LSAT Writing flashcards
LSAT Writing · Build recall with a focused review session.
32 cards. Read the term and the definition here. The deck at the top of this page is optional.
- LSAT Writing format
- A 50-minute digital argumentative essay task, unscored but sent to law schools, presenting a scenario with competing options and requiring a defended choice rather than a neutral summary.
- Decisive criterion
- The explicit standard, such as cost, safety, or fairness, used to rank the given options; naming it turns separate reasons into one coherent argument.
- Thesis statement
- A single sentence in the opening that names the chosen option and the governing reason; it commits the essay to a position the rest must support.
- Counterargument concession
- Acknowledging the strongest valid point held by the opposing option before explaining why the chosen criterion still outweighs it; ignoring opposition weakens the essay.
- Rebuttal
- The move that follows a concession: showing why the opposing reason is less weighty, factually limited, or outweighed under the stated criterion.
- Fact-bound reasoning
- Restricting support to details supplied in the prompt scenario; inventing outside statistics or law undermines credibility because graders assess reasoning from given facts.
- Hedging language
- Qualifiers such as perhaps, might, or one could argue that dilute a recommendation; decisive phrasing signals commitment to the chosen position.
- Prewriting analysis window
- The planning period before drafting in which the writer identifies options, selects a criterion, and outlines reasons and counterarguments rather than beginning prose immediately.
- Option comparison matrix
- A quick mental or scratch outline listing each option against the chosen criterion; it exposes which option genuinely satisfies the standard and which fails.
- Unstated assumption
- A premise the argument needs but does not state, such as that cost matters more than speed; surfacing it strengthens the justification and preempts objection.
- Paragraph function
- Each body paragraph should perform one job: establish a reason, supply scenario evidence, or handle opposition; paragraphs that mix jobs lose clarity.
- Concrete scenario evidence
- Specific named details from the prompt, such as budget limits or deadlines, cited directly to support a reason rather than summarized vaguely.
- Recommendation close
- The final paragraph restating the decision, the governing criterion, and the practical consequence of adopting the recommendation; it should add no new reasons.
- One-sided argument risk
- An essay that lists only supporting reasons reads as underdeveloped; graders expect engagement with the strongest opposing consideration.
- Straw-man fallacy
- Attacking a weak version of the opposing view instead of its strongest form; it signals shallow analysis and fails to persuade a skeptical reader.
- Criterion conflict
- When two criteria point to different options, the writer must rank the criteria explicitly and justify that ranking, not silently switch standards mid-essay.
- Scoring status of essay
- The essay receives no numeric score; it is transmitted to law schools with the report, so clarity and written English carry indirect admissions weight.
- Audience awareness
- Writing for law school admissions readers who value structure, precision, and control of standard written English; slang, fragments, and vagueness cost credibility.
- Transitions between reasons
- Signposting words such as first, moreover, and consequently that mark the logical relation between paragraphs so the argument reads as a chain, not a list.
- Scope of the prompt
- The essay must answer the question actually asked, choosing among the named options; reframing the question or inventing a third option is off-task.
- Time allocation
- A typical split is roughly 10-15 minutes planning and review with 25-35 minutes drafting; substance per paragraph matters more than raw word count.
- Drafting order
- Writing the body reasons before polishing the introduction lets the thesis reflect the actual argument developed, reducing revision and mismatch.
- Revision checklist
- Final pass checking for a stated decision, named criterion, scenario evidence, addressed counterargument, and grammatical errors; each item maps to a scored dimension.
- Vagueness penalty
- Abstract claims such as it is better overall without a stated standard read as unsupported; specificity to the criterion and facts is what earns credit.
- Legal-style precision
- Using exact terms from the prompt, distinguishing similar concepts, and avoiding overstatement; this mirrors the analytical writing law schools expect.
- Causal versus correlational claim
- Asserting one option causes a result requires a mechanism; merely noting co-occurrence in the scenario is weaker and should be flagged as such.
- Weighing competing harms
- When both options carry downsides, the essay must compare severity and likelihood under the criterion rather than pretend one option is costless.
- Principle-based justification
- Grounding the decision in a general rule, such as protecting the vulnerable or honoring commitments, then applying it to the scenario facts.
- Consequence-based justification
- Grounding the decision in projected outcomes for stakeholders, showing why the chosen option produces better results under the stated criterion.
- Stakeholder mapping
- Listing affected parties named in the scenario and how each option treats them; it generates reasons and exposes distributional tradeoffs.
- Thesis-body alignment
- Every body paragraph must support the stated thesis; a paragraph defending the rejected option signals an unfocused or contradictory essay.
- Word-count misconception
- Longer essays are not automatically better; a tight 400-600 word essay with clear structure outperforms a padded one with repeated points.