LSAT BOSS with Shana Ginsburg, Esq. – Details, episodes & analysis

We're back! In Season 4, we're shifting away from the LSAT and to address a crucial gap in the pre-law process: pre-law advising. This season focuses entirely on filling the void left by a lack of pre-law societies and advising at many schools, especially as it relates to students with disabilities.

This premiere episode explores whether there is an ideal major for pre-law students. Our straightforward answer? No. Join us as we speak with our alumni about their own experiences in their pre-law journey.

Learn about our accommodations service, admissions consulting, LSAT and law school tutoring and our LSAT BOSS live remote classes at www.ginsburgadvancedtutoring.com.

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.

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

Ginsburg Advanced Tutoring is a full-service tutoring, accommodations and admissions company designed to support the needs of the anything-but-average student. For tutoring and accommodations inquiries, find us on the web at ginsburgadvancedtutoring.com or email us at hello@ginsburgadvancedtutoring.com.
Like what you hear? Leave us a review!

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.

Ginsburg Advanced Tutoring is a full-service tutoring, accommodations and admissions company designed to support the needs of the anything-but-average student.  For tutoring and accommodations inquiries, find us on the web at ginsburgadvancedtutoring.com or email us at hello@ginsburgadvancedtutoring.com.

Like what you hear? Leave us a review!

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.

Ginsburg Advanced Tutoring is a full-service tutoring, accommodations and admissions company designed to support the needs of the anything-but-average student.  For tutoring and accommodations inquiries, find us on the web at ginsburgadvancedtutoring.com or email us at hello@ginsburgadvancedtutoring.com.

Like what you hear? Leave us a review!

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.

Ginsburg Advanced Tutoring is a full-service tutoring, accommodations and admissions company designed to support the needs of the anything-but-average student.  For tutoring and accommodations inquiries, find us on the web at ginsburgadvancedtutoring.com or email us at hello@ginsburgadvancedtutoring.com.

Like what you hear? Leave us a review!

In today's episode, Shana and Trudel unpack weakening questions, and bust myths about why 'liking' an answer is never a good reason to select it, and why a 'blind review' is not a learning strategy and something to be used with caution. 

We'll consider weakening questions through the same lens as strengthening: Consider the case of a woman who sues a school system because she is rear-ended by a school bus on her way to work. After the accident, the woman has a back surgery totaling $200,000.00, so she sues the school system for damages. The underlying assumption of her argument is: “Because I was rear-ended by the school bus, I needed a $200,000.00 back surgery.” As her attorney, your job would be to prove that, more likely than not, the accident was the only cause of the surgery. You would have to strengthen the underlying assumption, and eliminate any other cause for the surgery.

However, as an attorney for the school system, your job would be to prove that something other than the accident cause the need for the back surgery. If you can prove that the back surgery was scheduled before the accident, that would weaken the assumption. 

We'll also tackle the following question along the way:

Harriet, a Kindergartener, was once given a bin of toys by her school teacher after the

more assertive children had wandered off. In her delight, she let out a series of loud

squeals. The other children returned and took the toys away. The next day, Harriet was

again alone and was given a single toy. This time, however, she didn’t make a sound.

Her teacher concluded that Harriet’s silence was a strategy to keep the other children

from her toys.

Which one of the following, if true, most accurately weakens Harriet’s teacher’s

conclusion?

(A) Children make delighted squeals only when their favorite items are available.

(B) Children make delighted squeals only when they encounter a sizable variety of

toys.

(C) Children frequently take items from other children merely to assert dominance.

(D) Even when they are alone, children often make noises that appear to be signals

to other children.

(E) Toys are a type of item for which all children in Harriet’s class show a decided

preference.

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.

Ginsburg Advanced Tutoring is a full-service tutoring, accommodations and admissions company designed to support the needs of the anything-but-average student.  For tutoring and accommodations inquiries, find us on the web at ginsburgadvancedtutoring.com or email us at hello@ginsburgadvancedtutoring.com.  

Like what you hear? Leave us a review! 

Well, future law student,  if you're not yet sure what your test performance will look like, you may be struggling with some very uncomfortable and intrusive thoughts about what your test-day future holds. Often, these thoughts can be exacerbated by listening to other people talk about what you "must" do and when you '"must" take the test to be considered a good candidate. But, the short answer to this question of when the best time to take the LSAT is answered in today's episode. 

Strengthening questions are the first question type in the Logical Reasoning section of the LSAT that make you start thinking like an attorney.  The best strengthening answer choice will: a. Eliminate a possible alternate cause; or b. Eliminate a possible alternate effect; or c. Give more evidence linking the stated possible cause with the stated effect; or d. Bluntly support the assumption. In a causal argument, the answer choice would support the assumption that “nothing other than A (the cause) caused B (the effect).” Today's Practice Question: 1. Among men with broad shoulders, a large proportion do not even work out: They don’t do any cardiovascular exercises, don’t lift weights, and don’t do any manual labor that requires heavy lifting. Since such activity often leads to broader shoulders, it is likely that men with the broadest shoulders are genetically disposed to having a broader skeletal structure. Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument? (A) There is some evidence that engaging in some upper-body exercise can broaden anyone’s shoulders. (B) Some of the men with the broadest shoulders don’t do any cardiovascular exercises, but they do lift weights and have manual labor jobs that require heavy lifting. (C) Some of the men with the broadest shoulders do daily cardiovascular exercises, but they do not lift weights or have manual labor jobs that require heavy lifting. (D) Some men who do not have broad shoulders also don’t do any cardiovascular exercises, lift weights or have manual labor jobs that require heavy lifting. (E) Nearly all men with broad shoulders have fathers and brothers who also have broad shoulders. Hosted by Shana Ginsburg, Esq., CEO of Ginsburg Advanced Tutoring. Ginsburg Advanced Tutoring is a full-service tutoring, accommodations and admissions company designed to support the needs of the anything-but-average student.   For tutoring and accommodations inquiries, find us on the web at ginsburgadvancedtutoring.com or email us at hello@ginsburgadvancedtutoring.com.  This podcast is developed, edited and mixed by Shana Ginsburg.   Music by Taha Ahmed.   Like what you hear? Leave us a review! Podcast listeners take 30% off our LSAT Boss course on Teachable with offer code SALE30 at checkout. 

This is the third installment of Admissions Love Story. In this episode, Ali gets his first offer letter; Claudia and Ali consider what law school life might look like if they attend University of Baltimore together; Claudia pulls the trigger on getting disability accommodations; and the gang talks support groups during the pandemic.   Hosted by Shana Ginsburg, Esq., CEO of Ginsburg Advanced Tutoring and managing partner of Ginsburg Legal Services.  Ginsburg Advanced Tutoring is a full-service tutoring, accommodations and admissions company designed to support the needs of the anything-but-average student.  This podcast is developed and edited by Shana Ginsburg.  Music by Taha Ahmed.  Like what you hear? Podcast listeners take 30% off our LSAT Boss course on Teachable with offer code SALE30 at checkout.  For tutoring and accommodations inquiries, find us on the web at ginsburgadvancedtutoring.com or email us at hello@ginsburgadvancedtutoring.com 

Shana is back with cohost Trudel Pare (177 LSAT Score; Ginsburg Advanced Tutoring alum) to delve into some practice assumption questions. We'll also bust a myth about 'pushing through' when you're tired, and discuss some healthy test taking strategies to ensure you give your eyes a rest and fuel your brain.