have taken Physics 137 have first received a B or better in Math 110. Although Math 110 is not a formal prerequisite for Physics 137, the physics department recommends that students taking Physics 137 have a good understanding of several of the concepts covered in Math 110. This year the physics department has asked the math department to design a streamlined course that covers only the Math 110 concepts most relevant to Physics 137. However, the math department has pointed out that since designing this new course would interfere with other math courses, and since most students who have taken Math 110 never take Physics 137 anyway, designing and teaching the new course should be the responsibility of the physics department.
If the above statements are true, which of the following must also be true?
(A) The majority of students who have received a B or better in Math 110 eventually take Physics 137.
(B) The majority of students who have received a B or better in Physics 137 first received a B or better in Math 110.
(C) If the math department designs the new course requested by the physics department, the number of students taking Math 110 will decline.
(D) At some point in the past, Math 110 was offered but not Physics 137.
(E) The total number of students who have taken Math 110 is greater than the total number of students who have taken Physics 137.
We know most students who have taken Physics 137 first received a B or better in Math 110, so we know most students who have taken Physics 137 have taken Math 110. However, we also know most students who haven taken Math 110 never take Physics 137. Thus, the students who have taken both Math 110 and Physics 137 constitute a majority of students who have taken Physics 137, but a minority of students who have taken Math 110. This can only happen if the set of students who have taken Math 110 is larger than the set of students who have taken Physics 137. E is correct.
A is not necessarily true. In general, just because most members of Set X are members of Set Y, we cannot infer that most members of Set Y are members of Set X. In the present case, most students who have taken Physics 137 have gotten a B or better in Math 110, but this doesn’t mean most students who have gotten a B or better in Math 110 ever take Physics 137. Note also that A is not necessarily false: We know most Math 110 students never take Physics 137, but this might not be true of the Math 110 students who specifically received a B or better. Answer choice B is plausible but cannot strictly be inferred. We know the majority of Physics 137 students overall received a B or better in Math 110, but not necessarily a majority of the subset of Physics 137 students who received a B or better in Physics 137. C is plausible but, again, cannot be inferred. The new course would likely detract from Math 110 enrollment, but there might be other forces (for instance, a similar math course getting cancelled, a general increase in students taking math, etc.) that would counteract this decline. D might seem plausible since Math 110 seems to be more fundamental than Physics 137, but there is nothing in the question to support this statement.