Podcasts about Logical reasoning

A listener asks about alleged changes to Logical Reasoning that an LSAT YouTuber has reported. Ben and Nathan push back, maintaining that the test hasn't meaningfully changed and that the so-called “new” question types have been around for years.Also in this episode:- A listener successfully secures a GPA change on their transcript.- Whether to use a letter of recommendation from a university president- What's going on at Vanderbilt LawStudy with our Free Plan⁠⁠Download our iOS app⁠Watch Episode 548 on YouTubeCheck out all of our “What's the Deal With” segmentsGet caught up with our ⁠Word of the Week⁠⁠ library0:00 Conditional Scholarships 11:00 Getting GPA Changed16:35 Letter of Recommendation from the President22:22 New Demon Plans28:04 Tips from Departing Demons37:50 RC Speed47:15 Updated LR Questions?1:01:48 What's the Deal with Vanderbilt1:25:34 Word of the Week — diminution

You see a headline: “Study Shows Coffee Drinkers Live Longer.” You share it in 3 seconds flat. But here's what just happened—you confused correlation with causation, inductive observation with deductive proof, and you just became a vector for misinformation. Right now, millions of people are doing the exact same thing, spreading beliefs they think are […]

You see a headline: "Study Shows Coffee Drinkers Live Longer." You share it in 3 seconds flat. But here's what just happened—you confused correlation with causation, inductive observation with deductive proof, and you just became a vector for misinformation. Right now, millions of people are doing the exact same thing, spreading beliefs they think are facts, making decisions based on patterns that don't exist, all while feeling absolutely certain they're thinking clearly.   We live in a world drowning in information—but starving for truth. Every day, you're presented with hundreds of claims, arguments, and patterns. Some are solid. Most are not. And the difference between knowing which is which and just guessing? That's the difference between making good decisions and stumbling through life confused about why things keep going wrong.   Most of us have never been taught the difference between deductive and inductive reasoning. We stumble through life applying deductive certainty to inductive guesses, treating observations as proven facts, and wondering why our conclusions keep failing us. But once we understand which type of reasoning a situation demands, we gain something powerful—the ability to calibrate our confidence appropriately, recognize manipulation, and build every other thinking skill on a foundation that actually works.   By the end of this episode, you'll possess a practical toolkit for improving your logical reasoning—four core strategies, one quick-win technique, and a practice exercise you can start today.   This is Episode 2 of Thinking 101, a new 8-part series on essential thinking skills most of us never learned in school. Links to all episodes are in the description below.       What is Logical Reasoning? But what does logical reasoning entail? At its core, there are two fundamental ways humans draw conclusions, and you're using both right now without consciously choosing between them.   Deductive reasoning moves from general principles to specific conclusions with absolute certainty. If the premises are true, the conclusion must be true. "All mammals have hearts. Dogs are mammals. Therefore, dogs have hearts." There's no wiggle room—if those first two statements are true, the conclusion is guaranteed. This is the realm of mathematics, formal logic, and established law.   Inductive reasoning works in reverse, building from specific observations toward general principles with varying degrees of probability. You observe patterns and infer likely explanations. "I've seen 1,000 swans and they were all white, therefore all swans are probably white." This feels certain, but it's actually just highly probable based on limited evidence. History proved this reasoning wrong when black swans were discovered in Australia.   Both are tools. Neither is "better." The question is which tool fits the job—and whether you're using it correctly.       Loss of Logical Reasoning Skills Why does this matter? Because across every domain of life, this reasoning confusion is costing us.   In our social media consumption, we're drowning in inductive reasoning disguised as deductive proof. Researchers at MIT found that fake news spreads ten times faster than accurate reporting. Why? Because misleading content exploits this confusion. You see a viral post claiming "New study proves smartphones cause depression in teenagers," with graphs and official-looking citations. What you're actually seeing is inductive correlation presented as deductive causation—researchers observed that depressed teenagers often use smartphones more, but that doesn't prove smartphones caused the depression.   And this is where it gets truly terrifying—I need you to hear this carefully:   In 2015, researchers tried to replicate 100 psychology studies published in top scientific journals. Only 36% held up. Read that again: Nearly two-thirds of peer-reviewed, published research couldn't be reproduced. And those false studies? Still being cited. Still shaping policy. Still being shared as "science proves." You're building your worldview on a foundation where 64% of the bricks are made of air.   In our personal relationships, we constantly make inductive inferences about people's intentions and treat them as deductive facts. Your partner forgets to text back three times this week. You observe the pattern, inductively infer "they're losing interest," then act with deductive certainty—becoming distant, accusatory, or defensive. But what if those three instances had three different explanations? What if the pattern we detected isn't actually a pattern at all? We say "you always" or "you never" based on three data points. We end relationships over patterns that never existed.   So why didn't anyone teach us this? Traditional schooling focuses on teaching us what to think—facts, formulas, established knowledge. Deductive reasoning gets attention in math class as a mechanical process for solving equations. Inductive reasoning gets buried in science class, completely disconnected from actual decision-making. We graduated with facts crammed into our heads but no framework for evaluating new claims.   But that changes now.       How To Improve Your Logical Reasoning You now understand the two reasoning systems and why mixing them up is costing you. Let's fix that. These five strategies will give you immediate control over your logical reasoning—starting with the most foundational skill and building to a technique you can use in your next conversation. Label Your Reasoning Type The first step to improving your logical reasoning is becoming aware of which system you're using—and we rarely stop to check.   We flip between deductive and inductive thinking dozens of times per day without realizing it. You see your colleague get promoted after working late, and you instantly conclude that working late leads to promotion—that's inductive. But you're treating it like a deductive rule: "If I work late, I WILL get promoted." The moment you label which type you're using, you regain control.   Start with a daily reasoning journal. At the end of each day, write down three conclusions you made—about people, work, news, anything.   For each conclusion, ask: "What evidence led me here?" If it's general rules applied to specifics (all mammals have hearts, dogs are mammals), you used deduction. If it's patterns from observations (I've seen this three times), you used induction.   Label each one: "D" for deductive, "I" for inductive. This creates conscious awareness. You'll likely find 80-90% of your daily reasoning is inductive—but you've been treating it as deductive certainty.   When you catch yourself saying "always," "never," "definitely," stop and ask: "Is this deductive certainty or inductive probability?" That single pause changes everything.   Practice in real-time during conversations. When someone makes a claim, silently label it: deductive or inductive? Weak reasoning becomes obvious instantly.   After one week of journaling, review your entries. Patterns emerge in your reasoning errors—specific topics where you consistently overstate certainty, or people you make assumptions about. This awareness is the foundation for improvement.       Calibrate Your Confidence Once you've labeled your reasoning type, the next step is matching your certainty level to the strength of your evidence.   Here's where most people fail: they feel 100% certain about conclusions built on three observations. Your brain doesn't naturally calibrate—it defaults to "this feels true, therefore it IS true." But when you explicitly assign probability levels to inductive conclusions, you stop making the most common reasoning error: treating patterns as proven facts.   For every inductive conclusion, assign a percentage. "Given these five observations, I'm 60% confident this pattern is real." Never use 100% for inductive reasoning—by definition, inductive conclusions are probabilistic, not certain.   Use this language shift in conversations: Replace "You always ignore my suggestions" with "I've brought up ideas in the last two meetings and haven't heard feedback, which makes me about 40% confident there's a communication pattern worth discussing." Replace "This definitely works" with "From what I've seen, I'm 70% confident this approach is effective."   Create a certainty threshold for action. Decide: "I need 70% confidence before I make a major decision based on inductive reasoning." This prevents impulsive moves based on weak patterns. Below 50%? Keep observing. Above 80%? Worth acting on.   Keep a confidence log for one week. Write your predictions with probability levels ("80% confident it will rain tomorrow," "60% confident this project will succeed"). Then check if you were right. This trains your calibration. You'll discover whether you're overstating or understating your certainty—and you can adjust.   When someone presents "definitive" claims based on inductive evidence, ask: "What certainty level would you assign that? 60%? 90%?" Watch them realize they've been overstating their case. This question immediately disrupts manipulation.       Hunt for Contradictions Your brain naturally seeks confirming evidence and ignores contradictions—this strategy forces you to do the opposite.   Confirmation bias is the enemy of good inductive reasoning. Once you believe something, your brain becomes a heat-seeking missile for evidence that supports it. The only antidote? Actively hunt for evidence that contradicts your conclusion. It's uncomfortable, yes, but it's the difference between being right and feeling right.   For every inductive conclusion you reach, set a 24-hour "contradiction hunt." Your job is to find at least two pieces of evidence that contradict your conclusion. If you believe "remote work increases productivity," you must find credible sources claiming the opposite.   Use search terms designed to find opposites. Search for "remote work decreases productivity study" or "evidence against intermittent fasting." Force-feed yourself the other side. Google's algorithm wants to confirm your beliefs—you have to actively fight it.   Create a contradiction column in your reasoning journal. For each conclusion (left column), list contradicting evidence (right column). If you can't find any contradictions, you haven't looked hard enough—or you're in an echo chamber.   In debates or discussions, argue the opposite position for 5 minutes. Seriously. If you believe X, spend 5 minutes making the best possible case for NOT X. This breaks confirmation bias and reveals holes in your reasoning you couldn't see before.   Before sharing anything on social media, spend 2 minutes actively searching for contradicting evidence. Search "[claim] debunked" or "[claim] false" or look for the opposite perspective. If you find credible contradictions, pause. The claim is disputed. Either don't share it, or share it with context like "Interesting claim, though [credible source] disputes this because..." This habit trains you to think critically before becoming a misinformation vector.       Question the Sample Most bad inductive reasoning fails the sample size test—and almost no one thinks to ask. Here's the manipulation technique you need to spot: Someone shows you three examples and declares a universal truth. "I know three people who got rich with crypto, therefore crypto makes everyone rich." Three examples. Seven billion people. Your brain treats this as evidence—until you ask about the total number. This question alone dismantles 90% of weak arguments. Every time someone makes an inductive claim, ask out loud: "How many observations is that based on?" Three? Thirty? Three thousand? The number matters enormously. One person's experience is an anecdote. Ten similar experiences start to suggest a pattern. A hundred becomes meaningful. A thousand builds real confidence. Learn the rough sample sizes for different certainty levels. For casual patterns: 10-20 observations. For moderate confidence: 100-500. For high confidence: 1,000+. For scientific certainty: 10,000+. Five examples claiming certainty? That's weak, and now you know it. Always check the total number—whether it's called sample size, denominator, or population. When someone shows examples or cites a study, ask: "Out of how many total?" Three testimonials mean nothing without knowing if it's 3 out of 10 (30% success rate) or 3 out of 10,000 (0.03%). When reading headlines like "Study shows X," click through and find the sample size. "Study of 12 people" is not the same as "Study of 12,000 people." The total number is usually hidden because it reveals how weak the claim really is. In your own reasoning, track your sample. Before concluding "this restaurant is always slow," count: how many times have you been there? Three? That's not "always"—that's barely data. You need at least 10 visits across different times and days before you can claim a pattern. Challenge yourself: Can you find a larger sample that contradicts your small sample? If your three experiences clash with 3,000 online reviews saying the opposite, which should you trust? The larger sample wins unless you have specific reasons to believe it's biased.       The One-Word Test (Quick Win) Here's a technique you can implement in the next 30 seconds that will immediately improve your logical reasoning: stop using absolute language.   Every time you're about to say "always" or "never," catch yourself and replace it with "usually" or "rarely." Every time you're about to say "definitely" or "certainly," use "probably" or "likely" instead.   This single word swap trains your brain to think probabilistically. It acknowledges that most of your reasoning is inductive—based on patterns, not guarantees. And here's the bonus: people will perceive you as more credible because you're not overstating your case.   Try it right now in your next conversation. Watch how often you reach for absolute language—and how much clearer your thinking becomes when you don't use it.       Practice The most effective way to internalize these strategies is through practice with real-world scenarios. The Pattern Detective Challenge Find three claims from your social media feed today—anything that declares a pattern, trend, or "truth" (health advice, political claims, life advice, product recommendations).   For each claim, identify: Is this deductive or inductive reasoning? Write it down. Most will be inductive disguised as deductive. "This supplement WILL boost your energy" sounds deductive, but it's based on inductive observations.   If inductive, assess the sample size. How many observations is this based on? One person's testimonial? A study? How many participants? Is the sample representative of the broader population?   Assign a certainty level. Given the sample size and quality of evidence, what probability would you assign this claim? 30%? 60%? 90%? Be honest—most will be below 70%.   Hunt for contradictions. Spend 5 minutes finding evidence that contradicts the claim. Can you find it? How credible is it? Does it have a larger sample size than the original claim?   Rewrite the claim with calibrated language. Change "Intermittent fasting WILL make you healthier" to "From studies of X people, intermittent fasting appears to improve some health markers for some people, though individual results vary—confidence level: 65%."   Share your analysis with someone. Explain your reasoning process. Teaching others reinforces your own learning and reveals gaps you didn't notice.   Repeat this exercise 3 times per week for one month. By the end, automatic evaluation becomes second nature. You won't need to think about it—it just happens.       The Rewards The journey of improving your logical reasoning is ongoing, but the rewards compound quickly.   You become nearly impossible to manipulate. When you can spot the difference between inductive observation and deductive proof, 90% of manipulation tactics stop working. The car salesman's pitch falls flat. The political ad looks transparent. The social media rage-bait loses its power.   Your relationships improve dramatically. When you stop saying "you always" and start saying "I've noticed this three times," you create space for understanding instead of defensiveness. Conflicts become conversations. Assumptions become questions.   Your professional credibility skyrockets. Leaders who can distinguish between strong deductive arguments and weak inductive patterns make better strategic decisions. When you speak with calibrated confidence—saying "I'm 70% confident" instead of "I'm absolutely certain"—people trust your judgment more, not less.   You build a foundation for every other thinking skill. Spotting logical fallacies, evaluating evidence, resisting cognitive biases, asking better questions—all of these depend on understanding which type of reasoning you're using and which type the situation demands.   You're not just learning a thinking skill—you're installing psychological armor that most people don't even know exists. And in a world where manipulation is the norm, that makes you dangerous to anyone trying to control you. Every week on Substack, I go deeper—sharing personal examples, failed experiments, and lessons I couldn't fit in the video. It's like the director's cut. This week's Substack deep dive into a logical reasoning failure can be found at: https://philmckinney.substack.com/p/kroger-copied-hps-innovation-playbook        Your Thinking 101 Journey This is Episode 2 of Thinking 101: The Essential Skills They Never Taught You—an 8-part foundation series where each episode unlocks the next.   If you missed Episode 1, "Why Thinking Skills Matter Now More Than Ever," start there. It explains why this entire skillset has become essential.   Up next: Episode 3, "Causal Thinking: Beyond Correlation." You'll learn how to distinguish between things that simply happen together and things that actually cause each other—transforming how you evaluate health claims, business strategies, and relationship patterns.   Hit that subscribe button so you don't miss any future episodes. Also - hit the like and notification bell. It helps with the algorithm so others see our content. Why not share this video with a coworker or a family member who you think would benefit from it? …     Because right now, while you've been watching this, someone just shared a lie that felt like truth. The only question is: will you be able to tell the difference?     SOURCES CITED IN THIS EPISODE MIT Media Lab – Misinformation Spread Rate Vosoughi, S., Roy, D., & Aral, S. (2018). The spread of true and false news online. Science, 359(6380), 1146-1151. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aap9559 Indiana University – Misinformation Superspreaders DeVerna, M. R., Aiyappa, R., Pacheco, D., Bryden, J., & Menczer, F. (2024). Identifying and characterizing superspreaders of low-credibility content on Twitter. PLOS ONE, 19(5), e0302201. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0302201 Open Science Collaboration – The Replication Crisis Open Science Collaboration. (2015). Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science, 349(6251), aac4716. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aac4716     ADDITIONAL READING On Inductive Reasoning and Uncertainty Taleb, N. N. (2007). The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable. Random House. On Cognitive Biases and Decision-Making Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, Fast and Slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux. On Confirmation Bias Nickerson, R. S. (1998). Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review of General Psychology, 2(2), 175-220. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.2.2.175 On Scientific Reproducibility Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2005). Why most published research findings are false. PLOS Medicine, 2(8), e124. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124       Note: All sources cited in this episode have been accessed and verified as of October 2025. The studies referenced are peer-reviewed academic research published in reputable scientific journals, including Science and PLOS ONE.  

Ben and Nate break down the measurable cost of applying late in the law school admissions cycle. Your LSAT score has the most value on the day that applications open. By rushing your LSAT or applying late in the cycle, you sacrifice points and leave money on the table. With AI poised to disrupt the legal market, it's more important than ever to go to law school for free. ⁠Study with our Free plan⁠⁠Download our iOS app⁠⁠Watch Episode 521 on YouTube⁠0:32 – AI Making Law School Obsolete?Ben and Nate discuss an article from a former Google exec claiming AI will make law and medical degrees obsolete. The guys acknowledge that AI is improving, but it still makes mistakes. While they agree that a law degree isn't a guaranteed gravy train, they also note that the law itself is a barrier to modernization, which will slow AI's impact on legal education. The schools most at risk are bottom feeders churning out lawyers for grunt work. Their advice: don't pay tuition at weak schools.14:50 – LSAT Suspended in Mainland ChinaLSAC halts testing in China after evidence of cheating. A Reddit post earlier this year even advertised cheating services. While tough for honest test takers in China, applicants should appreciate LSAC's effort to safeguard exam security.24:03 – Cost of Delaying AppsHow late is too late? While early applications are stronger, it's never worth rushing the LSAT. The best strategy is to get your best LSAT and then apply at the start of the next cycle. A University of Chicago Journal of Law and Economics article finds that delays weaken applications. Waiting 100 days is equivalent to dropping 2.1 LSAT points or 0.26 GPA points. Schools review applications in waves, and the earliest applicants are often the strongest. Missing the first wave, even by a day, can carry measurable costs.Dynamic Decision-Making under Rolling Admissions: Evidence from US Law School Applications47:43 – Main Point vs. SummaryA summary lists information, but a main point answers “why.” It's what the author is trying to convince you of, not just what they said.52:31 – Doing LR BackwardsListener Blair wants to work backward in Logical Reasoning to combat fatigue. Ben and Nathan's answer: If you're scoring under 175, you shouldn't be finishing sections anyway, so working backward means skipping easier questions to do harder ones. If you're at 175 or above, then fatigue isn't an issue.59:28 – Score PlateausListeners Trevor and Ireland feel stuck. The guys caution against chasing a single breakthrough. Progress comes from carefully reviewing and learning from every mistake, one question at a time.1:04:42 – Personal Statement Gong ShowListener Elena is the next Gong Show contestant. Ben and Nathan read her personal statement until they reach an unforgivable mistake—they then ring the gong. The record is 34 lines, set by listener Sophia.Want in? Send in your statement by September 1, 2025, to be considered for the Gong Super Show. 1:07:20 - Word of the Week - TruismThe standard advice about writing is mostly truisms, like “Make a plan,” “Don't use the passive,” or “Think of your audience.” Get caught up with our ⁠Word of the Week⁠⁠ library. 

Ben and Nathan push back against hype-driven decisions, urging students to ignore rising August LSAT registrations and wait to test until their practice scores consistently reflect readiness. They caution against chasing perceived trends, whether that means rushing to take an “easier” test or relying on gimmicks like diagramming. Even if more conditional logic appears in Logical Reasoning, the path to success remains the same: focus on intuitive understanding and resist shortcuts that only complicate the test.⁠Study with our Free Plan⁠⁠Download our iOS app⁠⁠Watch Episode 517 on YouTube⁠0:30 – August 2025 RegistrationsDespite an increase in August test registrations, Ben and Nathan stress that this shouldn't affect your personal test date. Wait to sign up until your practice test scores indicate that you're ready. They remind listeners that perceptions of an “easier” test are misleading. 14:26 – Still No Need To Diagram Henry asks if LR sections now contain more conditional logic. Ben defends the intuitive approach even on the most conditional-heavy questions, while Nathan notes that LR will never match the complexity of logic games. Diagramming, among other gimmicks, are magic beans sold to students. These strategies only complicate the test and inhibit meaningful understanding. 22:17 – Michigan AI EssayJordan sends in a Michigan Law prompt inviting applicants to use generative AI. The guys are critical of the prompt but applaud the school for acknowledging AI's role. They discuss how this reflects evolving attitudes toward AI in legal education.30:06 – Why Don't You Want Me to Go This Fall?Lizzy expresses pressure to apply quickly despite not feeling ready. Ben and Nathan explain why waiting until you have your best score matters most. They warn against a “one-and-done” mindset and emphasize that rushing leads to lower scores, worse offers, and possible regret.40:20 – Listing AwardsA listener asks whether they should list awards they haven't officially received yet. The advice: yes, include them—just mark them as “expected.”42:08 – Online JD ProgramsAre online JDs respected? Do they get scholarships? The guys argue there's little meaningful distinction between online and in-person programs. Applicants should still apply early and broadly to maximize scholarship offers.51:22 - Word of the Week - UnlessInnovation cannot thrive unless organizations embrace risk-taking.Get caught up with our ⁠Word of the Week⁠⁠ library. 

This week, Josh and Nate tackle the misconception that the Demon isn't built for beginners—a belief that emerges from the absence of an introduction to LSAT “theory”. They explain that a bloated curriculum, disconnected from questions, often confuses students and can even reduce scores. The Demon advocates jumping right into questions and letting the test, paired with our explanations, be your teacher. ⁠Study with our Free Plan⁠⁠Download our iOS app⁠⁠Watch Episode 513 on YouTube⁠0:33 – AnnouncementsRegistration deadlines are coming up. You know you're ready to sign up when your practice tests match your goal score. Registration DeadlinesRegister for Ben's Free Class6:07 – Logical Reasoning MindsetNate and Josh explore the mindset required for success in Logical Reasoning, emphasizing that each question has one objectively correct answer. Rather than starting with abstract theory, they advocate an intuitive, hands-on approach: dive into real questions, make mistakes, and learn from them. The Demon is built for beginners. By focusing on solving problems and reviewing mistakes, students can build a strong foundation for sustained success. 18:50 – Candidate Referral ServiceJosh and Nate revisit the candidate referral service and consider whether it's worth signing up. Several Demon team members share how they used the service and received CAS fee waivers to apply early and widely. Still, be cautious—don't let school marketing sway you. Stay skeptical of marketing gimmicks from these schools and be a savvy applicant. LSAT Demon Scholarship Converter26:54 – Tale of Two CareersJacob is thinking about a pivot to law from a very successful accounting career. Josh and Nate recognize there is a meaningful career opportunity, but caution him not to go to law school just because he has great reasoning skills. Instead, meet tax attorneys and decide if that is a job that you want. 36:41 – Studying with a BuddyDemon Student Alex asks how to study with a buddy. Josh and Nate encourage him to practice teaching questions to each other. Josh encourages Alex to utilize the LSAT Demon Discord to find a study buddy. LSAT Demon Discord44:46 – Studying for One Hour Alexis doesn't feel like she is making progress with only one hour per day during her lunch break. The guys encourage her to continue her slow and steady approach to studying, but encourage her to improve the quality of her hour. Your LSAT hour needs to be your best hour of the day: interruption-free, focused, and energized.57:23 – Full Practice Test FailsPaige's scores plummet when she takes full practice tests instead of timed sections. Josh suggests that the score is distracting her from giving the test 100% of her mental effort. The guys then suggest that Paige must not be applying her normal process to practice tests. Nate concludes: You should have a growth mindset when it comes to practice tests. Ask yourself how you can learn from this test, not what score you will get. 1:04:43 – Comparative RCGavin struggles with comparative passages. Josh and Nate encourage him to start explicitly focusing on comparing and contrasting as he's reading. 1:12:11 - Word of the Week - SpeciousThe difference between “literary” and “genre” fiction is a specious distinction. Get caught up with our ⁠Word of the Week⁠⁠ library.

Law schools manipulate scholarships to obscure what they're actually willing to pay for LSAT scores. Ben and Nathan reveal how some schools offer up to $40,000 per LSAT point. They introduce the “Disparity Index” to show how wildly different financial outcomes can be for students at the same school. Don't settle for mediocre scores—top LSAT performance unlocks the best deals.Study with our Free PlanDownload our iOS appWatch Episode 510 on YouTube0:30 – LSAT Buyer's ClubBen and Nathan dig into how much law schools pay for LSAT scores. They introduce the Disparity Index—calculated by subtracting a school's 75th percentile grant from full price—as a measure of that school's willingness to buy scores. Some schools pay $10,000 per point while others offer up to $40,000. At full price, you might be paying 20 times more than a classmate. The key takeaway: the 75th percentile grant should be your floor, not your ceiling.LSAT Demon Scholarship Estimator31:09 – Scholarship ReconsiderationsThe guys explain why you shouldn't expect schools to negotiate openly. Many schools pretend to have fixed offers or use pre-law advisors to dissuade students from pushing back. Protect your leverage—don't visit schools, don't volunteer information. “Exclusive” opportunities are often just marketing ploys to increase tuition revenue.50:43 – Last Call for Uncle Sam's WalletRecently proposed policy changes threaten to disrupt the current tuition landscape of law schools. Limitations on student visas, loan amounts, and repayment options all have the capacity to change the way law schools play the scholarship game. 1:07:05 – RC ComprehensionRicky scores nearly perfectly on Logical Reasoning, but underperforms at Reading Comprehension. Ben and Nathan suggest that Ricky aim for two perfect passages and guess on the rest. With time and practice, two will lead to three, but perfection on two gives a strong base and builds confidence.1:10:07 – GrammerlyBen and Nathan discuss the value of Grammarly. They suggest a smart workflow: use tools like Grammarly to generate suggestions, then double-check those suggestions with Google or other AIs. Cross-referencing recommendations can teach you good writing while improving your output.1:13:00 – Personal Statement Gong ShowIan sends in his submission for the Personal Statement Gong Show, the show where Ben and Nathan read personal statements and hit the gong when something goes wrong. The standing record to beat is ten lines, held by Greta.1:18:31 - Word of the Week - CompatibleWhich one of the following statements about cells is most compatible with the views of late nineteenth-century biochemists as those views are described in the passage?Get caught up with our Word of the Week library. 

Logical Reasoning predictions rely on the basics: accept the premises, assume the conclusion is false, and don't read the question first. Ben and Nathan explain how these steps make the section easier and why reading the question first often hurts performance.They also discuss how law schools use seat deposit deadlines to encourage students to accept weaker scholarship offers. The guys warn about the return of student loan collections and emphasize avoiding debt without a solid repayment plan. They introduce “Crushing 1L,” a new tool to help students start law school strong. Then another episode of Personal Statement Gong Show. Study with our Free PlanDownload our iOS appWatch Episode 504 on YouTube0:28 – Deposit Deadline Drama - Law schools' admissions offices are sales departments. Changing offers right before deposit deadlines puts pressure on applicants to accept worse deals. It's all part of the game schools play to leverage scholarship offers to manipulate their GPA and LSAT medians.10:35 – Student Loans in Collections - Collections are now in effect for defaulted student loans, including wage garnishments. With less than 40% of borrowers current on their payments, it's a stark reminder not to take on massive debt for law school unless you have a solid plan to pay it off. Always check employment outcomes. Most importantly, get an LSAT score that lets you go to law school for free. 23:34 – Prepping for 1L Success - The Demon has a new feature, “Crushing 1L,” to help you get a grasp of the language and the big picture of law school before you even start. Hadari's story—getting into Stanford Law without debt after 2.5 years of prep—shows it's worth taking your time to do law school the right way. Even if you finish law school at the bottom of your class, graduating debt-free puts you on firm financial footing.37:19 – Making Better Predictions - Never read the question first. You get better at making predictions in Logical Reasoning by practicing the right way. Accept the premises, expect the conclusion not to be properly proven, and be skeptical of every argument. 52:16 – Remaining Time in Reading Comprehension - If you're low on time in Reading Comprehension in a practice section, go ahead and start the next passage. Then finish the passage and the questions after time runs out. The goal of practice is long-term reading improvement, not squeezing out a few extra points. On test day, though, you might try reading a bit and grabbing a main point question, or simply use the remaining time to rest and reset.56:17 – Personal Statement Gong Show - Bryan is the next contestant in the Personal Statement Gong Show. This is the segment where Ben and Nate will read your personal statement, but as soon as they spot a problem, they ring the gong and stop reading. The current record is five lines, held by Jeremiah. 1:12:18 – Don't Want to Be an Attorney - A demon student aspires to become a clinical ethicist after a decade of nursing experience. Ben and Nate caution that if a JD is necessary, fine, but do not pay for law school. A nursing license already carries a ton of career value, so make sure you know exactly what you're getting into before you commit to more school and debt.1:18:54 - Word of the Week - Verisimilitude - “After reading this chain, I recognized that this conversation possessed a high degree of verisimilitude. The texts, in their word choice and arguments, sounded as if they were written by the people who purportedly sent them, or by a particularly adept AI text generator.”

Nathan and Josh advise JP to approach Reading Comprehension with the same active, critical mindset used in Logical Reasoning—treating each passage like a legal document and engaging with it aggressively to better understand and enjoy it.Read more on our website. Email daily@lsatdemon.com with questions or comments. Watch this episode on YouTube!

A careful approach to LR should leave you feeling energized—not fatigued.Read more on our website. Email daily@lsatdemon.com with questions or comments. Watch this episode on Youtube!

Nathan and Ben weigh in on the reports from some test-takers that the February LSAT featured more LG-style questions in Logical Reasoning. The guys also advise listeners on how to bounce back from a disappointing LSAT score. They caution applicants not to overshare in their law school applications. And they consider the importance of the LSAT Writing sample.Study with our Free PlanDownload our iOS appWatch Episode 494 on YouTube0:52 - New LSAT Dates - LSAC just announced test dates for the 2025–2026 LSAT cycle.2:37 - January LSAT Scores - As January test-takers navigate the highs and lows of score release, Ben and Nathan encourage anyone who was disappointed with their score to keep studying and to treat their next official test like any other practice test.13:33 - Is LR the New LG? - Some February test-takers have reported an increase in Logical Reasoning questions that “require” diagramming. Nathan and Ben suspect that these claims are more fiction than fact. You don't need to diagram in LR.28:30 - Oversharing on Applications - The guys share some common red flags in law school applications that people unwittingly raise by oversharing.39:25 - Process of Elimination - Ben and Nathan explain when it's okay to pick an answer via process of elimination.42:55 - LSAT Writing - How important is LSAT Writing? Nathan and Ben discuss how law schools might consider—or ignore—these writing samples.46:59 - Word of the Week - Bad LSAT prep stultifies students' progress.

Our 199th episode with a summary and discussion of last week's big AI news! Recorded on 02/09/2025 Join our brand new Discord here! https://discord.gg/nTyezGSKwP Hosted by Andrey Kurenkov and Jeremie Harris. Feel free to email us your questions and feedback at contact@lastweekinai.com and/or hello@gladstone.ai Read out our text newsletter and comment on the podcast at https://lastweekin.ai/. In this episode: - OpenAI's deep research feature capability launched, allowing models to generate detailed reports after prolonged inference periods, competing directly with Google's Gemini 2.0 reasoning models.  - France and UAE jointly announce plans to build a massive AI data center in France, aiming to become a competitive player within the AI infrastructure landscape.  - Mistral introduces a mobile app, broadening its consumer AI lineup amidst market skepticism about its ability to compete against larger firms like OpenAI and Google.  - Anthropic unveils 'Constitutional Classifiers,' a method showing strong defenses against universal jailbreaks; they also launched a $20K challenge to find weaknesses. Timestamps + Links: (00:00:00) Intro / Banter (00:02:27) News Preview (00:03:28) Response to listener comments Tools & Apps (00:08:01) OpenAI now reveals more of its o3-mini model's thought process (00:16:03) Google's Gemini app adds access to ‘thinking' AI models (00:21:04) OpenAI Unveils A.I. Tool That Can Do Research Online (00:31:09) Mistral releases its AI assistant on iOS and Android (00:36:17) AI music startup Riffusion launches its service in public beta (00:39:11) Pikadditions by Pika Labs lets users seamlessly insert objects into videos Applications & Business (00:41:19) Softbank set to invest $40 billion in OpenAI at $260 billion valuation, sources say (00:47:36) UAE to invest billions in France AI data centre (00:50:34) Report: Ilya Sutskever's startup in talks to fundraise at roughly $20B valuation (00:52:03) ASML to Ship First Second-Gen High-NA EUV Machine in the Coming Months, Aiming for 2026 Production (00:54:38) NVIDIA's GB200 NVL 72 Shipments Not Under Threat From DeepSeek As Hyperscalers Maintain CapEx; Meanwhile, Trump Tariffs Play Havoc With TSMC's Pricing Strategy Projects & Open Source (00:56:49) The Allen Institute for AI (AI2) Releases Tülu 3 405B: Scaling Open-Weight... (01:00:06) SmolLM2: When Smol Goes Big -- Data-Centric Training of a Small Language Model (01:03:56) PhD Knowledge Not Required: A Reasoning Challenge for Large Language Models (01:08:26) OpenEuroLLM: Europe's New Initiative for Open-Source AI Development Research & Advancements (01:10:34) LIMO: Less is More for Reasoning (01:16:39) s1: Simple test-time scaling (01:19:17) ZebraLogic: On the Scaling Limits of LLMs for Logical Reasoning (01:23:55) Streaming DiLoCo with overlapping communication: Towards a Distributed Free Lunch Policy & Safety (01:26:50) US sets AI safety aside in favor of 'AI dominance' (01:29:39) Almost Surely Safe Alignment of Large Language Models at Inference-Time (01:32:02) Constitutional Classifiers: Defending against Universal Jailbreaks across Thousands of Hours of Red Teaming (01:33:16) Anthropic offers $20,000 to whoever can jailbreak its new AI safety system

You don't conquer the LSAT with fifty-fifty guesses. You do it by carefully solving each question. This week, Nathan and Ben outline their plan of attack in Logical Reasoning, counsel a student who's feeling unmotivated to study, and identify a common cause of score plateaus.Study with our Free PlanDownload our iOS appWatch Episode 493 on YouTube1:33 - Staying Motivated -An anonymous listener struggles to stay motivated for LSAT study. Nathan and Ben recommend prioritizing quality over quantity and pursuing activities outside of LSAT prep.7:45 - Don't Apply Late -Law schools' application deadlines shouldn't be on your radar. To maximize your chances, apply early and broadly.16:45 - Attack Each Argument -The vast majority of arguments in Logical Reasoning are bad. Excellence in LR comes from attacking each argument and finding flaws.32:31 - Gap-Year Employment -Any work experience can be good work experience. Law schools won't look down on you for putting a retail job on your résumé.36:10 - Timed Sections vs. Practice Tests -Do your scores from individual timed sections accurately reflect how you'd perform on the official test?38:49 - Score Plateau -The guys diagnose the cause of listener Daniel's score plateau: poor accuracy. They instruct Daniel to slow down and practice getting questions right.44:16 - Thirsty Law Schools -The University of Tulsa College of Law is offering unsolicited full-ride scholarships to students with LSAT scores at or above 160.53:55 - Word of the Week -Law students must master thepunctilio of legal writing.

In Episode 162, Dave and Jon tackle one of the trickiest concepts on the LSAT: Principle Questions. Tune in to hear them break down this common and confusing question type, as they explore specific examples and apply solution strategies that will help you conquer every form of this notoriously tough idea.

Since the LSAT dropped Logic Games, anxious test takers have feared the rise of more “formal logic” questions in Logical Reasoning. So far, no significant changes to LR have been disclosed. No matter what happens, every LR question is perfectly solvable with some careful reading and common sense—no diagramming required. Need proof? This week, Ben and Nathan make quick work of a Must Be True question that's chock full of conditional logic. But first, they help a burnt-out student build a sustainable study plan. They compare the benefits of national and regional law schools. And they offer words of hope to low-GPA splitters. Study with our Free Plan Download our iOS app Watch Episode 473 on YouTube 5:04 - Application Fee Waivers - Law schools often waive their application fees. Just ask them. 8:52 - Scoring 160 - Nathan and Ben prove that it's possible to score 160 while only attempting 18 questions per section. It pays to slow down and focus on accuracy. 16:18 - Burnout - Listener Will considers taking a few months off to recover from LSAT burnout. Ben and Nathan advise Will to instead dial back his study to one or two quality hours per day. 23:50 - Confusing Language - Nathan and Ben share some tips for navigating confusing language on the LSAT. 32:20 - Small Town, Big School? - LSAT Demon student Will plans to set up shop as a probate lawyer in a small town. Should Will pursue law schools in the T14? Or is he better off attending a regional school? 41:15 - Academic Renewal - Ben and Nathan encourage an anonymous listener to persist in their efforts to scrub an F from their undergraduate transcript. 46:56 - Hope for Splitters - Listener Grace went to law school for free despite her low GPA. 50:13 - Don't Diagram - Reports of more “formal logic” questions on recent LSATs are likely exaggerated. Regardless, you can solve any Logical Reasoning question without diagramming by reading carefully and engaging your common sense. Nathan and Ben demonstrate on a Must Be True question from PrepTest 123. 1:10:41 - Tips from a Departing Demon - LSAT Demon student Braden says: “Take the time to really understand each question, and you will get faster. Don't try to go faster without understanding. That's why I improved when I started digging into the RC passage.” 1:11:27 - Word of the Week - Treat your official LSAT with the same insouciance that you would a practice test.