There have been plenty of articles written about LSAT thinking in the real world, and about how LSAT logic is used (and often abused) in everyday life. Those articles are all valid (and interesting, I think), but one thought I wanted to mention is that the thinking skills you learn while studying for the LSAT will stay with you, and benefit you well into the future.
While I often think of the value of learning LSAT logic when explaining LSAT questions (or arguing with my sister, who could do with a thorough reading of the LSAT Logical Reasoning Bible), what specifically triggered that thought was an advertisement that popped up on my phone while I was playing Words With Friends. While I usually ignore ads, this one caught my attention because of the lead line: “Nothing’s proven to help you get a better night’s sleep than Advil PM.” Serious LSAT addicts may recognize that this wording (and even the context of this being a pain pill advertisement) is eerily evocative of a line from the famous October 1991 LSAT Logical Reasoning question about Danaxil: “Danaxil is for you—no headache pill stops pain more quickly.” In that question—as with this ad—the problem is that the ad writer hopes the reader will assume that Danaxil (and Advil) is the fastest, and therefore the best, but the problem is that is not what the statement says. It just says nothing else is faster, which could very well mean that everything else is just as fast.
The point here isn’t that ad writers are trying to trick you (though, of course, sometimes they are) but rather that the type of thinking that the LSAT demands is the same type of thinking that will serve you well as you progress through life, whether as a lawyer or otherwise. The ability to understand what is being said and how words are being manipulated is a skill, and thus it is something that you can learn, and something that will help you going forward.
Have any other examples of LSAT flaws or tricky language in real life? Please post them below in the comments!