The dating website OkCupid recently released the results of a shocking new study. It turns out that people who own iPhones have had more sexual partners than people who own other smart phones.

As expected, this groundbreaking scientific breakthrough has convinced many to conclude that an inferior cell phone is the root of their sexual misfortunes. Yahoo summed it up best, when they claimed, “I guess this accessory really helps your game.”

(Disclaimer: I actually own an iPhone and I would really like to believe that my smart phone will increase my appeal to members of the opposite sex, but my LSAT-centered mind is once again holding me back.)

Before you run out to the nearest Apple store, I would urge you to read the following analysis. You see, this article grabbed my attention because it is a classic example of two very common logical fallacies: causation and sampling.

The first part of the study focused on 30 year-olds. It turns out that men who own an iPhone have had an average of 10 sexual partners, and women have had a whopping 12.3. Blackberry users have an average of 8.1 (men) and 8.8 (women) notches on their bedpost. And apparently Android users have about as much luck with the opposite sex as Snooki. Men with Androids have an average of 6 partners and women are just ahead of them with 6.1.

The first conclusion is obvious: women have left men in the dust. What’s up with that? Guys, it’s time to stop playing with your new app and go talk to a girl.

The second conclusion is more problematic. Does this evidence actually prove, as many have reported, that the iPhone increases your game? Is that hot guy or girl going home with you because of you, or is it just the bulge in your pocket?

Unfortunately, drawing the conclusion that the phone is responsible would be unwarranted. One of the most common fallacies on the LSAT involves confusing a correlation with causation. Even though iPhone owners have more sexual partners, this does not actually prove that the phone is the cause for the good luck in the bedroom.

Why?

First, the causal relationship could actually be reversed. Maybe people who have already racked up a lot of sexual partners are more likely to buy an iPhone (it can be complicated to keep track of all of those names and numbers).

Second, there could be alternate causes. Maybe people who use an iPhone are getting laid for other reasons. As you probably know by now, you can tell a lot about a person by their choice of smart phone. If you meet a guy that owns an Android, he probably has his own special character in World of Warcraft and he probably brags about the amount of RAM in his computer. If you meet someone with a Blackberry, she is invariably a lawyer or investment banker and rarely, if ever, is allowed to leave her office. A person with an iPhone is likely to be either (1) an artist or (2) unemployed. IPhone owners, thus, have more free time and this could actually be why they are getting lucky more often.

The second big fallacy in this case has to do with the actual study. 30 year-olds might not be representative of other age groups. Maybe a gal at 30 with an iPhone is very attractive, yet a 60 year-old or a 19 year-old with an iPhone might have little or no luck with the boys. In order to investigate the hypothesis that iPhones actually do increase one’s game, it would be necessary to use a sample group that spans different ages, geographic locations, lifestyles, and social classes.

There are many morals to this story. First, don’t confuse correlation with causation. Second, it is problematic to base general conclusions on samples that could be unrepresentative. And finally, Steve Jobs gets laid because of his bank account, not his iPhone.

Now a challenge for you. There is actually a third flaw that I have not mentioned. Question for you: why might it also be a problem to draw the conclusion that iPhone users are more likely to have more sexual partners based on the survey results mentioned?

In the craziest development yet, in the midst of outlining what my LSAT experience in September was going to look like, I made a joke about honeybees being the topic of conversation on a difficult reading comprehension passage:

“There was a real bitch of a science passage related to human dependence on the honeybee.”

But what are the chances of that actually popping up? Well, the reading comprehension section featured a passage about parallel processing and basing computer systems on similar systems in a nature. Of all the examples that they could use, what did they choose? Honeybees. No shit. Weird.

My goal in life has now changed. I now would like to become more like this lady by using my powerful clairvoyant abilities.

So here we go again.

1. The Curve

I think it will be very similar to the curves from last year. Since the economy has started to rebound (kinda, sorta, but not really), the number of test takers will likely be somewhat down from last year. Of course, testing centers last year resembled movie theaters before the opening of Twilight. Crazy.

I think the curve will be somewhere between the September 2009 curve and the December 2009 curve.

Out of 100 questions:

170 89 out of 100 (-11)
165 82 out of 100 (-18)
160 74 out of 100 (-26)

2. Games

The games on the test should be pretty consistent with the games that have popped up on the exam in the last few years. There will likely be an easy, 1:1 ordering game to start things out. In and out grouping will be somewhere close behind. Expect some tiered ordering and something that is either underbooked or overbooked.

Last year, students reported that games were more difficult than had been the case in the previous couple years. There will be one game (I am predicting the third one) that is going to be tough. However, charging into the question will not get you to the promised land. When you experience a hard game, that just puts more emphasis on deductions, most notably scenarios.

Random prediction: there will be a girl named Clarissa in one of the games. Watch out for her.

3. Logical Reasoning

They are really starting to phase out some of the more uncommon question types and sticking to the big guys. This means that you can expect a lot of flaws, which is always expected. But here are a couple question types that have been making a comeback.

- I think there will be at least six necessary assumption questions. These can be tough for students. Remember to test your answer to see if it is necessary. How do you know if something is necessary? Take it away. If you want to know if showering is necessary to score on your hot date, then you have to skip the shower and see if you have any chance without it. Remember, the answer does not have to prove anything, and that is why you should generally shy towards weaker answer choices.
- There will be lots of strengthen principle questions. On these questions, you need to find a general principle in the answers that supports whatever decision is made in the stimulus. Remember to anticipate the principle beforehand, and try to phrase the principle in condition terms (if this, then that).

Random prediction: there will be a question about pygmy monkeys.

4. Reading Comprehension

Long, hard, and boring. So pretty much the same old story. However, stay interested and stay motivated.

I think the comparative passage will be long and tough on this one (probably the 3rd passage).

Random prediction: oil spills (although I might be swayed by current events).

So that is what I am expecting. Doesn’t sound too bad, right?

Remember to relax this weekend and get your mind right (as the kids are saying). If you need some tips for how to fill up your Sunday, we have a video to help you out.

Best of luck on Monday.

Yep, the LSAT is less than a week away. But no need to stress. Not much more than the rest of your life (higher education, career, attractiveness of your future spouse) is riding on your performance next Monday.

My last day through the ringer was last September. If you want to get a feeling for what the experience will be like, check out my pre-game post, written in the stressful moments before the big day.

These last few days can be vital to your performance. You should know by now that the LSAT is not a test for which you should cram. This is not introductory Biology. If you pull an all-nighter before the LSAT, you are in trouble. Your mental acuity is crucial.

The June examination has some unique obstacles. Namely, you don’t have to wake up at the butt crack of dawn to get to your test center. The June exam is given at noon, as opposed to the customary 8 am.

So here are some tips for test day. Follow them and success is sure to follow.

(Disclaimer: nothing in life is actually sure to follow, so the above statement is in no way intended to be construed as a guarantee of your performance.)

1. Don’t study

No matter how much you are tempted to do so, or how natural it might feel to pick up your LSAT books one last time, do not study on the morning of the test. It will not help. You will have plenty on your mind (like the actual test that you have to take in a few hours), and you are guaranteed to get everything wrong. That is not the confidence boost that you need on the big morning.

2. Eat

Many students don’t eat, either voluntarily (because they think it will cause an untimely bathroom break) or involuntarily (nerves). This is a bad idea. You will likely end the exam around 4:30 in the afternoon. Assuming you are a human being with a semi-normal digestive system, you have to eat something before then.

Now, I am not advocating a meal that tests your intestinal fortitude. That test you will fail. So stay away from the grits or biscuits and gravy. But a nice little bowl of oatmeal or some bacon and eggs does a body good.

3. Exercise

Over the last few weeks, you have probably gotten into a routine that goes something like this: LSAT, sleep, LSAT, stress out, LSAT, sleep, caffeine, LSAT, text message, LSAT, Facebook, LSAT, sleep. I would urge you to break out of that pattern on the morning of the test. I already told you not to do any studying. You should also try to avoid sleeping until 10 and waking up in the nick of time to make it to your test center.

Set your alarm and get a quick workout in before heading to the test. It will clear your head and get those smart juices flowing. After reading thousands of LSAT questions over the last decade, I probably should be able to recite the physiological benefits of exercise on your brain’s functioning, but I am drawing a blank. Now don’t go running 12 miles or setting a personal best on the bench, but a leisurely jog should help.

4. Leave your phone at home

I know, that advice is damn near sacrilegious these days. But here is what is on your iPhone or Blackberry these days: distractions that make you slightly dumber every time that you turn your phone on. Not the vibe we are looking for on game day.

Do you really need to be texting before the test? Are there any Facebook updates that can’t wait until the test is over? Also, cell phones are not allowed at test centers, so you have to leave your precious little phone in the car anyway. It will be lonely, but it will survive.

5. Warm up the brain

Tip #1 was not to study. And I stand by those words. However, if you are like me, it takes your brain a few moments to click into LSAT mode. You want to get those few moments out of the way before you start the actual test. Have you ever had to read question #1 like six times before you get it? Those are the cobwebs that we would like to get out of the way.

Grab an LSAT book and bring it with you to the testing center. Before you check-in, read through a couple problems. Or tear out a page and check them out while you are waiting. You cannot bring questions into your testing room, but doing a couple questions before you enter the temple of doom can help you start quickly.

If you are going to warm up, please don’t take one last stab at that game you could never conquer. Not a good way to set the mood. Grab a couple easy questions that you have done before and just get the wheels turning.

There you have it. Five easy steps to LSAT success. I will be back tomorrow with some predictions for the test.

Seeing as I am unable to ever completely shake the LSAT out of my brain (even after twelve beers at the pool and too many tequila shots to recall), I kept noticing that people use some pretty flawed logic inside the hallowed walls of those casinos. I know that might sound shocking since we normally equate Vegas with rationality and profound intellect, but let me give you a couple examples.

1. Overlooking bias and/or ulterior motives

Here are some claims that I overheard at the pool/casino/club.

“I paid for this table for my buddy’s birthday, but it’s no big deal to me. They know me around here. I normally buy at least three bottles.”

This comment originated from a clearly intoxicated guy wearing a button-up shirt that had apparently lost the ability to actually button. He was talking to a semi-attractive lass and simultaneously seeing how far he could slide his hand up her thigh before she noticed. I am not quite sure whether the woman in question based any decisions for the night on this claim, but should she have? I would argue that she should do some further investigation. I know this sounds pessimistic of me, but I have heard of instances where a male will exaggerate his monetary situation in order to impress a female. This type of motive could be at play here.

“Wow, that is really interesting. Do you want to buy me a drink?”

This deception goes both ways. I overheard this comment roughly 1,839 times through the course of the evening. And it worked roughly 1,839 times. Apparently, women are taught at an early age that feigning interest in a male will result in free booze for the evening. But should a man believe that a woman is really interested in what they have to say? Maybe, but maybe not. It is possible that said woman could simply be after a free drink and plans to leave the scene shortly thereafter.

Lesson: when you are relying on what people say, you have to make sure that you have accounted for any plausible motives or biases they may have.

2. Composition: whole to part

At some point in the evening, we began to socialize with an attractive group of girls who actually lived in Las Vegas. (I never knew that actually happened.) My friend (we will call him Jerome) ended up hooking up with one of the girls from the group that evening, and he was very proud of himself the next morning.

Question: because this lucky lady was part of an attractive group of girls, must she have been attractive? The answer, of course, is no. Unfortunately for Jerome, hopping on the proverbial grenade is not a good reason for the hubris.

Lesson: simply because a group has a certain property does not entail that each member of the group has that property.

3. Temporal: past versus present versus future

Another buddy of mine is not a big gambler, but he does give in to the ugly habit once in a while. We were cruising through the casino and he thought he spotted a golden opportunity. Out of the corner of his eye, he noted that the roulette wheel had come up red six times in a row. What are the chances? How could he ever have been so lucky?

Without hesitation, he rushed over to the table. I tried to stop him and intercede with a lesson on temporal fallacies, but I was too late. He bet big on black. After all, there is no way it could come up red again. The wheel was spun and it came up… red. Crap. I bought him a shot as consolation.

Lesson: what has occurred in the past is commonly irrelevant to what will happen in the future.

4. Causation: ignoring alternate causes

This fallacy also comes from the world of gambling. I sat down at a blackjack table to see if I could pick up a couple bucks. A middle-aged man was sitting next to me with a pretty hefty stack of chips in front of him. After I joined the game, he continued to win and celebrated with various loud cries and awkward dance moves.

Then they switched dealers. And the winning stopped. Quickly. My new friend lost at least eight hands in a row and his joy quickly turned to anger. As his stack of chips began to shrink, he started to get angry with the dealer. “Come on, man. You asshole. Oh look, you got another 20. Shocking.”

Clearly, the awkward dancer blamed the dealer for his losing streak, but was that a valid conclusion for him to draw? Well, no. He was overlooking the fact that he was playing a game of chance and many factors could account for his change of luck. The cards are the likely culprit, but maybe someone spiked his drink, or the wind changed, or he had dropped his lucky coin. Any of those factors are just as reasonable to blame for as bad luck as the poor dealer.

Lesson: when two things occur at the same time, do not be hasty to conclude that one must have caused the other.

I often urge my students not to go to Vegas while they are studying for the LSAT, but I am starting to question that advice. Look at all the important lessons that you can learn.

Say hello to the final game from the September 2009 LSAT. In order to get through this game in less than an hour (and not slice your wrists in the process), some crucial deductions were needed.

Let’s take a look (the subject of the game has been slightly altered):

A young princess (not literally) is selecting friends to invite to her big Sweet 16 bash. She must invite at least three friends from among the following seven: Harriett, Liza, Margaret, Penelope, Sigourney, Tabitha, and Wilma. The birthday girl’s parents have placed the following restrictions on the invitations that can go out:

Doesn’t sound too bad, right? This is one of the basic and very common type of games on the LSAT. It involves selecting one group from a larger group. Feeling good, feeling strong, here comes the rules:

If Harriett, is invited, then neither Sigourney nor Margaret can be invited.
If Margaret is invited, then neither Penelope nor Tabitha can be invited.
If Wilma is invited, then neither Penelope nor Sigourney can be invited.

Again, nothing is screaming, “I am a terrible, bloody game that is going to bend you over and ruin your LSAT score.” However, the worst games don’t always have to scream; a whisper can be even more dangerous.

The rules here essentially rule out certain combinations of girls from being invited. This should sound familiar, we all have to follow similar rules in our everyday life. If I invite my cop friend, then I can’t invite my drug dealer friend. If the new girl that I am dating is going to show up, then the ex should be left off the invite list. Seems straightforward enough.

Trust me, if you dove into the questions on this game without doing some work, the road was similar to a quick trip through Assault on American Gladiators. Not the lame new version, the old school ass-kicking version against Sky and Nitro.

There are actually two elements that are working together on this game to create a scary combination: there are a bunch of combinations that do not work, and yet you still must meet a minimum requirement of invitees. This leads to a situation where certain combinations will not work because you will not be able to meet the minimum number of girls that must be invited. Here is the breakdown:

Harriett: Boots out 2 girls (Sigourney and Margaret)
Liza: Totally random
Margaret: Boots out 3 girls (Harriett, Penelope, and Tabitha)
Penelope: Boots out 2 girls (Margaret and Wilma)
Sigourney: Boots out 2 girls (Harriett and Wilma)
Tabatha: Boots out 1 girl (Margaret)
Wilma: Boots out 2 girls (Penelope and Sigourney)

The first thing that you should notice I already highlighted. Since there must be at least three girls that are invited, at most four girls can be left off the lucky list. If Margaret is invited, at least three girls are definitely gone.

Party time: M

Not so much: H P T

But wait, there’s more. Since both Wilma and Sigourney cannot be invited, and there is only one spot left in the un-cool group, one or the other would have to be invited and Liza would have to take the final spot.

Party time: M S/W L

Not so much: H P T W/S

This leads to the huge deduction that Margaret can only be invited if Liza is invited. And if Liza is not invited, then Margaret cannot be invited.

Armed with this deduction and the list of how many girls hate each other (who ever said that Logic Games were not like real life?), the questions were smooth sailing.

Happy studying…

Just look at the Olympics currently taking place north of the border. Seth Wescott became a star with a valiant comeback in snowboard cross. Bode Miller, the incredible disappointment from 2006, came back to win bronze in the men’s downhill. Lindsey Vonn bounces back from a leg injury (and some questionable bikini photos) to capture gold in the downhill. Shoot, even Shaun White came back (down to Earth) after spinning around what seemed to be 18 times in the halfpipe.

However, there is a comeback of another sort that also seems to be taking place. The return of… Logic Games. (Cue the sounds of screaming children.)

You see, these little beasts of the LSAT have been laying low for a number of years. I am generally not one to buy into rumors about the LSAT, but…

Ever since 2008, some very interesting Logic Games have been terrorizing pre-law students across the country. And by “interesting”, I mean incredibly fu*king hard.

Here are some highlights:

Note: Names have been altered to protect the identity of the actual participants of the games (and because LSAC doesn’t like that).

October 2008: Super Shuttle to Hell

The last game on this test involved a number of passengers who exit a shuttle at different stops. Doesn’t sound too bad, right? We have all taken a shuttle from LAX or JFK with a stop in mind. Not so fast… check out this rule: If Jezzabelle is still on board when the shuttle reaches Fifetown, then Greta is still on board when the shuttle reaches Satanville; otherwise, Greta is not still on board when the shuttle reaches Satanville. Yeah, that looks like about as much fun as a game of Trivial Pursuit with the Kardashians.

This one was ugly because it combined a type of game (tiered ordering) with rules that are normally reserved for another type of game (basic ordering). This is going to be the start of a trend.

December 2008: Manufacturing Plant of Death

Everything was going fine on this fateful day until students ran into this gem. So here’s the story. Some big-time executives have planned to visit the normal folks; they have planned tours down to the company’s manufacturing plants (likely accompanied by security guards and body armor). The task was to determine which executives visited which sites on which days. Not too bad, except that there were three days, three sites, and five executives. Wanna try to do the math on the number of possibilities in that one?

Once again, this game involved a combination of two elements. Executives and sites had to be ordered, sure, but there were also groups of executives. Harmless apart but very scary when thrown together.

June 2009: Mauve Dinos Attack

First, this game was about dinosaurs, which is always scary. Second, this game included the color mauve, which is inherently confusing. As of today, here are the stats:

Top alternate careers chosen due to getting fuc*ed by the mauve dino game:

1. 792 Beautician (includes hair, nails, and skin workers)
2. 451 Stripper (excuse me, “dancer”)
3. 216 Pez factory assembly line worker
4. 173 Off-ramp florist
5. 89 Personal assistant to D-list actor, actress, model, or someone who claims to be a “producer”

With the mauve dinos, the trend continued. The basic process here was to select five of seven types of dinosaurs. In addition, students had to discern the color of each dinosaur. Each of these tasks is very common in games, but they are normally kept apart. And for good reason. Dealing with them in the same game had disastrous effects (see above table).

December 2009: Summer School Sucks

After this game reared its ugly head, many students reported that they promptly went home and de-friended anyone named Alicia from their Facebook. This game begged you to select courses for little Alicia to take during a certain semester. That seems easy enough, but there was both a tricky “but not both” rules and there were two statistics classes that were offered at different times. Ouch.

Again, this game was combining a type of game (in and out grouping) with rules that normally only occur in a different type of game (ordering).

February 2010: The Great Mystery

The February test has not been released and it will not be released at any time in the near future. However, students across the board reported that the games on this one could be described by a word that rhymes with Blagojevich.

My interest was piqued because, once again, the hardest game allegedly combined some elements not generally found together. The third game was a tiered ordering game with conditional rules that are normally reserved for grouping games.

So… what does this all mean? Two things:

First, ugly games are popping up again. In the early 2000s, I often argued that the games were not getting easier, but they were changing. Rather than having one really easy game and one impossibly difficult game (as was common in the 90s along with bright and baggy attire), the games section frequently featured a mix of games of average difficulty. But it now appears that the big dogs are back, and you better be ready.

Second, they are creating “new” games. To clarify, there is actually nothing new about these games. But your friends over at LSAC seem to be combining elements of games that are not generally found together to create some new challenges.

Good times…

For some students, this decision brings sleepless nights and lots of overeating. A bad LSAT score is not a great thing to have on your record. Not as bad as a conviction for international espionage or anything, but not great.

Let me first take a moment to sympathize with the difficult predicament that is the decision about whether to cancel your score.

You have to decide whether you like your score or not before you ever see it.

The analogies abound to illustrate why this is a tough call to make. It would be very dangerous if the coach of a team had to pick his players before he ever sees the tryouts. You could end up drafting a fine physical specimen like this. Can you imagine if you had to make decisions about your dating life before you actually met the suspects in question? You could end up spending your tender years with this guy. Yikes.

And the LSAT tends to be accompanied by slightly more stress than most other decisions that one needs to make.

If you are still trying to make a decision, we do have some resources to help you. First is a video with an exercise designed to help you predict your final score and Trent wrote a post about how schools view multiple scores and cancellations.

I generally tell my students that there are three major factors to weigh:

1. When do you want to go to law school?

As you are probably aware, law schools admit students on a rolling basis. That means that students start to hear back from schools as early as the fall. If you cancel your February score and retake the LSAT in June, you will be delaying entering law school for an academic year.

If you are not planning to apply this year, then you have plenty of time to take the LSAT again.

2. Have you taken it before?

Law schools give everybody a mulligan. But you really only get one. If you have cancelled before, then you should be a little more reticent to cancel again. But it is still probably better than having a low score on your record. If you do have more than one cancellation, a good explanation for them, and a higher LSAT score, then that’s probably not going to hurt you in your applications.

3. What is going to change?

If you want to perform better on a later LSAT, something has to change. Maybe you will have more time to study? That could help. Maybe you think you will be better able to handle the stress of the test? Also a good thing.

But if you don’t have the time or energy to do anything different, then it might be good to just keep your February score.

So I just wanted to give you a reminder that the date is here. Missing the deadline is never a good feeling.

Good luck with the decision. We hope everyone who took the February LSAT is enjoying the return to sanity now that the test is over.

Originally posted December 10th, 2009

But they don’t talk about sports. Well, not much, at least.

And I think I might know why. There are certain issues in sports that I believe can poke holes in the reasoning used on the LSAT.

For example, let’s discuss the NFL playoffs. There are four more games coming up this weekend. On Saturday, the Cardinals go to New Orleans to try to upset the Saints (-7) and the Ravens will try to injure Peyton Manning before he inevitably mounts a comeback to beat them in the 4th quarter (-6½). On Sunday, the Cowboys travel to Minnesota to deal with the ageless Favre (-2½) and the Jets bring their impressive defense and fat coach to sunny San Diego to deal with the Chargers (-7) and LT (who has apparently lost his mind and his rhythm).

As I was reading through the various articles on the upcoming games, I couldn’t help but pick up on a trend in every report. Sports commentators base their arguments on a method of reasoning that is clearly fallacious on the LSAT. They commit temporal fallacies like they are going out of style.

• “History says one or two road ‘dogs will pull off divisional-round upsets.” (Sportsline)
• “This is Ken Whisenhunt’s time of the season, with the Cards’ head coach 4-0 in the NFC playoffs.” (Clark Judge)
• “(The Cardinals) hammered a 12-4 Panthers team on the road in the divisional round last season.” (ESPN)
• “The Jets seem to be H-O-T, H-O-T, H-O-T. They just blew out the Bengals…” (Bill Simmons)

If you have lived in our sports-crazed nation for more than a couple hours, you have undoubtedly heard statements like the above. Granted, these claims are at least attempting to base a conclusion on some body of evidence. This naturally makes them more convincing than some other platitudes that are thrown around in sports (“I was just feeling it,” “we just take it one game at a time,” “we played with a lot of heart,” “he has great intangibles”).

However, the LSAT constantly warns against the use of such temporal arguments. In the legal world, evidence of prior acts is commonly excluded from trials because it is deemed to be irrelevant to the issues at hand.

But where is the line? If Kurt Warner went 29-of-33 with 5 touchdowns last week, is that a reasonable basis for concluding that the Cardinals are more likely to beat the Saints this week? If Brett Favre started to look his age (72, I believe) down the stretch of the regular season, does that imply that the Cowboys have a better chance for an upset?

Here is an LSAT question that can be used for comparison:

Executive: Our next environmental proposal will likely be approved, because normally about half of the environmental proposals that the prime minister reviews are approved, and our last five environmental proposals have all been rejected.

The argument’s reasoning is flawed because

So the basic argument here is that we are going to win on this proposal because we lost on the last five. This is a Flaw question. The LSAT (and, by extension, the legal profession) clearly must believe that this is an invalid argument. The answer choice states that this argument makes the unsupported assumption that having the last five proposals turned down affects the chances for the current proposal.

It is notable that the answer choice does not say that the argument draws too strong of a conclusion, but rather the answer states that it is a mistake to conclude that the past has any effect at all on the current proposal.

Now, if this were the wide world of sports, the argument should conclude that the current proposal will have the same fate as the earlier proposals (continue the hot streak). Many commentators are concluding that the Colts are going to win this weekend because they have won in the past and Peyton was the league MVP this season. But the point remains the same. The evidence about the past is supposed to be irrelevant to the present circumstances.

But where is the line?

Anyone who has played sports will agree that there is some relationship between the past and the present. It sounds like crazy-talk, but many of us have entered the proverbial “zone” in which we feel unstoppable. The baseball moves slower, the hoop appears to be the size of a small lake, and the ducks seem to be flying much slower (for all of you in the red states).

But it would seem that you have to be very careful about what type of evidence can be used to forecast into the future. It occurs to me that there are two requirements that must be in order to use the past to make predictions about the future:

1. The situations need to be similar in form and time.
2. The issue in question must be something that translates in time from one event to the next.

First, you have to make reasonable comparisons. This is where sports really sways off course. If I have to hear one more time about stats dating back to 1960, I am going to hurt myself. Did you know that the Cowboys are only 2-7 against the Vikings in the playoffs? Of course this stat is all-time. Most of the players on the two teams were not even born when these games were played. And I am supposed to believe that this has some effect on their performance this weekend?

Decades ago definitely doesn’t matter, last year doesn’t even really matter.

The second issue is equally important. If you flipped a coin and it ended up heads five times in a row, does that mean the next one will be heads? No, because those occurrences are not related. We have all been burned by this fallacy in Vegas and the damned game of roulette. Five blacks in a row? Bet big on red; lose big on red.

However, if a concert pianist plays four flawless performances in a row, does that mean that she is more likely to play well in performance number five? I would say yes. It surely does not guarantee it, but that evidence seems highly relevant.

The pianist seems to be a much better analogy to sports than flipping a coin. So there would seem to be some situations in sports that violate the temporal fallacies that abound on the LSAT. But as long as you follow the two rules outlined above, you should be just fine.

While I am on the topic, here are my picks for the weekend. The Saints will beat the Cardinals 134 – 96 in the highest scoring game ever. Peyton will lead a fouth-quarter comeback, win, and then film 18 commercials simultaneously. The Chargers will finally make it so that I don’t have to watch the Jets and Dirty Sanchez anymore.

And my upset pick: Cowboys over Vikings. I mean, come on, Tony Romo has been so hot lately.

The United States swore in our first black President. The King of Pop kicked the can. We finally achieved health care reform… sorta. We started to bounce back from the recession… kinda. A Tiger became a cheetah. And the Yankees won another World Series.

Well, all of that is well and good, but it has been an equally eventful year for those of us in the LSAT world. And I would like to take this opportunity to take a stroll down memory lane. Some highlights…

February

The February LSAT was held on the seventh day of the month. February tests aren’t released so it’s difficult to say much about them as a person’s memories of the test without written assistance are about as good as Tiger’s chance of reconciliation with Elin. There was a reason man invented paper and that the oral tradition only exists in reading comprehension passages.

March

Thousands of prospective students begin to study for the June LSAT. Little did they know what was awaiting them on game day. I won’t give it away, but it was big, it was extinct, and it was mauve.

June

The June LSAT was administered on June 8, 2009. That day will live in infamy.

On this day, the mauve dinosaur game came to life and LSAT students have been horrified ever since. For weeks, mauve dinosaurs were all that people could talk about, although the game normally went by a more informal name: that fu*@ing piece of sh#% crap game about the fu*%ing mauve dinosaurs.

The Logic Games on the June LSAT was the hardest section of games that has popped up in quite a while. Many predicted that this would start a trend for the test, but the games since then have not quite lived up to the reddish/purpleish dinos.

August

Despite the success of such notable programs as Cash for Clunkers, the job market continued to slide over the summer, and the legal profession was not immune to the effects of the economy.

Lots of rumors started circulating about the demise of big law. What are LSAT students to do if they cannot get their cushy six-figure job at the end of the rainbow that is law school?

Law firms started deferring entering associates and offering ridiculously awesome packages if you did not want to actually work for a year. I was very confused about the ensuing uproar. I’m not going to complain if anyone out there wants to pay me $80,000 to take a yearlong vacation. Any takers? Anyone?

Nowadays, law firms seem to be making a recovery and lawyers are back to making the big bucks and driving fancy German automobiles, so there is hope for us yet.

September

September was big. Really big. On September 26, more people took the LSAT than had ever before taken the LSAT. Ever.

As anyone who has actually sat through an LSAT can attest, it is unlikely that many of these people were taking it for fun. There are many more pleasurable activities that one can use to fill a Saturday morning. Like counting the blades of grass on your lawn. Or having knives hurled at your face.

There seems to be a confluence of factors that have led to the increasing LSAT numbers. There is the economy. There is the change in rules regarding postponing. There is the competitiveness in admissions. There is Jersey Shore. Okay, that last one probably has not played much of a role, but that shows deserves mention in at least every other post.

The test itself was rather unremarkable. I happened to take it and get a 178, as did my colleague, Colin. Everyone was frightened that there was going to be a mauve dinosaur-esque game, but there was not. No aqua hippos or fuchsia gorillas to be found.

October

The scores from the September LSAT were released. Screams were heard from across the country. In a totally unrelated story, test centers for the December LSAT were flooded with new test takers.

December

And here we are. The December LSAT passed without too much fanfare, (although there was something about an RC sculpting passage), but the big news came out recently. The curve for the December test was the easiest curve in a long time. You could practically just bubble (D) for the whole test and come out of there with a 152.

It is debatable whether this trend will continue into the future, but it appears that the increasing numbers of test takers are finally having an effect. Less studying by them means a better curve for you. Thank you very much.

So there it was; 2009 in all its glory. Here’s wishing all of you MSS readers a great 2010 and a Happy New Year.

Thousands of anxious LSAT students awoke this morning with a frightening email in their Inbox. Subject: Your December 2009 LSAT Score. After a brief panic attack and some inspirational videos, many students have not yet summoned the courage to actually open said email.

But once you have, you can join the big topic of conversation… the curve.

The curve for the December LSAT is the most lenient in recent LSAT history. I had predicted that the curve would be forgiving, but this curve is easier than a sorority girl/boy on Halloween. Take a look:

Normally a student can miss 10 questions to get a 170. In December, missing 14 questions earned you that honor. Typically you can miss about 24 questions to get a 160, but the test allowed you to bubble incorrectly on 28 questions in December and still receive a 160.

It is important to understand that this is a curve. These numbers do not mean that a higher percentage of test takers got those lovely scores this time around. The numbers simply mean that you had a little more wiggle room to get those top scores. There are various theories about why the curve has lightened up this year, but I am sticking to my original theory.

The initial report is that the Logical Reasoning was abnormally difficult and this also could have had a significant effect on the curve.

We hope that everyone is getting great news in that Inbox and would love to hear your thoughts about the curve and your LSAT score.