LSAT BOSS with Shana Ginsburg, Esq.

In this episode, Shana and Trudel continue their Reading Comprehension review with a short but high-impact lesson on attitude and tone questions. Trudel also discusses some of the study skills she has been using while a 1L at Yale Law School, and Shana busts a myth about law school professors and the expectation that professors will teach fundamental concepts during class time.  If you're gearing up for your first year of law school, and struggle with executive functioning issues, you won't want to miss this one. 

Hosted by Shana Ginsburg, Esq., Founder and CEO of Ginsburg Advanced Tutoring. This podcast is developed by Shana Ginsburg. Music by Taha Ahmed. Sound editing by The Podcast Doctors.

Reading Comprehension passages will be about topics ranging from arts and humanities, economics, psychology, science and the law.  Each will have its own argument structure, and each structure supports and argument that builds from one paragraph to the next. So, knowing the structure of the argument will help you to not only identify the overall organization, but also to identify the role or purpose of each paragraph in the passage for role or purpose questions.

Shana and Trudel also talk about what makes a unique essay, and how anybody can write one, even if they don't have a singular outstanding academic or professional achievement.  

Hosted by Shana Ginsburg, Esq., Founder and CEO of Ginsburg Advanced Tutoring. This podcast is developed by Shana Ginsburg. Music by Taha Ahmed. Sound editing by The Podcast Doctors. 

In this episode, Shana and Trudel tackle inference questions in the Reading Comprehension section. In general, the goal of answering an inference question is to consider the correct answer as a new conclusion that stems from a claim or claims in the passage.  Treat the answer choice as a conclusion, and you’ll make your life much easier.   A conclusion is supported by and necessarily follows from the premises, which means that everything stated in the passage is potential premises that support the conclusion (inference) contained in the answer choice.  If it’s the right inference, then it will logically follow from a claim or claims in the passage itself. Shana & Trudel also bust myths about cramming before the LSAT, and why it's better to aim for consistent "electric" studying rather than aiming for the big cram. 

Hosted by Shana Ginsburg, Esq., Founder and CEO of Ginsburg Advanced Tutoring. This podcast is developed, edited and mixed by Shana Ginsburg. Music by Taha Ahmed.

Podcast listeners take 15% off our LSAT Boss course on Teachable with offer code GAT15 at checkout.

In this episode, Shana and guest host Trudel Pare bring you a very special episode in honor of Shana's grandmother, the Honorable Bess B. Lavine . Shana recounts her grandmother's legacy, a woman who broke through gender barriers, pushed for criminal justice reforms and mentored legal professionals including Shana's aunt, leading to the first mother-daughter judge teams in the country. (obituary at https://www.washingtonpost.com/obituaries/2022/10/05/bess-lavine-prince-georges-judge-dead/). 

Shana and Trudel also discuss what Trudel's experience has been like as a Yale 1L under a 1L pass/fail, no-grade grading system. 

Finally, the two dig into the next Reading Comprehension lesson, and discuss the different reading comprehension notetaking techniques that are available to readers with varying degrees of memory and recall abilities. Like Hansel and Gretel, you might want to start leaving breadcrumbs to mark your passage, too! 

Hosted by Shana Ginsburg, Esq., Founder and CEO of Ginsburg Advanced Tutoring. This podcast is developed, edited and mixed by Shana Ginsburg. Music by Taha Ahmed.

Podcast listeners take 15% off our LSAT Boss course on Teachable with offer code GAT15 at checkout.

In this final Logical Reasoning episode and final episode of Season 2, Shana and cohost Trudel tackle Resolve/Explain questions, and discuss whether what you wear when you study actually matters.

Resolve/explain questions are like riddles with only five possible solutions. Answers will provide an explanation as to how two things that are coexisting or correlating can be explained. Both matters must be addressed and resolved by the resolution you come up with. So a solution must address both elements: A and B

A correct answer will not just resolve an issue with element A.

A correct answer will not just resolve an issue with element B.

A correct answer will resolve the issues with both A and B.

Hosted by Shana Ginsburg, Esq., CEO of Ginsburg Advanced Tutoring. This podcast is developed, edited and mixed by Shana Ginsburg. Music by Taha Ahmed.

In this episode, Shana and Trudel  tackle Parallel the Flaw questions using Ginsburg Advanced's easy-to-learn "MITS" analysis. The two also discuss putting together Ginsburg's first TikTok video series since Covid, and analyze statistics about low visibility among disabled and LGBTQ associates in law firms.  

Mnemonic: MITS

The MITS mnemonic is designed to ensure you that you have checked for the different ways that the argument and the answer choice must parallel:

M Modifiers (adjectives, adverbs, prepositional phrases, that/which phrases)

I Intensifiers (degree of likelihood and degree of certainty language from the inference lessons) 7 Abductive reasoning is a form of logical inference which starts with an observation or set of observations then seeks to find the simplest and most likely explanation for the observations. This process yields a plausible conclusion but does not positively verify it. This is different than deductive reasoning, which yields a definite and verifiable conclusion. You will use deductive reasoning in the Logic Games section.

T Transition words [conjunctions (correlative; subordinating; coordinating), as well as transition words that denote cause/effect or illustration]

S Structure (ensuring that roles are in the same place in the reasoning of the argument, and that any logical or conditional sequences go in the same direction and are not reversals (the converse of an implication). Only contrapositives will maintain the same structure.

Hosted by Shana Ginsburg, Esq., CEO of Ginsburg Advanced Tutoring. This podcast is developed, edited and mixed by Shana Ginsburg. Music by Taha Ahmed.

In this episode, Shana and season 2 cohost Trudel discuss Parallel the Reasoning and Parallel the Flaw Questions. The pair also bust a pesky myth about not discussing events that happened before college in your personal statement, and also discuss why it can be a great idea to take a gap year, or two, or even more. 

Your goal for Parallel the Reasoning questions is to first establish the inductive reasoning of the stimulus.

Is it a causal, analogous, or data sampling argument structure?

Is it based on abductive reasoning,7,] requiring you to follow multiple steps in a line of reasoning to reach a probable conclusion?

Or does it establish a general rule, and an exception to that rule?

Answering those questions will allow you to establish how the argument is reasoned.

Then, you’re ready to find the argument’s parallel. Consider that the correct answer choice will be an analogous form of reasoning to the original argument (or stimulus).

Parallel arguments are, in a way, analogous. They rely on the assumption that the two scenarios (the original argument and the correct answer choice) must be similar with respect to their reasoning and argument structure.

Example: Suppose the reasoning of the argument is “making the case for the conclusion of one argument by showing the argument’s resemblance to another, presumably cogent, argument.”

Then the correct answer choice must be similar with respect to that type of reasoning.

An incorrect answer choice will state a different method of reasoning (i.e developing a case or attempting to show that a piece of reasoning is incorrect).

Mnemonic: MITS

The MITS mnemonic is designed to ensure you that you have checked for the different ways that the argument and the answer choice must parallel:

M Modifiers (adjectives, adverbs, prepositional phrases, that/which phrases)

I Intensifiers (degree of likelihood and degree of certainty language from the inference lessons) 7 Abductive reasoning is a form of logical inference which starts with an observation or set of observations then seeks to find the simplest and most likely explanation for the observations. This process yields a plausible conclusion but does not positively verify it. This is different than deductive reasoning, which yields a definite and verifiable conclusion. You will use deductive reasoning in the Logic Games section.

T Transition words [conjunctions (correlative; subordinating; coordinating), as well as transition words that denote cause/effect or illustration]

S Structure (ensuring that roles are in the same place in the reasoning of the argument, and that any logical or conditional sequences go in the same direction and are not reversals (the converse of an implication). Only contrapositives will maintain the same structure.

Hosted by Shana Ginsburg, Esq., CEO of Ginsburg Advanced Tutoring. This podcast is developed, edited and mixed by Shana Ginsburg. Music by Taha Ahmed.

Podcast listeners take 15% off our LSAT Boss course on Teachable with offer code GAT15 at checkout.

This is the second part of the Flaw lesson. Before listening, it is recommended that you listen to Season 2 Episode 11 first. 

In this episode, Shana and Trudel unpack Analogy, Data Sampling, and Sufficient/Necessary Conflation Flaws. They also bust myths about whether motivation is necessary in order to study for the LSAT, and whether getting approved  for LSAT accommodations means you will automatically be approved for law school accommodations as well.  

Flaw Pt. II Notes:  

Remember when we talked about Willy Wonka and the Golden Tickets in Season 1? If you recall, Charlie’s golden ticket to get into the Chocolate Factory was both a necessary and sufficient condition. Why? Because he needed the ticket to enter, however, it was not the only ticket given out—there were five given out. It would be accurate to say that “If Charlie doesn’t lose his golden ticket, then he can enter the Chocolate Factory.” But, it would not be accurate to say “Only if Charlie doesn’t lose his golden ticket will he be able to enter the factory.” Why? Because there are 4 other tickets, and if he’s really lucky, maybe he can find one of the others. Here’s how that would look symbolically: 

GT 1 → CF

(Golden Ticket #1) → Get to enter the Chocolate Factory 

It would be a flaw or error in the reasoning to simply negate the conditional statement above: 

~GT 1 → ~CF 

Why is this flawed? Because if Charlie has GT2, GT3, GT4, or GT5, he can still get into the Chocolate Factory.

Thus, a negation of sufficient condition creates a flawed necessary condition, which is not true. You will see an answer choice to reflect this that takes the following form: “...takes a condition that by itself makes an action possible, to also be necessary in order for the action to be possible.”

Hosted by Shana Ginsburg, Esq., CEO of Ginsburg Advanced Tutoring. This podcast is developed, edited and mixed by Shana Ginsburg. Music by Taha Ahmed.

Podcast listeners take 15% off our LSAT Boss course on Teachable with offer code GAT15 at checkout.

In this lesson, Shana and Trudel introduce you to LSAT Logical Reasoning Flaw questions, and bust the myth that "The February LSAT is THE HARDEST LSAT".  Simply not true. 

Flaw Notes:

A flaw is a fault in an argument that impairs the quality of its logical reasoning. In causal arguments, the flaw is found in the causal assumption, and often will reverse the cause and effect or create causation where there isn’t any.

In arguments by analogy, the flaw will illogically relate two groups or ideas whose differences are significant and being ignored.

In data sampling arguments, the flaw will often be found in how the survey was conducted and highlight a human error or a sample that misrepresents a whole.

A flawed causal argument will contain a flaw in the assumption; it will establish causation when there is merely correlation, or, it will establish only one cause when there is clearly more than one cause. Any time you have two things merely present or coexisting in the premise, and then you find a conclusion connecting them through a causal relationship, you will likely have a correlation/causation flaw. The correlation/causation flaw takes on three possible forms:

A. Correlation/Causation Confusion a. Example: If evidence suggests that people who snore have throat damage, a flawed argument might conclude that snoring causes throat damage, although the evidence only suggests a relationship (that snoring and throat damage are both traits of certain individuals). An answer choice might say: “The argument takes for granted that because certain characteristics are present whenever a condition occurs, those characteristics are a cause of that condition.” b. Example: Suppose an argument states that negative news reports cause damage to people’s confidence, which in turn can decrease the willingness of people to spend money

(A → B → C ). Then, it would be a flaw to say that a correlation between B and C couldn’t exist, without B and C being wrapped up in a conditional causal argument. Here, the correct answer choice will open the door to the possibility that B relates to C for reasons other than A, such as “people who have little confidence in the overall economy generally take a pessimistic view concerning their own immediate economic situations.” See Preptest 65 Section 1 #17.

c. Example: Suppose studies show a negative correlation between diet A and disease B, and suppose to conform to diet A you have to eat things within diet A that may also include non-diet-A foods (like a higher-fiber diet that also increases your calcium intake). To conclude that diet A directly causes a change in the incidence of disease B is a flaw. The reason why is because other non-diet-A foods (like high-calcium foods) could have just as easily caused the change in incidence of disease B.

Hosted by Shana Ginsburg, Esq., CEO of Ginsburg Advanced Tutoring. This podcast is developed, edited and mixed by Shana Ginsburg. Music by Taha Ahmed.

Podcast listeners take 15% off our LSAT Boss course on Teachable with offer code GAT15 at checkout.

Today's episode is Part II of our Inference lesson. We recommend starting with S2E9 before beginning this episode.

In today's episode, Shana and Trudel return to discuss the complexities of inference questions and go step-by-step through two inference practice questions. They also bust a myth about accommodations for students who suffer from Post Concussion Syndrome, and another myth about applying as early as possible for law school (without first securing a good LSAT score). 

Practice Questions: 

1. Modest amounts of studying can produce a dramatic improvement in your LSAT score. One should study most days of the week, but one need only do the equivalent of 45 minutes of untimed test questions to obtain studying benefits. More vigorous studying is more effective, but long study sessions are not absolutely necessary.

Which one of the following is most strongly supported by the statements above?

A. Having a long study session most days of the week can produce a dramatic improvement in your LSAT score

B. Doing the equivalent of an hour of untimed test questions two or three days a week generally produces dramatic improvements in LSAT scores.

C. It is possible to obtain at least as great an improvement in an LSAT score from doing the equivalent of 45 minutes of untimed test prep most days of the week as from having lengthier study sessions most days of the week.

D. Aside from studying, there is no way to improve your LSAT score.

E. To obtain a dramatic improvement in one’s LSAT score, one must study vigorously through lengthy study sessions at least occasionally

2. Cheerleading coach: Compared to many other gymnastic sports, cheerleading is highly risky. Failing to communicate with your spotters as a flyer often leads to poor falls, loss of points, or even injuries. Such communication failure is very likely to occur when young cheerleaders try to emulate the high tosses of more experienced flyers.

Which one of the following is most strongly supported by the statements above?

A. Experienced flyers are unlikely to fall, loose style points, or experience injury from communication failures.

B. To reduce the risk of falls and injuries, young cheerleaders should avoid trying to emulate the high tosses of more experienced flyers.

C. Young cheerleaders will not experience falls or have any injuries if they avoid trying to match the high tosses of more experienced flyers.

D. Cheerleading is more risky than other gymnastic sports that do not involve high tosses.

E. Most young cheerleaders fall and experience injuries from trying to emulate the high tosses of more experienced cheerleaders.

Hosted by Shana Ginsburg, Esq., CEO of Ginsburg Advanced Tutoring. This podcast is developed, edited and mixed by Shana Ginsburg. Music by Taha Ahmed.

Podcast listeners take 15% off our LSAT Boss course on Teachable with offer code GAT15 at checkout.

Inference questions ask you to analyze the logical reasoning of an argument and determine what other information necessarily follows from it. To determine what necessarily follows, or flows, from the argument, you’ll need to learn formal logical reasoning inference rules. These rules are the backbone of an argument, and understanding them can refine your approach to question types we learned in earlier lessons.

Inference: A conclusion reached on the basis of evidence and reasoning.

Note how similar the definition of an inference is the definition of a conclusion:

Conclusion: A statement that necessarily follows from the stated and unstated premises.

Notice how a conclusion flows from the premises—or evidence—but an inference flows from evidence AND reasoning. So what does it mean to flow from reasoning? Let’s learn some formal logic:

Modus Ponens: a deductive reasoning inference rule of logic stating that if a conditional statement (“if p then q ”) is accepted, and the antecedent ( p ) holds, then the consequent ( q ) may be inferred.

Example: If I sit hunched over my desk, I will likely end up with back pain. I sat hunched over my desk for five hours. So, I may end up with back pain.

Symbolization:

P → Q

P

---------

Q

Modus Tollens: the inference rule of logic stating that if a conditional statement (“if p then q ”) is accepted, and the consequent does not hold ( not-q or ~q ), then the negation of the antecedent ( not-p or ~q) can be inferred.

Example: If I sit hunched over my desk, I will likely end up with back pain. I did not end up with back pain today. So I must have not sat hunched over my desk.

Symbolization:

P → Q

~Q

----------

~P

Modus Tollendo Ponens (aka disjunction syllogism): A valid form of argument in which the antecedent (p) of a conditional proposition (Either p or q) is negated (~p), thereby entailing the affirmation of the consequent (q).

Example: Either I am going to watch Bordertown on Netflix, or I’m going to watch The Good Fight because my eyes are too tired to handle the subtitles. My eyes are too tired for the subtitles in Bordertown, therefore, I’m going to watch The Good Fight.

Symbolization:

P v Q

~P

______

Q

Hosted by Shana Ginsburg, Esq., CEO of Ginsburg Advanced Tutoring. This podcast is developed, edited and mixed by Shana Ginsburg. Music by Taha Ahmed.

Podcast listeners take 30% off our LSAT Boss course on Teachable with offer code SALE30 at checkout.

I love this Admissions Love Story, because it's the gift that keeps on giving. Ali and Claudia first met at the beginning of their pre-law journey in 2018. Fast forward to September 2020, and Ali has generated a 21-point LSAT score improvement -- but equally amazing-- a 1.0 UGPA increase.  While he waits for his acceptance letters to roll in, we recorded an interview about his journey and caught up with Claudia Ryan, who, at the time, was preparing for her Criminal Law midterm exam.  

A month later, we now bring you this episode with exciting news: Claudia  received the highest grade in the class!

You may know her as the Season 1 cohost of the LSAT Boss podcast, but back in 2019, Claudia was a pre-law student working with Ginsburg Admissions to prepare her personal statement and ensure that she was applying to the schools that were the best fit for her.  Baltimore ended up accepting Claudia with a sizable scholarship, and it turns out to be an even more perfect fit than she had expected.  It's not too easy. It's not too hard. To Claudia, it's the Goldilocks of law schools. And she's here to tell you why.

Season 2 of LSAT Boss picks up where we left off, only without Claudia Ryan who is on hiatus while she begins law school. Our new guest cohost is Trudel Pare, who will be helping us break down the rest of the logical reasoning lessons. Trudel, a Ginsburg Advanced Tutoring graduate, scored a 177 on the July LSAT and shares her wisdom on mastering the content, test strategies, and mental clarity techniques on her road to a near-perfect score. 

This lesson is devoted to the assumption, and how to create the causal argument assumption—the assumption that connects the causal premises of an argument to its overall conclusion.

Assumption Definition:  An unstated premise that is accepted as true or as certain to happen, without proof.

The Assumption Strategy:

1. Identify the Conclusion

2. Identify the Premises

3. Prephrase the Causal Assumption (Every assumption can be prephrased by taking the conclusion and connecting it back to the premise. There are five ways you can make these connections in a prephrase of the assumption. We'll take a look.)

4. Apply Process of Elimination Tests

The 4-part assumption strategy contains two steps you already know how to do- identify the conclusion, and identify the premise. The next steps are explained in this lesson.

This is the second of a two-part episode on Inductive Arguments. Be sure to start with S1E3 before listening to this one. In this episode, Shana discuss arguments by analogy and data sampling arguments, why you can sometimes assume that young students and older students will become similarly anxious in certain situations, and why you wouldn't want to take a survey of only college lacrosse players if you wanted to determine the social media preferences of all college-age students. 

This is Part I of a two-part lecture on Inductive Arguments. For Part II, continue on to S1E5. 

The funny thing about inductive arguments is that they often don’t establish their conclusions with 100% certainty; while they have some degree of truth regarding the veracity of the conclusion, they always inherently have the possibility of having their conclusion invalidated. This is often the case because the premises they rely upon to support their conclusions are chock-full of observational or circumstantial evidence, which is never fully reliable. The lack of 100% certainty is the basis for the variety of question types you will see on the Logical Reasoning section of the LSAT. You’ll have to find conclusions, identify the roles of the premises and conclusions in the argument, and mind that lack of certainty when you need to strengthen its Achilles’ heel or exploit it to weaken it. Or, maybe you can spot the open wound of the argument and just note its flaw, without having to pour salt on it and weaken it as well.