Since logic--especially informal logic--is at the root critical thinking, it makes sense that standardized tests like the LSAT, GRE, GMAT, and SAT--which focus on critical thinking skills--would test it extensively. Therefore, it's important that you be on the lookout for logical inconsistencies as you read the complex materials on those tests.

For LSAT, GRE, and GMAT students, learning to look for and identify (and sometimes repair) logical fallacies is often easier than it is for SAT students. This isn't difficult to understand; LSAT students are preparing for a career in law, an inherently adversarial vocation. GMAT takers are preparing to become managers who will have to cope with massive amounts of sometimes-contradictory information and sort the reliable from the unreliable. In those professions, being able to discern both rationally and intuitively who is telling the truth and who is lying is a necessity as much as an asset. Even those who don't plan on practicing in the more adversarial areas of law, business, and academia often have the advantage of at least being older and more experienced (i.e., cynical) about the ways of the world.

High school students studying for the SAT, on the other hand, have quite likely never been asked--at least in an academic setting--to evaluate whether the arguments they're examining are logically solid or not. In high school, had I ever questioned the reasoning of an assigned author, I probably would have been castigated, if not punished outright. I was expected to memorize what I was assigned to read, and to repeat it back if asked on a test or in class. Analysis did not figure into the equation.

That's why, in my SAT Critical Reading classes, I like to work slowly through the passages, asking students to concentrate less on what the authors are saying, and on how they construct their arguments. Often in those classes, students miss common logical flaws simply because those flaws have never been pointed out to them.

Remember that Kaplan's critical reading method--like most Kaplan methods--may slow you down the first few times you use it. But as you become more experienced with using the methods, your speed and accuracy begin to improve dramatically. The most fundamental piece of advice I can give is this: If something seems wrong with the argument, it probably is. Don't presume that you're not following the author's logic correctly; it's equally likely that the argument is illogical, and that you'll have to recognize its flaws in order to answer the questions.

▼▽▼▼【講師】Douglas先生のバックナンバー━━━━━━━━
・【Informal Logic】2010.05.19 (Wed)

水曜日更新担当の講師チーム"Zen and the Art of Aptitude"から
今日は講師・Kurt先生の更新です！
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It's World Cup time again, and everybody's really supporting the Japanese team. One of the guys at Kaplan was telling me yesterday how sad he was that Japan had lost the Denmark match, but to be honest, I was unmoved.

I'm not hearing so much from home regarding the US team - while a lot of kids play soccer, it doesn't seem to appeal to Americans that much, at least as a professional sport. Few people follow the World Cup, and I'm not sure why this is so. Maybe we just like games with lots of breaks so we can hit the refrigerator, drink more beer, and go to the restroom without missing anything. It could be that the players are too small to impress us. Or perhaps we just have enough major sports of our own and don't need any more. After all, most Americans have never heard the term "American football". For us, there is no other kind!

▼▽▼▼【講師】Kurt先生のバックナンバー━━━━━━━━
・【Test Prep and Academic Success】2010.04.21 (Wed)

 Welcome to rainy season: the wonderful time of year when most of Japan becomes very humid, gray and wet. My first experience with rainy season was in 2003. I was a Thursday night Dj at the time, and all month my friend and I had no more than a few dancers come around to hang out at our humble Shibuya club. Tough times. Some good came of it though.

First, the bartender taught us how to mix some drinks. Nothing too fancy, but good fun. We routinely drank a lot; especially when there weren't many people listening closely to our mixes. Besides, we (myself, my dj partner-in-crime Scott, and the bartender Jeff) were responsible for that club from 10pm to 5am. That's too much time to fill with sobriety. We also taught Jeff how to mix records. No great results (it takes some practice) but he definitely got into scratching records.

Second, we all started drumming. We had all done some drumming in university (hand drums) but now here was our chance to drum along to recordings of the best funk and jazz musicians ever! Sometimes our girlfriends would come visit and join the jam. Ruby Room had a full drum kit hidden in a back room, to which we had access.

Most nights (well, mornings, really) were rather anti-climactic. Scott and I would hop on the shihatsu from shibuya, headed back to the quaint town of Ootorii. We talked most of the way, about music and Japan, and the girls we were dating. We also noticed that none of the other passengers were awake! In fact, riding the train in the early early morning showed us a different slice of Tokyo's population. We really couldn't imagine anyone signing up for a job that required them in a suit and on a train before 6am! I still can't believe it.

And now, many years later, I'm no closer to understanding the work ethic in this country. It's depressing. As is rainy season. My strategy to avoid rainy season blues this year is to watch some comedy everyday, and wear yellow-tinted sunglasses to simulate sunlight.

▼▽▼▼【講師】Sandy先生のバックナンバー━━━━━━━━
・【Beautiful Losers】2010.03.31 (Wed)

水曜日更新担当の講師チーム"Zen and the Art of Aptitude"から
今日は講師・Kurt先生の更新です！
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lately we've had increasing numbers of non-Japanese students enrolling for test preparation. One interesting fact that keeps coming up is that many of these people are second-generation Kaplan students! The parents reached their educational goals with the Kaplan method, so they are now recommending it strongly to their children. It's nice to know that we're helping so many people succeed in life!

▼▽▼▼【講師】Kurt先生のバックナンバー━━━━━━━━
・【Test Prep and Academic Success】2010.04.21 (Wed)

I've written a few times about formal logic, and its importance on the LSAT, GRE, GMAT, and SAT, but informal logic is also very important to those tests. The difference between formal and informal logic is that formal logic is more mathematical, while informal logic is more rhetorical; that is, in formal logic we use symbols and shorthand to help us isolate variables (such as the truth, falsehood, or unknowability of certain premises), while informal logic is based upon generally agreed upon rules for what does and does not constitute a persuasive argument.


The difference in these two skills is probably most pronounced for LSAT students, since the logic games section relies heavily upon formal logic skills, while the critical reading and logical reasoning sections depend mostly upon informal logic. For instance, strengthen, weaken, assumption, paradox, principle, and especially logical flaw questions hinge on the student's ability to recognize and articulate violations of the rules of informal logic. Flaw questions, especially, can be tough for non-native English speakers, because the answer choices often come off as vague and confusing. One reason for this is that every answer choice--even the wrong ones--articulates some logical flaw; only one answer, however, will be the correct flaw.


As I always tell my students, however, many flaw questions also have a hidden "cheat code" built into them: Flaws often have specific names (sufficiency vs. necessity, unexamined alternatives, ad hominem, etc.). To accurately describe the flaw, the testmakers almost have to put the flaw's name in the correct answer choice. Hence, if you learn to recognize the flaw when you see it, you can often just scan the answer choices for a single keyword.


If you're interested in reading more about informal logic, I recommend the book Informal Logic: A Pragmatic Approach by Douglas Walton. The author analyzes actual arguments which have been made in the public forum, and uses clear, simple explanations to discuss each one. Also, the book moves nicely from simpler arguments to more complex ones, and points out how to recognize and articulate common logical fallicies. Whether you're a young student bound for college, or a more mature adult ready to start lawschool or grad school, informal logic is an invaluable tool that will sharpen your mind and make you less vulnerable to specious rhetoric.

▼▽▼▼【講師】Douglas先生のバックナンバー━━━━━━━━
・【Study Like a (Good) Dog!】2010.04.14 (Wed)