Ready to study the right way? We incorporate the latest discoveries in learning science into our LSAT course to maximize the efficiency and effectiveness of your prep. Want to see? Try the first session of any of our upcoming courses for free.
While the LSAT tests a variety of concepts, three Logical Reasoning structures show up more often than all others. We call them the 3 Cs:
- Conditional Logic
Why are these so ubiquitous on the LSAT? A couple reasons. First, they’re common concepts in the study of logic, so it only makes sense that they’d show up on an exam that tests logical reasoning capabilities. Also, they allow you to make inferences. All three types of logic can cause multiple statements to overlap, resulting in valid arguments building off of simpler premises.
Finally, most people are terrible at dealing with the logical flaws associated with these reasoning structures. Read a murder mystery and the author is preying on your logical shortcomings to hide the solution. Ads sell you products you don’t need using logic that our brains aren’t equipped to deal with. And politicians…don’t get me started on how they exploit the flaws associated with these concepts to manipulate voters. (Unless they don’t know that they’re making invalid arguments themselves. Which is…just as scary.)
Today, we’re going to check in with comparisons, and we’re going to look at two quick ways the LSAT tests their application.
It’s All Relative
There’s a difference between relative and absolute statements.
For example, just because Shaq is shorter than Dikembe Mutumbo doesn’t mean Shaq is short. He’s quite tall. And just because ice cream is healthier than a stick of butter doesn’t make it healthy.
In short, if the LSAT tries to jump between relative and absolute terms, then it’s committing a flaw, and you should look for an answer that reflects it.
Is This the Best LSAT Blog Post Ever?
I made a bold claim in the title of this blog post. Are you all convinced yet?
You shouldn’t be.
I haven’t successfully argued that this is the best LSAT blog post!
So let me add some premises. This blog post talks about comparisons. It does so in an easily understandable manner. It will help you answer questions on the LSAT.
You should have come up with two major shortcomings of my argument:
- It doesn’t establish the criteria for what would make up the best blog post ever.
- It doesn’t discuss these criteria for other blog posts, which are inherently related to whether or not this blog post can be the best blog post (meaning better than all the rest).
Any time a comparison is made on the LSAT—even if implicit (after all, my headline doesn’t reference any other blog posts explicitly)—the two above bullets have to be addressed.
So a valid argument about this blog post?
The best LSAT blog post ever will help readers answer questions on the LSAT, be easily readable, and be written by a dashingly handsome individual.
This blog post, unlike all others, will help readers answer questions on the LSAT and is easily readable. And, well, just check out that photo below. (Please, stop laughing…)
Now I’ve established the criteria for the comparison and brought up the relevant features of this blog post and all other blog posts. After all that, I’m able to draw the conclusion about this blog post.
So congrats on finishing the best LSAT blog post ever! 📝
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.
Matt Shinners is a Manhattan Prep instructor and jdMission Senior Consultant based in New York City. After receiving a degree in Biochemistry from Boston College, Matt scored a 180 on his LSAT and enrolled in Harvard Law School. There’s nothing that makes him happier than seeing his students receive the scores they want to get into the schools of their choice. Check out Matt’s upcoming LSAT courses here!