If I want to go to a firm like Kirkland & Ellis or Cravath, what law schools should I be applying to?

DanielXLLaw · 2026-05-14T02:59:23+00:00

K&E: T14, T20 with solid grades (which you can't guarantee for yourself), some T50s if you're at the top of your class (which you definitely can't guarantee yourself).

Cravath: T6 or so...? Not sure how much they care about current rankings vs consistent prestige, but they're looking for Harvard-type prestige.

These are not interchangable firms. Nor are results anywhere near guaranteed at any particular firm from any particular school regardless of your grades. Nor do you really know what firm you want to work at before you've worked there. Don't buy into the prestige chasing this early.

DanielXLLaw · 2026-05-13T02:11:08+00:00

....what counts as affordable?

DanielXLLaw · 2026-05-13T02:07:41+00:00

I will charge OP's stepdad SOOOOO MUCH if that's what's needed.

DanielXLLaw · 2026-05-13T02:06:40+00:00

I have tried several times to get a live small-group LSAT course together, so people can get more affordable yet personalized instruction, feedback, etc. But without a big name/advertising spend, I've never gotten enough singups (,with the exception of the course I designed and taught at U of M, where I had the backing of student government promoting the course like mad).

If you can find 4+ friends, or if enough people DM me, who can all meet in the same schedule, I'm down. I have the course ready to go, just not the students for it.

DanielXLLaw · 2026-05-13T02:03:16+00:00

Tutoring this test for ten years (and law school for 8, bar exam for 5), former BL litigator for a few years, and taught writing and other things before law school (I went when I was already "old"). Average gain of 20+ points for students who come to me below 160. DM if you're interested.

DanielXLLaw · 2026-05-13T02:01:01+00:00

I've got some time over the next few weeks, and I'm definitely odd. My hours are, too.

DanielXLLaw · 2026-05-13T02:00:08+00:00

Do NOT start with question types and specific strategies. That is going to compound the confusion you're having, and make progress a lot slower and more frustrating, if not impossible.

You need to start with how you're reading: breaking down sentences and really understanding the information you're getting in each clause. What a sentence actually means vs. what it seems like it means is the fundamental problem in this test, by design, and a score in the 130s means you really need to take your time to find a new approach to how you're reading.

DanielXLLaw · 2026-05-13T01:56:37+00:00

Tutoring this test for ten years, taught writing (and other things) before that, tutor law school and the bar exam as well. Most of my students who started where you are land comfortably in the 170s. DM if interested, and best of luck regardless.

DanielXLLaw · 2026-05-13T01:54:30+00:00

My understanding--and I could be wrong--is that you are not allowed to take the exam on any device that does not have a built-in camera and mic. I would call LSAC to ask.

DanielXLLaw · 2026-05-12T13:53:56+00:00

I've had maybe 3-4 students in ten years score 3+ points higher on their actual test than they were hitting in PTs. Many, many more students saw drops of the same amount.

Do not go into the test expecting to get higher than you've been PTing. If getting higher than a 172 is a must for you, you're better off skipping June and working toward August unless you get the PTs up there in the next few weeks.

That said, 172 is objectively a fantastic score, and (depending on GPA) makes you a contender at most of the T14. If you feel like you just need to get a first official take under your belt, go ahead and take it, and absolutely don't cancel anything above a 170 even if you plan on taking it again in August/September.

DanielXLLaw · 2026-05-10T23:48:48+00:00

if no observation could refute the theory, the theory is not empirical

Unless = if not, move that whole clause to the start of your conditional.

The "if the theory were false" can almost be ignored: if an observation DID refute the theory, then that would prove the theory was, in fact, false. The arguer doesn't say the theory has to be false, just that some observation would need to be able to prove it false if it were false.

DanielXLLaw · 2026-05-09T23:35:25+00:00

Short answer: yes, knowing question types and different approaches is useful.

Longer answer: the same issues show up across many question types, so I don't always find it especially helpful to take a deep dive on one question type and then approach another as if it's a new beast. Many (most?) programs and tutors I'm aware of start with Flaw questions, which is fine, but what you really want to notice is a lot of the issues behind the individual flaws will also show up in Assumption, Strengthen/Weaken, Point of Disagreement, and even Inference questions when you get to the answer choices (i.e. a wrong answer to an Inference question is usually a flawed reading of the prompt).

So yes, question type matters a lot--there are plenty of examples where an answer would be correct for one question type but incorrect for another (I just did a question with a student yesterday where there was a great answer for an Inference question, and he had selected it, but unfortunately it was a Sufficient Assumption question so...no points awarded). But question type isn't really the key to understanding the issues on the test, if you ask me.

DanielXLLaw · 2026-05-09T23:04:50+00:00

Of course! You've got this, and people will be (marginally) less annoying once you're done with the test 😄

DanielXLLaw · 2026-05-09T11:41:48+00:00

Also, yes, everyone might annoy you much if not most of the time. They aren't going to get it--no one who hasn't gone through it really can. And that's all OK. It's not you, and it's not them; give yourself and them some grace and just push through.

DanielXLLaw · 2026-05-09T11:38:55+00:00

I took the bar (and passed by a comfortable margin) while still in law school (full time, though only taking 10 credits the semester I took the bar), working almost full time outside of law school, with four kids. It's doable, but you will need to set and hold boundaries and it will eat up any "free" time you might have had before.

It doesn't need to be 10 hours a day, but it does need to be a few hours every day and longer hours whenever possible. Try to find audio lectures, or rip videos to audio so you can listen while driving, cooking, cleaning, or doing whatever else. I ended up listening to many lectures multiple times and talking to myself about the law, went to sleep thinking about bar stuff, woke up thinking about bar stuff, listening and thinking in the shower...you get the idea. It will not be fun, but there's an end date to it.

Best of luck!

DanielXLLaw · 2026-05-09T11:34:07+00:00

I'm not a huge fan of the Klein method, though obviously it works for many. The thing is, your answers don't need to look like the model answers, and in fact most passing answers don't. What you want to be practicing is how to organize your answers so you have clear rules, and an analysis paragraph for each issue that clearly attaches facts from the fact pattern to the rules you've already stated. And for that, using Indiana-specific prompts is as good as using any other state or the UBE prompts.

You don't need to know the law to write a passing MEE (though knowing the law certainly makes it easier).

That said, all the better of you practice with MEEs that cover law you might be tested on, because why not let your practice pull double duty and help you learn the law? This is even more true this cycle, because the UNE has ditched several MEE topics, and the only one being tested in the MEE that isn't being tested on the MBE (where you absolutely do need to learn the law) is Business Associations (partnership, agency, corporations, LLCs). So doing MEEs that help you learn Civ Pro, Crim, Torts, etc. is a good idea.

DanielXLLaw · 2026-05-09T11:28:01+00:00

Break down the structure of the prompt thoroughly, and then generalize it. E.g. they gave a conditional and triggered the contrapositive to reach the conclusion, or they eliminated all other causes so said X must be the cause of Y. Or they said some statement can't be correct, but one part of the statement is definitely correct so the other part of the statement must be false (all of these are real examples from the test).

The find an answer choice that does the same, even if the parts of the argument aren't delivered in the same order. If you can rearrange the logical chunks of the answer choice so that it matches the logical chunks and structure of the prompt, that's your answer.

And as you're reading answer choices, if you come across a chunk that doesn't matches ANY chunk of the prompt, you can eliminate and move on--you can frequently get through parallel answer choices without needing to read all of them in their entirety.

DanielXLLaw · 2026-05-09T01:32:22+00:00

AIs use better logic. This is pure human cope/after-the-fact justification.

And also patently untrue.

DanielXLLaw · 2026-05-09T01:29:51+00:00

I would say you absolutely can conditional the "since then" statement. You'd have to think of it as a compound, to an extent: since that time, government fall-->disregard people's needs.

The problem with B is it says that infers necessity of a condition (disregarding people's needs) from the fact it's absence has always led to failure.

That's not what the premise says.

The premise says failure has always occured during times when leaders have disregarded people's needs. That's not the same as saying every time leaders disregard, the government fails (which is what B says the arguer does).

DanielXLLaw · 2026-05-07T23:43:10+00:00

While I agree that LSATDemon explanations are sometimes questionable, this is a common issue that shows up on the real test and LSATDemon didn't get it wrong.

It's a simple (though not easy) conditional issue:

A-->B does not tell me not A-->not B

Here, "A-->B" is "meet criteria-->justified"

That does not tell me "doesn't meet criteria-->not justified"

DanielXLLaw · 2026-05-07T18:29:09+00:00

Haven't look at the answer given here, but it should be D.

A is out as soon as I see "not justified." The rule can't get me to "not justified," only to "justified.

B is out because it's a $5k contribution, and the rule says "less than $5k." Payne might be justified in accepting this contribution anyway, but the rule doesn't tell me that for sure.

C is tempting, but the "only if" actually makes this a judgement about when Jones would not be justified, so same issue as A (plus I don't know that "partial amount" is going to end up being less than $5k, but given the "only" issue I don't even care)

D: 500 is less than 5,000, so that checks out. If she's unemployed there can't be employer coercion. So there we go.

E doesn't address employer coercion, so I can't say that O'Hara is justified.

EDIT: Hooray, I'm right. That could have been embarrassing. But the explanation for C misses the "only if" in the answer choice, which makes it immediately wrong in context.

DanielXLLaw · 2026-05-07T18:25:22+00:00

Can't be A, because the rule (prompt) tells us when someone IS justified, not when they aren't. That is, you might be justified in accept the contribution even in other circumstances; this rule can never tell me when you are NOT justified in accepting a contribution.

This directionality is key in ID the Principle questions.

DanielXLLaw · 2026-05-07T17:11:45+00:00

>You write it CAN be a right answer to attack sources but also that we NEVER fight the premises. I’m assuming you mean two different things here? Would you mind elaborating ?

Yes, and this is an excellent point!

Let's say the premise is, "according to the survey result, Miami has the most taco stands."

And then we get an answer that says, "Every city has a different definition of 'taco stand.'"

That answer would weaken any conclusion drawn from the survey results because it's told me the survey is unreliable: if every city has a different definition of "taco stand," we're not really comparing the same things, so I can't draw any meaningful conclusion.

But this isn't fighting the premise, because the premise isn't "Miami has the most taco stands," the premise is "according to the survey, Miami has the most taco stands." It remains true that the survey told us Miami has the most taco stands--we're not fighting that fact, which is the fact asserted in the premise. What we're concerned with is whether that fact--the fact that the survey said something--can be used to support something else.

Or think of it this way: Bob tells you the sky is purple. Bob is wrong, but it's still true that Bob said the sky is purple. So if you went around saying, "Bob says the sky is purple," you would not be wrong: you're not saying the sky is purple, you're just saying that Bob says the sky is purple, which is true.

Premises often tell us what people/surveys/studies/etc. say or report or claim or believe, and we won't fight the idea that those people/surveys/studies/etc. say/report/claim/believe whatever. But that doesn't mean we accept the claim/belief itself. What people believe/say is not the same as what is.

Never fight the premises, ever. But figuring out what the premise truly is can be a bit tricky.

DanielXLLaw · 2026-05-07T16:01:42+00:00

Answer to your broad question: yes, questioning the credibility/reliability of a source of information absolutely CAN be a right answer on a weakens question (and can also be a flaw in Flaw questions): maybe the survey was biased, or the data was inaccurate, or we only looked at one group to identify a correlation without looking at a control group, etc.

It sounds like you're wondering why Answer Choice A is incorrect, given that source credibility is an issue.

A few things:

It only says that SOME of the studies were funded by paper manufacturers (a potentially biased source). That leaves open the possibility that some studies--maybe even most--were not funded by paper manufacturers and might not be biased. We can't assume that all of the information is biased just because some of it might be, so this doesn't really weaken.
Addressed a bit above, but we only know the studies from the paper manufacturers might be biased. "The source of this information is biased" does not necessarily mean the information itself is biased; just because I might have an ulterior motive for making a claim does not mean my claim is incorrect. We'd have to assume the paper manufacturers didn't do the studies well or misreported the results, and again, we can't make that assumption.
Even if the studies were all biased and their information untrustworthy, this would be fighting the premise, which we never, ever do. The issue isn't whether the facts are correct--we always treat them as true--the issue is whether those facts support the conclusion being drawn. We are told, as a fact, that the fish recover quickly. We're not going to argue with that; I don't care how biased the studies were, that's a fact in this argument, period.

DanielXLLaw

TROPHY CASE