Nova's LSAT Prep Course

Nova's LSAT prep course introduces arguments and logical reasoning form, illustrating how arguments appear in sociology, philosophy, science, and even op-ed pages, with two 35-minute sections totaling about 24 questions.

Recognize that many arguments are fallacious and that tests measure logical relationships between statements, not truth, while noting LSAT timing, reading questions twice, and encouraging experimentation.

Analyze arguments from four perspectives and learn how answer choices obscure the correct option. Diagram argument structures, including premises, conclusions, and counter premises, and classify reasoning types and fallacies.

Explore how obfuscation makes arguments seem straightforward while camouflaging the correct reasoning; use the 205 rule to eliminate three distractors and improve answer accuracy.

Identify four LSAT obfuscating tactics that make wrong answers seem correct, such as true but irrelevant statements and repetition of the argument's language, because a correct answer must be supported.

Spot obfuscating tactics in LSAT arguments, such as overstating points and using authoritative language. Develop awareness to avoid fluff choices and focus on the two of five with real merit.

Learn the one two or five rule, identify the two merit-worthy choices among five, and avoid tactics like irrelevant statements, repeating stem language, overstating, or unsupported claims.

Study the logical structure of arguments, learn to symbolize and diagram them, and identify the few basic categories that make LSAT logic questions easier.

Nova's LSAT prep course explains how conclusions function in argument questions, identifying the main idea writers aim to persuade, often at the end, sometimes at the beginning, or not stated.

Reframe the conclusion at the beginning of the argument while preserving flow, highlighting the conflict of interest between blacks and the police as chief domestic victims of American social order.

Explore how conclusions may appear in the middle of an argument, and learn to identify whether the conclusion lies in the first, middle, or last sentence.

learn to determine a conclusion's literal meaning by reading only the author's stated claims, avoiding overstatement or understatement, and carefully attending to precise wording.

Explain the meaning of 'some' in sentences, showing that some means at least one and perhaps all, and discuss implications for interpreting statements about Mary's friends.

Identify and apply common conclusion indicators such as so, thus, therefore, consequently, and accordingly to determine when a claim follows, while noting these words can have other functions.

Examine how 'thus' signals a conclusion in lsat-style arguments using an example about devout Muslims abstaining from alcohol. The lecture clarifies how conclusions follow from the first two sentences.

Analyze how conclusions in arguments appear as statements or as commands or obligations, such as 'you ought to vote' or 'you will go to college'.

Explore how posing conclusions as questions persuades readers by implying self-authorship, and examine how this rhetorical technique influences beliefs about nature, future generations, and environmental obligation.

Learn to craft arguments in LSAT prep by building up to an unstated conclusion, guiding readers to decide through a skillfully manipulated example.

Identify the conclusion scope by spotting quantifiers that overstretch or understate the author's claim, and recognize how words like all, some, never, and always shape answer choices.

Evaluate the passage's evidence that the world is probably non-Euclidean and see why option B correctly limits the main idea.

The lecture argues that if an oligarchy cannot pursue a specific investment because no single person has the power, then only individuals make risky investments.

Identify the conclusion in each argument and complete the most natural implied conclusion when missing. Explore implications about aggression, morality, and instinctive behaviors in simple LSAT-style drills.

Analyze how conclusions connect television violence to society's violence, compare wage patterns favoring new trades over old, and explore existentialist views on evolving dignity and identity.

Analyze conclusions that law is at war with uncertainty and that god must not control man's behavior. Recognize that the conclusion is central to the human condition.

Identify premises as statements that support the conclusion, forming the argument's foundation, and learn common premise indicators and flag words such as since, as, suppose, assume, owing to.

Explore premise indicators and their cautious use, distinguishing since as a premise marker from time, and use sense to locate the premise that the incumbents' positions are unpopular.

Explore how suppressed premises function as unstated assumptions that shape argument strength and audience belief. Spot tacit premises, deceptive tactics, and how politicians may use them to influence conclusions.

Analyze tacit and suppressed premises in argumentation, using the hawk example to show how labeling and assumptions shape conclusions. Learn to identify and test suppressed premises in LSAT-style questions.

Assess how the argument links exercise to productivity, noting Japanese workers' higher productivity due to more exercise, and identify the correct choice, C.

Identify the false premise that all things are equal and show sparsely populated areas offer advantages beyond safety, notably costs and ease, with the answer C.

Identify the suppressed premise that the network harmed its argument by not protecting the presidential race winner and that it would lose ratings if it failed to predict the winner.

Analyze suppressed premises and reasonable assumptions in LSAT-style scenarios, such as geographic location, privacy, and score reporting, while distinguishing truth from inferences about cheating.

Identify suppressed premises in arguments, from what goes beyond the evidence to the claim that a single individual acts boldly. Assess whether comparable pay entices dedicated teachers to change careers.

Concede minor points to weaken an argument and disarm potential arguments, showing open minded and well considered positions, then state stronger reasons to support your position.

Explore why the striker should accept the benefits offer to resolve the health care grievance, despite concessions, while noting wage gains above 5 percent risk bankruptcy against Japan and Germany.

Identify common premise indicators and counter-premise indicators in LSAT questions. Learn to distinguish the main point the author makes from tempting but minor concessions.

explain how the counter premise challenges the argument by noting long-term carbon adjustment may lag, and show how to weaken it by attacking the main premise.

Outline the argument's structure: main premise that nature adjusts atmospheric carbon, secondary premise about fossil fuels raising carbon to dangerous levels, and counter-premise that environmentalists should be lax.

Identify the conclusion by examining the final sentence and common flags like therefore, consequently, and thus. Rarely does the conclusion appear in the middle of an argument.

Identify premises that support the conclusion and recognize common indicators like because and since, and evaluate suppressed premises to strengthen or weaken arguments in LSAT-style questions.

Identify how a concession to a minor point weakens an argument and recognize common counterpoints indicators, such as even though, nevertheless, however, despite, and other transition words.

Identify the implied premise that more frequent voice lessons and practice lead to greater breath control, and explain why such a schedule is deemed necessary in LSAT-style reasoning.

Show how to weaken an argument by exposing a false premise, noting that older engines stay in use due to high demand and overseas shipments, so selection C is correct.

Identify the assumptions in selection B of a LSAT question, noting that zinc levels in diseased plants are a symptom, not a cause, and phosphorus fertilizer is irrelevant.

Analyze the golf association's admission criteria for the labor day tournament: pay the entry fee by June 1, and have won a major tournament in the previous calendar year.

Analyze an LSAT argument about whether the conclusion is valid given the assumption that the instrument was first developed with horse hair, compared to alternatives like tree bark.

Assess how a professor aims to deter cheating on exams by announcing a strict policy and signaling that cheaters will be tracked and punished.

Examine how the first sentence drives the question and how publishers rely on buyers amid the computer information age eliminating printed information, noting the correct answer is B.

Explain how an outside factor may cause both conditions. Show that wearing contact lenses can cause dry eyes, though the author does not claim it must.

Analyze the assumption that only principals will try new methods under governance by committee and how that assumption blocks implementation, explaining why selection B is correct.

Navigate problem 10 by recognizing that the simple answer, B, is correct, and distinguish it from the simplistic answer while noting what is inferred rather than stated.

Identify and weaken the argument by disproving a premise about robots understanding sound production and instrument quality. Assess whether such understanding would allow robots to replace skilled craftsmen.

Learn to trust the obvious answer when the question and options are read carefully; avoid overthinking, mark uncertain items, and move on to finish the exam.

Analyzes reasoning flaws in arguments about disease emergence and the role of technology and man’s alteration of substances, focusing on what is stated or implied rather than outside knowledge.

Analyze why head injuries still occur in children who wear bicycle helmets and select the option that aligns with the passage’s claim that helmets reduce total injuries, not eliminate all.

Donna's argument asserts that heavy drinking probably leads to serious health problems, not that it will necessarily; it relies on a single example, exposing a serious flaw.

Examine how one example challenges a general principle about government takeover of foreign businesses, showing the principle is not disproved and that not all general principles are flawless.

Assess how exposure to electromagnetic fields relates to children's growth rates and examine whether housing type or other ailments confound the study's conclusions.

Analyze why only an abnormal pepper plant fits the plan by contrasting normal production limits with dormancy and revived growth, including lab-grown, soil-less scenarios.

Assess the argument that bicycle helmet use affects head-injury risk, noting no data on other injuries or participant numbers, and infer implications about safety standards and football helmets.

Analyze how the passage links early slave practice to later legal protections, focusing on the importation of African slaves and the timing of slavery laws.

Explore how snowfall, disease in Paluska, predator sightings, population density, and area size influence migratory bird flight through Pliska and Paluska in Hilton county, highlighting data gaps and uncertain links.

Analyze how enforcing a new policy relates to actual behavior change and evaluate the relevance of evidence about fraternities, late nights, and other distractions in the coach's rule scenario.

Assess how a single person who profited from the tutelage of Mr. Cooper affects argument validity in LSAT questions, separating valid conclusions from strong claims and noting missing premises.

The argument claims two criteria for Brown County Club membership: net worth over 10 million and no entertainment connections; Chase's acceptance implies no entertainment ties and no Hollywood-financed movie.

Analyze LSAT problem 25 by tracing how risky decisions relate to the conclusion, compare distracter options B and C in a distracter pair, and consider Kirkland's model of corporate structure.

Explore how to diagram arguments using symbolization rather than full diagrams, compare argument structures to game diagrams, identify validity, and practice recognizing contrapositive and if-then patterns.

Analyze if-then structures and embedded conditional forms in flowcharts, including a implies b, mapping premises to conclusions. Clarify that a true premise makes the conclusion follow in a conditional statement.

Symbolize arguments by letting letters stand for elements, phrases, or sentences, then substitute to test validity; diagrams reveal the if-then structure and underlying simplicity.

Identify and analyze embedded if-then statements in logical reasoning, spotting how equivalent structures express the same conditional relationships without stating both.

Explore embedded if-then statements, showing that 'only if' is logically equivalent to 'if A then B' and that failing to do well implies not being accepted to law school.

Engage in an embedded if-then drill and translate sentences into equivalent then form, using examples with academic freedom, Rothschild, Montague, and monarch scenarios.

Explore embedded if-then drills to analyze conditional statements about attending a party, Rothschild and monarchy outcomes, and how gender assumptions shape logic.

Analyze the affirming the conclusion fallacy in conditional statements, showing that from if A then B and B you cannot infer A, and discuss contrapositive and premise and conclusion reasoning.

Explore the affirming the conclusion fallacy with symbolization of if-then arguments and diagramming, and distinguish circular and invalid conclusions from valid contraposition using provided examples.

Explore the denying the premise fallacy, where denying 'if A then B' leads to 'not B', noting it's less tested than the affirming the conclusion fallacy.

Analyze the denying the premise fallacy with an embedded if-then example where negating the premise yields a negated conclusion. A diagram illustrates fallacy and LSAT reasoning about negation and conclusion.

Explore the transitive property using if-then logic and an inequality example, showing that A implies B and B implies C, which implies A implies C, and relate it to contrapositive.

This lecture demonstrates the transitive property with simple statements: work hard leads to success, success in America leads to leisure, and thus work hard in America leads to leisure.

Apply De Morgan's laws: not (A and B) equals not A or not B; not (A or B) equals not A and not B. Use them to simplify arguments.

Apply De Morgan's laws to negate and disjunctive statements, translating 'not (A and B)' into 'not A or not B,' and explore outcomes where not reelected or acquitted.

Illustrate how De Morgan’s laws convert not (B or J) into not B and not J, using a diagram to show that neither is going to the party.

Learn how 'a unless b' is equivalent to 'if not b then a,' illustrated by beach example and simple symbolization with b for at the beach and a for raining.

Nova's lsat prep course presents an 'a unless b' logic example, analyzing two obstacles in Melinda's path to a scholarship and a law career.

Examine game-like arguments and their logical structure, and learn when such arguments warrant study and how to draw a conclusion.

Translate LSAT rules into logical implications, simplify double negatives, and use transitive reasoning to derive that if g graduates from Tri State University, then not y.

Assess the validity of the original statement to determine the correct answer, and parse if-then statements and contrapositive reasoning to avoid the affirming the conclusion fallacy.

Explore lsat logic concepts like the denying the premise fallacy, transitive property, and De Morgan's law, with conditional reasoning examples such as if a then b and a unless b.

Explore lsat-style logic using conditional statements, negation, and contrapositive and transitive reasoning, with diagramming of drought and wildlife scenarios to identify a valid conclusion.

Evaluate the commentator’s claim that networks are not acting responsibly and apply contrapositive reasoning to conclude they would broadcast more family programming in primetime.

Solve a complex logic problem by focusing on the last two statements, using embedded if-then rules and transitive reasoning to conclude that McCoys are horseback riders, validating option E.

Apply the transitive property to chain implications by diagramming good grades to good college to good job. Analyze LSAT-style options by diagramming the transitions and identifying the correct reasoning.

Nova's LSAT prep course, problem 5, highlights faulty reasoning and the fallacy of affirming the conclusion, using diagramming to identify the correct answer.

Explore LSAT logic questions on selecting sculptures by Fillmore or Clive, analyzing premises, conclusions, and possible outcomes about bronze and stainless steel works.

Analyze a logic-based lsat problem about Senator Smith's voting record, support levels, and the chairmanship outcome, using contrapositive reasoning and diagramming to identify the false choice.

Identify the fallacy of affirming the conclusion in if-then arguments, as shown by premises leading to invalid conclusions and illustrated through sentence diagramming, with the answer being B.

Diagram problems to simplify conditional statements and contrapositive reasoning, applying if-then structures to budget allocations and price changes in real-world scenarios like admissions and raw materials.

Explore an embedded if-then statement linking movie viewing to being a true 90s man or woman with self-reliance, perceptiveness, and caring, and assess whether these traits are interdependent.

Identify the rule that if recouped costs imply the break-even point, then recouping retooling costs means sales sufficient to reach it.

Symbolize LSAT arguments with if-then forms and analyze validity, revealing the fallacy of affirming the consequent in a Harvard School of Law student scenario.

Diagramming applies contrapositive reasoning to show how a 40 percent GNP increase relates to avoiding economic collapse, illustrating the contrapositive and transitive property in LSAT-style logic.

Nova's LSAT prep course problem 14 analyzes why an if-then argument may be invalid, illustrating the fallacy of affirming the conclusion with symbolization such as if C then S.

Diagram arguments from the passage and answer choices to apply contrapositive reasoning, analyze if-then structures and negation, and identify the LSAT-style correct choice that matches the original premises.

Apply LSAT logic to conditional statements and transfer of property, showing that if students do not boycott graduation ceremonies then a coaching position will be eliminated, leading to choice C.

Master if-then reasoning and contrapositive concepts in LSAT-style questions. Identify the fallacy of denying the premise using the gymnastics example and answer-choice analysis.

Explore LSAT logic games through conditional statements and contrapositive reasoning, using diagramming to determine when birds scold Rebecca and when they don't.

Examine inductive reasoning by classifying major inductive arguments (generalization, analogy, and causal), contrast with deductive arguments, and assess how premises serve as evidence shaping conclusion likelihood and fallacies.

Generalization uses analogies and inductive reasoning to infer from small samples, like polling data, and the soundness depends on sample representativeness and size.

Explore how generalizing survey results to the car buying population hinges on sample representativeness, addressing why small samples and disproportionate respondent groups threaten projection reliability.

Use analogy to argue by comparing similarities, as with pig and human metabolism to illustrate cancer risk from saccharin; stronger arguments rely on greater similarity and cautious wording.

Identify common analogy indicators like similar to, as well, likewise, just as, and so too, and learn how writers sometimes use analogies without flagging terms.

Master lsat-style analogy reasoning by examining how comparing two things leads to a conclusion, using the mind snapping metaphor to identify language traps and valid inferences in answer choices.

Examine causal reasoning as a type of inductive argument, noting its fallibility and context sensitivity, with examples from lottery luck, shooting stars, smoking and cancer, and genetic predisposition.

Explore common fallacies in causal reasoning, distinguishing correlation from causation and necessary versus sufficient conditions with examples like insomnia and lack of appetite, tax base, and the Persian Gulf War.

Analyze a causal reasoning example where magnanimous behavior enhances mood and well-being via chemical release, and may influence immune activity, as evidence shows white blood cells are stimulated, not increased.

Explore the all things being equal concept as a source of argument questions by comparing two seemingly similar scenarios to identify a critical similarity.

Compare population densities using area ratios to infer library walking-distance access; the example shows Glenwood has one-fifth density of Readville when its area is ten times larger, yielding answer B.

Apply a theory using controlled experiments by forming a test and a control group under identical conditions except for the one variable, to attribute observed differences to that variable.

Establish a control group to compare test results and determine whether the diet change caused the observed decrease in behavior problems.

Compare percentage with absolute number to reveal the bias that a high percentage implies a large amount. See how test writers capitalize on this tendency with an illustrative example.

Explain why percent fiber can mislead by focusing on absolute fiber per pill and daily needs. A 1 g pill at 44 percent fiber still requires 100 pills.

Analyze why a 44 percent fiber claim is misleading and focus on absolute daily fiber needs to evaluate advertising claims.

Analyze LSAT-style arguments with counter-premise indicators and analogies, distinguishing meaning over sound patterns in translation and music, guided by the nature of the original and the instrument.

In Nova's LSAT prep course, problem 2, the lecture argues that upper-atmosphere ozone depletion is offset by lower-atmosphere ozone increase, yielding more overall ozone and greater absorption of ultraviolet radiation.

Explore a percent versus absolute number quantity problem in toxic ingredient risk, comparing pesticide and mouthwash; the ingested amount matters since mouthwash is spit out, and the answer is B.

Understand that older cars are more likely to require major repairs, but they may be classics driven on special occasions or owners buy new cars when they break down.

Identify and critique false causal arguments, showing how medieval universe endured for centuries without an administrator may omit evidence and overlook other factors, as computer use allegedly affected publication acceptance.

Analyze an all-things-equal argument linking pollution to seals' virus susceptibility, evaluating whether population decline, malnutrition, or alternative mechanisms strengthen or weaken the claim.

An lsat prep lesson analyzes how the distemper virus affecting seals, shellfish, and seabirds informs the argument about pollution and the immune system, evaluating whether reduced pollution weakens the claim.

Analyze common fallacies and identify the underlying thought processes behind each type of question, determining which option shares the same logic as the passage.

Identify contradiction as a glaring logical fallacy by analyzing how two opposing statements, like it's raining and it's not raining, undermine an argument.

Identify self-contradictions in the argument and in answer choices, eliminate non-contradictory options, and select the one with the clear contradiction (choice d).

Identify how equivocation uses a word in multiple senses within an argument, such as 'right' as a privilege or moral belief, and analyze its impact on conclusions.

Explore an equivocation example where Judy and you debate the definition of exploitation. The discussion shows how agreeing on a single definition clarifies the argument and reveals the underlying issue.

Examine circular reasoning, where the conclusion restates the premise, illustrated by the death penalty example where 'right' and 'appropriate' mean the same thing.

Analyze circular reasoning and non-sequiturs, and show how writers must provide evidence for conclusions, avoid restating the conclusion, and evaluate causal and generalization arguments.

Examine shifting the burden of proof: demand evidence for a claim rather than truth from lack of disproof, noting existence comes later and God’s existence may be independent of proof.

Explore how shifting the burden of proof shapes law and science, where innocence and probable conclusions guide assessment, yet certainty about theories like relativity remains fallacious without qualification.

Examine a shifting burden of proof in a LSAT style argument about life beyond our solar system, focusing on detection limits and reasoning flaws.

Explore shifting the burden of proof, analyze LSAT arguments by method of reasoning, and learn how underlying simplicity enables mastery with sufficient study.

Explore unwarranted assumptions as a fallacy in problem analysis, where conclusions rely on false or unwarranted premises that are often implicit or vaguely written, with examples.

Identify unwarranted assumptions in arguments that present only two options, and recognize a possible third option that society may tolerate or embrace diverse opinion.

Identify the converse fallacy confusing necessary and sufficient conditions, as the argument wrongly treats a sufficient condition as necessary, illustrated by a percentile and study hours example.

Explain why the claim that all artists support government sponsorship is fallacious, since some oppose it and government involvement may stifle artistic expression; it taints opinion by profession.

In Nova's LSAT Prep Course, analyze how true but irrelevant information functions as an obfuscating tactic in answer choices, illustrating a fallacious argument that rests on true but non-germane details.

Learn to identify arguments that are true but irrelevant, examine how modest product use requirements and medication directions shape reasoning, and avoid flawed rebuttals that miss the core flaw.

Explore how appeal to authority cites an expert’s opinion to support an argument, with reasonableness depending on the expert’s relevance, like a dermatologist versus an orthopedist in a medical issue.

Analyze an appeal to authority in the LSAT prep context, where the author uses agreement from respected figures as sole evidence, illustrating this reasoning and leading to option c.

Examine ad hominem personal attacks that target a candidate's character instead of policies. The caption argues these attacks are weak and notes history shows no correlation between fidelity and leadership.

Analyzes a personal attack example on Henry Kissinger, used to justify actions and avoid addressing the question in an lsat prep context, illustrating how character attacks undermine argument credibility.

Identify common logical fallacies such as contradiction, equivocation, circular reasoning, and shifting the burden of proof. Recognize unwarranted assumptions, irrelevant truths, appeal to authority, and personal attacks.