Did you know that you can attend the first session of any of our online or in-person LSAT courses absolutely free? We’re not kidding! Check out our upcoming courses here.
This post will be the first of a series exploring the June 2007 LSAT in detail. Each post will examine a few questions from that test at a time. My goal is to demonstrate where hidden opportunities lie; then, using this analysis as a template, you can find those hidden opportunities in other practice tests. And, of course, find them on test day!
Why the June 2007 LSAT? Because this is the LSAT all potential test takers can freely access, this is where most test takers probably begin their prep. And I want to give you some help from the ground up, so to speak!
When I was considering where I should start my post, I wanted to begin with the greatest point potential: the area of the test that, by itself, can unlock huge score gains. There’s really only one option: Logical Reasoning.
(Did you think I was going to say Logic Games? Nope—least number of questions of any section type. LR is where it’s at.)
And for this post, I think we’ll look at those questions that everyone loves to skip. The “oh my god, I’ve got to skip this” questions come in several different flavors, but they tend to have one common element: they’re long! They look intimidating…but often have very direct analysis options.
Before reading further, I recommend you pull up the test, and try Section 2 #2, 7, and 12.
All three of these questions involve some type of “mirroring” task: #2 asks you to match the reasoning, #7 asks you to match the ethicist’s statement, and #12 again asks you to match the reasoning.
Which means we’re going to match the terms. In each of these types of questions, you can often make a surprising amount of progress merely identifying the key terms, phrases, or structures in the prompt, and selecting a choice which contains the most similar terms, phrases, or sentence structures.
#2: Match the reasoning means match the conclusion. And they’ve even given a nice “therefore” to jog us along! We want to find a choice that says _________ is a moderate _________, as closely as possible.
- _________ makes somewhat ___________
- _________ is moderately ___________
- Some ______ live in ______ and some live in _________
- _______ knows both ________ and ________
- Half _________ are _________ and half are ____________
Which choice is the most similar? I’d go with B and move on—it’s certainly not a guarantee, but it’s definitely the closest match.
#7: What is are the elements the ethicist focuses on? Abstract principles good, self-interest or social norms bad. Let’s check off the choices!
- Not wanting to look stingy sounds like self-interest. Out.
- Improve your employer’s opinion…self-interest. Out.
- Fear of employer retaliation…self-interest. Out.
- Belief about protecting the environment. Looks good!
- Pressure from colleagues…social norms? Not as good as D, definitely. Out.
#12: Oh wow. They gave us another “therefore”! (Important note: the word “therefore” does NOT guarantee you’ve found the conclusion. But if you’re pushed for time, it’s as good a tool to use as any.) __________ cannot be both _____________ and ____________.
- ________________cannot be both _______________ and ____________.
- Some __________ must _________
- __________ risk ___________
- Either __________ did not _________ or _________ did not __________
- ______________ will have to keep ____________
Yeah, I’ve got to go with A on this one.
Does this kind of breakdown always work? Of course not. Does it work often enough that I use it? Better believe it! Want to learn even more about Logical Reasoning? Check out our Logical Reasoning Strategy Guide.
Finally, since this will be a continuing series, I’m more than happy to take requests in the comments!
In the next installment of this series, we’ll focus on picking up the pace by examining the first 5-6 questions of Section 2 of the June 2007 LSAT. 📝
The best way to master the LSAT is through our Complete Course. Don’t forget that you can attend the first session of any of our online or in-person LSAT courses absolutely free. We’re not kidding! Check out our upcoming courses here.
Chris Gentry is a Manhattan Prep LSAT, GMAT, and GRE instructor who lives in Atlanta, Georgia (and absolutely loves his city; he has family ties that go back over 150 years). Chris received both his Bachelor of Science in chemical engineering from Clemson and JD from Emory University School of Law before realizing that he genuinely enjoys the challenge of standardized tests, and his true passion is teaching. Chris’ dual-pronged approach to understanding each test question has helped countless of his students to achieve their goal scores. What are you waiting for? Check out Chris’ upcoming LSAT courses here.