OMG This is exactly what I've been looking for - I couldn't remember where I learned this format - and I couldn't find this outline anywhere in my files. THANK YOU SO MUCH! Using this format is what allowed me to sail through undergrad and grad school. Been 6 yrs since and I have been kicking myself searching for this. LOL -- RANDOM but THANK YOU!!!
@scaronnam it’s been nearly 20 years that I was in high school, and I couldn’t remember the acronym we used.. I think it was the “Pea” or “Peal” approach (the L was - to link back to the main argument at the end of each paragraph or between paragraphs) - thank you for reminding me!!!
As a fellow English major and writer, I really appreciate and relate to this video! I think I'll have to check my pride at the door for this section ... let's just say I'm not an "outliner" when it comes to my writing process.
I feel like it will be more beneficial to create a solid outline/structure first and worry about rhetorical flourish if time permits. A former writing professor of mine told me that "you need to bake the cake before you frost it" -- this seems especially true in a timed situation. Maybe it's better, generally, to sacrifice style for argumentative clarity than vice versa.
I think either person is fine. I tend to use first person since the questions explicitly ask us to give personal experiences. First person comes across as more personable and opinionated. Third person comes across as more professional and academic (which works for some people)!
I wouldn't try to avoid the author entirely. Doing so will give yourself an extra hurdle that will stress you out and eat away at your time.
Something I learned in university as an anthropology major:
Your thesis can be written as "In this essay, I argue that.."
Simple as that! You can add how you're going to support it like "I draw on support from personal experience and perspective X & Y". Thus, as these perspectives show, THESIS AGAIN".
I think the Intro can be scary, but you just need to make your point. Just keep it simple and straightforward. It can definitely be 1 sentence long.
Some "frameworks" I'm seeing as I'm going through the lesson:
Just like the LSAT, identifying major assumptions that each perspectives makes about the topic question can help develop a more nuanced perspective. For example, the perspectives that seem to favor colleges not emphasizing career preparation generally assume that the question is asking if emphasizing career preparation over the liberal arts is beneficial for university students. Multiple OTHER ways to think about the question could be:
What conditions does this emphasis of career preparation entail? In addition, what are some different ways of thinking about career preparation, and are they any methods that has the least 'negative' tradeoffs? Or are these tradeoffs unavoidable?
Logical analysis: Given that we know the traditional goals of college, does the accomplishment of those goals prevent the simultaneous emphasis of this new career-focused goal?
So how do we build an essay off of a set of different conditional situations? If we provide multiple different situations in which the proposed action is good or bad for students, are we not flip flopping between sides? In reality, I think this provides room for simple rebuttals based on what is more likely:
Example Rebuttal of one conditional (after thesis): Obviously, if colleges decided to emphasize career preparation over delivering a high quality, inquisitive liberal arts education, I think that would be an overall detriment to students. The university should not be mainly focused on training students in skills or areas that maximize the likelihood of being hired, as this would likely leave a gap in critical thinking and intellectual skills that college uniquely provides young adults.
Continued (Pushing argument through different conditional): Instead, I think it would be more useful to consider the group of solutions that could best balance these two seemingly 'conflicted' interests. First, to evaluate the current balance of these two factors in the current system of higher education, I think that an increased emphasis on career preparation is warranted, especially given the economic context of the world we live in today. The idea that college should be a space for self discovery, exploration, and social development definitely holds validity given the lack of anything remotely similar to it in every other part of modern society. The idea that college should provide that opportunity without sufficient emphasis on how to translate that growth into a career or at least an accurate understanding of one's post-collegiate can be problematic, and is demonstrated by trends we see today.
Continued: [Define sufficient emphasis] [Define the specific trends] So what does sufficient emphasis without sacrificing the core values of liberals arts education look like? I don't think career preparation necessarily needs to be oriented towards the goal of receiving a well-paying job right after graduation, and it is understandable as to why opponents of emphasized career preparation believe that it would be harmful for students in this context. Instead, if we think about career preparation as a widely varying process that could include exploration of the careers available to students depending on their self-determined interests, identification of potential career or academic goals, and long-term planning to determine different pathways for achieving those goals - it is easier to see an emphasis on career preparation not as universities 'molding' their graduates into over-specialized uniform identities, but as universities leveraging their resources to help students define a clearer picture of their futures, whether long or short term in scope.
Now, with your 'meat and bones' determined by just crossing of an aggressive / assumptive conditional of some counterarguments, and then exploring a more 'balanced' version of the discussion, you can then build further support by:
[Historical Context] There are two major reasons why increasing emphasis on career preparation through the aforementioned methods is highly likely to benefit students. First, there has been a dramatic increase in the average difficulty of obtaining a well-paying job after college, even for those in highly technical majors such as engineering or computer science. Long gone are the days of showing up unannounced at the office, handing in your resume, and being highly likely to receive a job offer. Today, companies have a far higher skill floor for expected candidates, and hiring processes have become much more efficient for sorting for talent. Every industry - even academia - has a certain set of requirements that every student needs to be aware of before they attempt to break in. Whether it's a design portfolio for a corporate marketing position, a set of refined writing samples for an English major looking to become a columnist, or the classic summer internship in anything from engineering to public policy, there are checkboxes that every aspiring student needs to be aware of. As someone whose parents always emphasized the importance of career stability, I naturally tended towards finding these prerequisites once I had found an industry that I was interested in, and further benefitted from being an engineering major. However, a lot of my peers with majors that had less clear career paths seemed to avoid career preparation as this daunting, ambiguous, and overwhelming task - and I believe this to be a result of poor career support by universities. I had friends who were incredibly talented creative writers, but had no idea in the slightest how to kickstart their career, and no one from the university to speak about that type of thing with.
Ran out of energy but just some ways of going about it.
Would it be beneficial to avoid 1st person language in the LSAT writing? I noticed that he used "I" and "We"-- I learned that using these words makes the writing less formal. Is that something that is universally implied, or is it specific to how I was taught?
the general rule of thumb IME is that first person shouldn't be a total anathema, but it should be a crutch. you really don't want to be starting a ton a sentences with "I think/feel/believe/action verb." depending on the prompt, you're going to have to make normative statements about the world. your own perspective can be solid evidence for your position both as a supplement to your argument itself and as a way to differentiate your argument from contrasting perspectives you discuss. this is obviously the case here with this specific prompt where we're debating the purpose of college, so using first person language can serve your purposes. however, an over-reliance on it is a symptom of an unclear perspective and sloppy argumentation, particularly when you have to use it in forms like "I argue that...". this is my primary problem with David's essay, which he himself agrees with in the video!
TL;DR don't totally avoid it, but avoid a reliance on it
I'm by no means an LSAT expert, but in my experience in college, it really depends on the discipline. I studied Philosophy and English, and a ton of the academic papers I read used first person pronouns all over the place. Rule of thumb was pretty much that if the first person pronouns are helpful for conveying your meaning, use them - this was especially helpful for essays in which the author was dealing with multiple perspectives and had to differentiate their own perspective from others.
when writing the LSAT writing section, do we have to un-download Grammarly or something because it's AI? I only ask because I've heard that some Canadian institutions have stated that using Grammarly counts as an academic integrity violation.
@Pspspsps That's wild! I'm a music major too and think it was the most fun part of my life... most practical? maybe not. Insanely enjoyable? definitely.
I just did my first writing sample drill. Can someone give me feedback ? There has been a recent debate about the extent career preparation should factor into a undergraduate education. We go to college with the intention of emerging into a campus filled with different perspectives, ethnicities, and ideas. As a recent Political Science graduate, I entered my studies with little knowledge about what I wanted to do. The ability to explore different classes in various subject areas allowed me to find my passion in the Pre-Law path with a major in Political Science. Taking different classes in my major illustrated my drawing to the major by illuminating ideas, such as to question in our world within voting patterns, and the building blocks of democracy among other ideas. Without these opportunities to explore, I likely would not have chosen the path I did. Therefore, I believe that a undergraduate education should not emphasize career preparation. In a society with a unlimited arena of career paths, being thrown into a career focused education would blind us from exploring the vast amount of careers at our disposal. It is instilled to us in life to make educated decisions, but in such a education that is exactly what would be missing, the educated component of the decision. Perspective two mentions," Once I realized I didn't have to unquestioningly accept the norms and values that had been given to me, I was free to decide for myself which values I wanted to hold on to, which to leave behind, and even which new values I felt drawn to". A education focused on career preparation would not allow one to choose with free will the norms and values they want. The path would be chosen for us. One would not be introduced to different fields, and instead our paths would be already molded- we would just fit in the mold. Perspective two adds on questioning, "Would my classmates and I have been able to test out our ideas and ideals so effectively if my university were only focused on practical career skills?". That is exactly the question we should be focused on. Without the opportunity to dive into different general classes we would not be well rounded enough to find a area of career that fits our values and interests. We would not be able to test our ideas in the fields that relate to them. We are expected to work in our society but we should be able to work in the areas we are drawn to, being given the opportunity to work to live and not live to work. Perspective four supports this notion by describing that there is no reason to admit to being agents of a chosen path, and we instead have to be the agents of our own path. The paragraph notes, "Likewise, there's no reason to accept it in our educational lives. Instead, we ought to honor the agency of students in orchestrating their own education experience". Being in a democracy we are dealt basic human freedoms. Choosing your own career path is a natural part of those freedoms. Career preparation focused in undergraduate education would serve to fog that choice. It would not be so much of a choice anymore but rather a requirement to follow. When we follow requirements it becomes another checkbox to mark instead of a path to thrive in and be motivated in. When we work for something we desire that is when we become motivated which contributes to our overall happiness, and satisfaction as well. Being tossed in a school emphasizing career preparation without giving students the chance to explore is taking away from that satisfaction and happiness, which in turn would lead to decreased job performance and employee satisfaction rather than when we are placed in a well rounded academic setting. We cannot doubt career preparation leads to students who have valuable vocational skills. Perspective 1 notes "Schools that recognize this and adapt will produce graduates who are better equipped to explore a wide array of career paths, and who can adapt to changing job roles within ever-evolving industries". That in fact is ironic as exactly that type of focused education would reduce the ability to become well rounded. Without the ability to dive into different sectors freely then a student can't adapt to different changing environments. Why ? Because the student wont be given those different environments, thus emphasizing why a undergraduate education focused on career prep would not be beneficial. In conclusion, When looking at all the arguments we see that a education focused on career preparation would lead to less well rounded students. Therefore a education needs to allow students to explore all arenas freely and make a decision that fits them, and not the reverse.
57 comments
I think anyone who took IB English or History (maybe AP English too) would be well prepared by going back to that formulaic writing outline:
I. Intro Paragraph:
A. Hook
B. Thesis
II. Argument 1
A. Point
B. Evidence
C. Analysis
D. Repeat as needed
III. Argument 2
A. PEA (Point - Evidence - Analysis)
IV. Argument 3
A. PEA
V. Conclusion
A. Lead-in/Summary
B. Concluding statement that ties back to the thesis (without restating) with some new insight
High school me foolishly threw out my essay writing notes after I passed AP World.
High school me never thought the DBQ outline from AP World History would be useful again, but I was wrong.
Thank you for writing this out!
OMG This is exactly what I've been looking for - I couldn't remember where I learned this format - and I couldn't find this outline anywhere in my files. THANK YOU SO MUCH! Using this format is what allowed me to sail through undergrad and grad school. Been 6 yrs since and I have been kicking myself searching for this. LOL -- RANDOM but THANK YOU!!!
@scaronnam it’s been nearly 20 years that I was in high school, and I couldn’t remember the acronym we used.. I think it was the “Pea” or “Peal” approach (the L was - to link back to the main argument at the end of each paragraph or between paragraphs) - thank you for reminding me!!!
@scaronnam i use this same format. but i feel its also necessary to add a concession point as point #3
Thank you for this video- I feel a lot less nervous about my writing prompt- seeing as how u flubbed it- and still made a killer comeback!
this gave me secondhand stress
me when i'm groping the dark
I'm so relieved to hear David's commentary because I was thinking, "If that essay is the baseline, I'm screwed!" I do not write that fancy. LOL.
BLINKERED AND BACKWARDS
"So I give myself this opening question here... as if I'm writing an article for the New Yorker or something..."
As a fellow English major and writer, I really appreciate and relate to this video! I think I'll have to check my pride at the door for this section ... let's just say I'm not an "outliner" when it comes to my writing process.
I feel like it will be more beneficial to create a solid outline/structure first and worry about rhetorical flourish if time permits. A former writing professor of mine told me that "you need to bake the cake before you frost it" -- this seems especially true in a timed situation. Maybe it's better, generally, to sacrifice style for argumentative clarity than vice versa.
For the argumentative writing section is it better to use first-person, third person, or try to avoid the author entirely if able?
#help
(Disclaimer, this is just my opinion)
I think either person is fine. I tend to use first person since the questions explicitly ask us to give personal experiences. First person comes across as more personable and opinionated. Third person comes across as more professional and academic (which works for some people)!
I wouldn't try to avoid the author entirely. Doing so will give yourself an extra hurdle that will stress you out and eat away at your time.
“Resaons”
Something I learned in university as an anthropology major:
Your thesis can be written as "In this essay, I argue that.."
Simple as that! You can add how you're going to support it like "I draw on support from personal experience and perspective X & Y". Thus, as these perspectives show, THESIS AGAIN".
I think the Intro can be scary, but you just need to make your point. Just keep it simple and straightforward. It can definitely be 1 sentence long.
Some "frameworks" I'm seeing as I'm going through the lesson:
Just like the LSAT, identifying major assumptions that each perspectives makes about the topic question can help develop a more nuanced perspective. For example, the perspectives that seem to favor colleges not emphasizing career preparation generally assume that the question is asking if emphasizing career preparation over the liberal arts is beneficial for university students. Multiple OTHER ways to think about the question could be:
What conditions does this emphasis of career preparation entail? In addition, what are some different ways of thinking about career preparation, and are they any methods that has the least 'negative' tradeoffs? Or are these tradeoffs unavoidable?
Logical analysis: Given that we know the traditional goals of college, does the accomplishment of those goals prevent the simultaneous emphasis of this new career-focused goal?
So how do we build an essay off of a set of different conditional situations? If we provide multiple different situations in which the proposed action is good or bad for students, are we not flip flopping between sides? In reality, I think this provides room for simple rebuttals based on what is more likely:
Example Rebuttal of one conditional (after thesis): Obviously, if colleges decided to emphasize career preparation over delivering a high quality, inquisitive liberal arts education, I think that would be an overall detriment to students. The university should not be mainly focused on training students in skills or areas that maximize the likelihood of being hired, as this would likely leave a gap in critical thinking and intellectual skills that college uniquely provides young adults.
Continued (Pushing argument through different conditional): Instead, I think it would be more useful to consider the group of solutions that could best balance these two seemingly 'conflicted' interests. First, to evaluate the current balance of these two factors in the current system of higher education, I think that an increased emphasis on career preparation is warranted, especially given the economic context of the world we live in today. The idea that college should be a space for self discovery, exploration, and social development definitely holds validity given the lack of anything remotely similar to it in every other part of modern society. The idea that college should provide that opportunity without sufficient emphasis on how to translate that growth into a career or at least an accurate understanding of one's post-collegiate can be problematic, and is demonstrated by trends we see today.
Continued: [Define sufficient emphasis] [Define the specific trends] So what does sufficient emphasis without sacrificing the core values of liberals arts education look like? I don't think career preparation necessarily needs to be oriented towards the goal of receiving a well-paying job right after graduation, and it is understandable as to why opponents of emphasized career preparation believe that it would be harmful for students in this context. Instead, if we think about career preparation as a widely varying process that could include exploration of the careers available to students depending on their self-determined interests, identification of potential career or academic goals, and long-term planning to determine different pathways for achieving those goals - it is easier to see an emphasis on career preparation not as universities 'molding' their graduates into over-specialized uniform identities, but as universities leveraging their resources to help students define a clearer picture of their futures, whether long or short term in scope.
Now, with your 'meat and bones' determined by just crossing of an aggressive / assumptive conditional of some counterarguments, and then exploring a more 'balanced' version of the discussion, you can then build further support by:
[Historical Context] There are two major reasons why increasing emphasis on career preparation through the aforementioned methods is highly likely to benefit students. First, there has been a dramatic increase in the average difficulty of obtaining a well-paying job after college, even for those in highly technical majors such as engineering or computer science. Long gone are the days of showing up unannounced at the office, handing in your resume, and being highly likely to receive a job offer. Today, companies have a far higher skill floor for expected candidates, and hiring processes have become much more efficient for sorting for talent. Every industry - even academia - has a certain set of requirements that every student needs to be aware of before they attempt to break in. Whether it's a design portfolio for a corporate marketing position, a set of refined writing samples for an English major looking to become a columnist, or the classic summer internship in anything from engineering to public policy, there are checkboxes that every aspiring student needs to be aware of. As someone whose parents always emphasized the importance of career stability, I naturally tended towards finding these prerequisites once I had found an industry that I was interested in, and further benefitted from being an engineering major. However, a lot of my peers with majors that had less clear career paths seemed to avoid career preparation as this daunting, ambiguous, and overwhelming task - and I believe this to be a result of poor career support by universities. I had friends who were incredibly talented creative writers, but had no idea in the slightest how to kickstart their career, and no one from the university to speak about that type of thing with.
Ran out of energy but just some ways of going about it.
@imagoofyguy whatever works muchacho
Would it be beneficial to avoid 1st person language in the LSAT writing? I noticed that he used "I" and "We"-- I learned that using these words makes the writing less formal. Is that something that is universally implied, or is it specific to how I was taught?
the general rule of thumb IME is that first person shouldn't be a total anathema, but it should be a crutch. you really don't want to be starting a ton a sentences with "I think/feel/believe/action verb." depending on the prompt, you're going to have to make normative statements about the world. your own perspective can be solid evidence for your position both as a supplement to your argument itself and as a way to differentiate your argument from contrasting perspectives you discuss. this is obviously the case here with this specific prompt where we're debating the purpose of college, so using first person language can serve your purposes. however, an over-reliance on it is a symptom of an unclear perspective and sloppy argumentation, particularly when you have to use it in forms like "I argue that...". this is my primary problem with David's essay, which he himself agrees with in the video!
TL;DR don't totally avoid it, but avoid a reliance on it
I'm by no means an LSAT expert, but in my experience in college, it really depends on the discipline. I studied Philosophy and English, and a ton of the academic papers I read used first person pronouns all over the place. Rule of thumb was pretty much that if the first person pronouns are helpful for conveying your meaning, use them - this was especially helpful for essays in which the author was dealing with multiple perspectives and had to differentiate their own perspective from others.
I'm also curious #admin #feedback #help
Wondering the same thing!
#feedback there are a couple of minutes of black screen / no audio towards the end of the video
#feedback this is still true. Several minutes of black screen starting around the 19:03 mark.
I thought this was really well written!
Okay but yeah now I see its flaws. There's a lot of "fluff" in this essay. I think that I'll prioritize clarity and simplicity
I thought it turned out pretty well, all things considered, but it seems like he got tripped up by his perfectionistic tendencies at the beginning.
when writing the LSAT writing section, do we have to un-download Grammarly or something because it's AI? I only ask because I've heard that some Canadian institutions have stated that using Grammarly counts as an academic integrity violation.
To the best of my knowledge, you're confined to using the online scratch paper for the LSAT Argumentative Writing essay.
Yes, you do! I believe this is listed on LSAC Frequently asked questions section!
as a music major, liberal arts education was one of the biggest mistakes in my life, period.
@Pspspsps That's wild! I'm a music major too and think it was the most fun part of my life... most practical? maybe not. Insanely enjoyable? definitely.
@LydiaVanCleave to each their own :)
Is the video up on youtube somewhere? The website isn’t loading it…
Can you use grammerly during the real thing?
no. they ask you to turn off those extensions!
bro
Can we outline on paper?
No, LSAC doesn't let you have any writing utensils or scratch paper with you.
is it better to write our outline on our allotted amount of scratch paper or the online scratch paper
i think there is NO scratch paper for LSAT writing, but i'm not totally sure. its only that typed box on the screen
This essay was BUNS bro not gonna lie. Just a load of word vomit chased down by a poorly worded, pretentious mess.
I just did my first writing sample drill. Can someone give me feedback ? There has been a recent debate about the extent career preparation should factor into a undergraduate education. We go to college with the intention of emerging into a campus filled with different perspectives, ethnicities, and ideas. As a recent Political Science graduate, I entered my studies with little knowledge about what I wanted to do. The ability to explore different classes in various subject areas allowed me to find my passion in the Pre-Law path with a major in Political Science. Taking different classes in my major illustrated my drawing to the major by illuminating ideas, such as to question in our world within voting patterns, and the building blocks of democracy among other ideas. Without these opportunities to explore, I likely would not have chosen the path I did. Therefore, I believe that a undergraduate education should not emphasize career preparation. In a society with a unlimited arena of career paths, being thrown into a career focused education would blind us from exploring the vast amount of careers at our disposal. It is instilled to us in life to make educated decisions, but in such a education that is exactly what would be missing, the educated component of the decision. Perspective two mentions," Once I realized I didn't have to unquestioningly accept the norms and values that had been given to me, I was free to decide for myself which values I wanted to hold on to, which to leave behind, and even which new values I felt drawn to". A education focused on career preparation would not allow one to choose with free will the norms and values they want. The path would be chosen for us. One would not be introduced to different fields, and instead our paths would be already molded- we would just fit in the mold. Perspective two adds on questioning, "Would my classmates and I have been able to test out our ideas and ideals so effectively if my university were only focused on practical career skills?". That is exactly the question we should be focused on. Without the opportunity to dive into different general classes we would not be well rounded enough to find a area of career that fits our values and interests. We would not be able to test our ideas in the fields that relate to them. We are expected to work in our society but we should be able to work in the areas we are drawn to, being given the opportunity to work to live and not live to work. Perspective four supports this notion by describing that there is no reason to admit to being agents of a chosen path, and we instead have to be the agents of our own path. The paragraph notes, "Likewise, there's no reason to accept it in our educational lives. Instead, we ought to honor the agency of students in orchestrating their own education experience". Being in a democracy we are dealt basic human freedoms. Choosing your own career path is a natural part of those freedoms. Career preparation focused in undergraduate education would serve to fog that choice. It would not be so much of a choice anymore but rather a requirement to follow. When we follow requirements it becomes another checkbox to mark instead of a path to thrive in and be motivated in. When we work for something we desire that is when we become motivated which contributes to our overall happiness, and satisfaction as well. Being tossed in a school emphasizing career preparation without giving students the chance to explore is taking away from that satisfaction and happiness, which in turn would lead to decreased job performance and employee satisfaction rather than when we are placed in a well rounded academic setting. We cannot doubt career preparation leads to students who have valuable vocational skills. Perspective 1 notes "Schools that recognize this and adapt will produce graduates who are better equipped to explore a wide array of career paths, and who can adapt to changing job roles within ever-evolving industries". That in fact is ironic as exactly that type of focused education would reduce the ability to become well rounded. Without the ability to dive into different sectors freely then a student can't adapt to different changing environments. Why ? Because the student wont be given those different environments, thus emphasizing why a undergraduate education focused on career prep would not be beneficial. In conclusion, When looking at all the arguments we see that a education focused on career preparation would lead to less well rounded students. Therefore a education needs to allow students to explore all arenas freely and make a decision that fits them, and not the reverse.
their use of "groping" was very odd...
@ElaineRogers i think he ment grappling
Are we required (or strongly encouraged) to use incredibly pretentious, archaic language in our response?