Is it ok that this author does not ever directly cite or acknowledge any perspectives? I know the earlier page on this says you can paraphrase, cite or say things like "opponents of this view....".
I just took a mock writing test on LSAC's lawhub. In the instructions section before the test, it says the following:
*In your essay, you should demonstrate your ability to:
- Clearly state a position on the issue and analyze the relationship between that position and one or more of the other perspectives.
Since it is explicitly mentioned in the LSAC's official instructions, I take this to mean that we are expected to work in at least one perspective. Beyond that, I doubt you are going to get extra points for each perspective you incorporate.
Also, for anyone wondering, the instructions also explicitly state that a strong response will address one or more counterarguments to your stated position.
@HannahRodrigue I was just thinking the same! I think it could really help when you might be running out of time and don't have time to scroll through the pre-writing portion.
yes, qualifications and concessions are always a sign of intellectually rigorous, clear, persuasive writing. I think that making a counter argument (usually from one of the perspectives) and defending your main argument against it is one of the main things that LSAC and law schools are going to want to see in your writing sample.
I think that would be a good idea. Personally, I've found that the most persuasive essays explain why the opposing viewpoints don't necessarily follow.
@Kevin_Lin Drawing on the comments from 2024 (see thread with @daffodil77), maybe showing only these 2 examples deprives students of a model essay. This essay:
has a strong reliance on personal anecdotes, which feels like a LR flaw of "appealing to authority, where I the writer am the authority"
doesn't clearly refer to one of the 4 perspectives, let alone analyzing the relationship between his own positions and those provided perspectives
doesn't quite use clear and effectively chosen language (although the first example displays this issue more than this one)
@Kevin_Lin I think the resulting essays are fine, but both commentary videos serve as examples of how not to spend your prewriting time, and as a result of that the structures of both essays are constructed on the fly. The first video goes into more detail about this, but both examples spend most of their time summarizing the perspectives as apposed to formulating arguments or outlining their essay. They are saved only by the persons highlighted being good writers and managing to write quality essays in the allotted time with little to no outlining.
As someone that struggles to write like that under time pressure and needs every second of planning I'm given, hardly any of what they did is helpful to see except as an example of how not to approach this.
It would be really helpful to have an example of someone who is familiar with the "new" style and approaches it in the way that the lesson in this section talks about. That way we can see what a good prewriting process looks like and how we should be spending our time.
18 comments
Is it ok that this author does not ever directly cite or acknowledge any perspectives? I know the earlier page on this says you can paraphrase, cite or say things like "opponents of this view....".
I would also like to know this
I just took a mock writing test on LSAC's lawhub. In the instructions section before the test, it says the following:
*In your essay, you should demonstrate your ability to:
- Clearly state a position on the issue and analyze the relationship between that position and one or more of the other perspectives.
Since it is explicitly mentioned in the LSAC's official instructions, I take this to mean that we are expected to work in at least one perspective. Beyond that, I doubt you are going to get extra points for each perspective you incorporate.
Also, for anyone wondering, the instructions also explicitly state that a strong response will address one or more counterarguments to your stated position.
It's interesting that neither of them use the highlighters... I am always putting the highlighters to use!
@HannahRodrigue I was just thinking the same! I think it could really help when you might be running out of time and don't have time to scroll through the pre-writing portion.
Found this much more helpful than the previous lesson. It was also good to not see someone use Grammarly
Hello, we really need more videos like this
Should we aim to include a counter argument?
yes, qualifications and concessions are always a sign of intellectually rigorous, clear, persuasive writing. I think that making a counter argument (usually from one of the perspectives) and defending your main argument against it is one of the main things that LSAC and law schools are going to want to see in your writing sample.
I think that would be a good idea. Personally, I've found that the most persuasive essays explain why the opposing viewpoints don't necessarily follow.
Are we allowed to include personal anecdotes?
@BenoitJurion yes! but id make sure they are especially relevant and that you aren't using them to prove a point and more so to illustrate a point
Can we submit one of our practices to get feedback on what to improve? Are we allowed to have Grammarly enabled when we take the actual LSAT writing?
You will want to disable Grammarly
tbh i feel like both of the essays dont rlly follow the LSAC instructions and are not super helpful ...
@LSATDemon Can you explain in what ways they don't follow the instructions?
@Kevin_Lin Drawing on the comments from 2024 (see thread with @daffodil77), maybe showing only these 2 examples deprives students of a model essay. This essay:
has a strong reliance on personal anecdotes, which feels like a LR flaw of "appealing to authority, where I the writer am the authority"
doesn't clearly refer to one of the 4 perspectives, let alone analyzing the relationship between his own positions and those provided perspectives
doesn't quite use clear and effectively chosen language (although the first example displays this issue more than this one)
@Kevin_Lin I think the resulting essays are fine, but both commentary videos serve as examples of how not to spend your prewriting time, and as a result of that the structures of both essays are constructed on the fly. The first video goes into more detail about this, but both examples spend most of their time summarizing the perspectives as apposed to formulating arguments or outlining their essay. They are saved only by the persons highlighted being good writers and managing to write quality essays in the allotted time with little to no outlining.
As someone that struggles to write like that under time pressure and needs every second of planning I'm given, hardly any of what they did is helpful to see except as an example of how not to approach this.
It would be really helpful to have an example of someone who is familiar with the "new" style and approaches it in the way that the lesson in this section talks about. That way we can see what a good prewriting process looks like and how we should be spending our time.