30 episodes

LSAT BOSS is a test prep & pre-law podcast by Shana Ginsburg, Esq., (CEO of Ginsburg Advanced Tutoring, LLC), a disability attorney, certified teacher, and professional test prep tutor with 17 years of experience helping students with learning challenges reach their LSAT score potential.

Each week, Shana brings you a lesson from her LSAT Boss strategy guide as if you were in an 1:1 tutoring session with her.

Want lesson notes or info about LSAT test prep & accommodations services? Head to our website www.ginsburgadvancedtutoring.com or email us:
hello@ginsburgadvancedtutoring.com.



Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/lsatboss/support

LSAT BOSS with Shana Ginsburg, Esq‪.‬ Shana Ginsburg, Esq.

    • Education
    • 4.3 • 11 Ratings

LSAT BOSS is a test prep & pre-law podcast by Shana Ginsburg, Esq., (CEO of Ginsburg Advanced Tutoring, LLC), a disability attorney, certified teacher, and professional test prep tutor with 17 years of experience helping students with learning challenges reach their LSAT score potential.

Each week, Shana brings you a lesson from her LSAT Boss strategy guide as if you were in an 1:1 tutoring session with her.

Want lesson notes or info about LSAT test prep & accommodations services? Head to our website www.ginsburgadvancedtutoring.com or email us:
hello@ginsburgadvancedtutoring.com.



Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/lsatboss/support

    S3E1: Intro to Reading Comprehension!

    S3E1: Intro to Reading Comprehension!

    In this season of LSAT Boss, Shana explores the daunting world of Reading Comprehension with a rotating series of special guests who have completed their LSAT Boss journey with her. In this episode, Shana breaks down the five Reading Comprehension fundamentals with María, a recent graduate who scored a 171 on the LSAT. María was initially frightened by reading comprehension, until a daring challenge by a counselor reminded her how capable she truly was, and she spoke up and defended herself.  Shana and María also discuss the journey María took before beginning LSAT BOSS, how she adjusted her approach to test taking by pushing off her test date and changing her behavior and mindset, and how she ultimately achieved a blowout 19-point improvement.  

    Hosted by Shana Ginsburg, Esq., CEO of Ginsburg Advanced Tutoring. This podcast is developed, edited and mixed by Shana Ginsburg. Music by Taha Ahmed.
    Podcast listeners take 15% off our LSAT Boss course on Teachable with offer code GAT15 at checkout.
    Ginsburg Advanced Tutoring is a full-service tutoring, accommodations and admissions company designed to support the needs of the anything-but-average student.  For tutoring and accommodations inquiries, find us on the web at ginsburgadvancedtutoring.com or email us at hello@ginsburgadvancedtutoring.com.
    Like what you hear? Leave us a review!

    ---

    Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/lsatboss/message
    Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/lsatboss/support

    • 20 min
    S2E15: Resolve/Explain, Trudel Heads to Yale Law, and Color Matters!

    S2E15: Resolve/Explain, Trudel Heads to Yale Law, and Color Matters!

    In this final Logical Reasoning episode and final episode of Season 2, Shana and cohost Trudel tackle Resolve/Explain questions, and discuss whether what you wear when you study actually matters.

    Resolve/explain questions are like riddles with only five possible solutions. Answers will provide an explanation as to how two things that are coexisting or correlating can be explained. Both matters must be addressed and resolved by the resolution you come up with. So a solution must address both elements: A and B

    A correct answer will not just resolve an issue with element A.

    A correct answer will not just resolve an issue with element B.

    A correct answer will resolve the issues with both A and B.

    Hosted by Shana Ginsburg, Esq., CEO of Ginsburg Advanced Tutoring. This podcast is developed, edited and mixed by Shana Ginsburg. Music by Taha Ahmed.

    Podcast listeners take 15% off our LSAT Boss course on Teachable with offer code GAT15 at checkout.

    Ginsburg Advanced Tutoring is a full-service tutoring, accommodations and admissions company designed to support the needs of the anything-but-average student.  For tutoring and accommodations inquiries, find us on the web at ginsburgadvancedtutoring.com or email us at hello@ginsburgadvancedtutoring.com.

    Like what you hear? Leave us a review!




    ---

    Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/lsatboss/message
    Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/lsatboss/support

    • 23 min
    S2E14: Parallel the Flaw, TikTok, and LGBTQ & Disability Representation in Law Firms

    S2E14: Parallel the Flaw, TikTok, and LGBTQ & Disability Representation in Law Firms

    In this episode, Shana and Trudel  tackle Parallel the Flaw questions using Ginsburg Advanced's easy-to-learn "MITS" analysis. The two also discuss putting together Ginsburg's first TikTok video series since Covid, and analyze statistics about low visibility among disabled and LGBTQ associates in law firms.  

    Mnemonic: MITS

    The MITS mnemonic is designed to ensure you that you have checked for the different ways that the argument and the answer choice must parallel:

    M Modifiers (adjectives, adverbs, prepositional phrases, that/which phrases)

    I Intensifiers (degree of likelihood and degree of certainty language from the inference lessons) 7 Abductive reasoning is a form of logical inference which starts with an observation or set of observations then seeks to find the simplest and most likely explanation for the observations. This process yields a plausible conclusion but does not positively verify it. This is different than deductive reasoning, which yields a definite and verifiable conclusion. You will use deductive reasoning in the Logic Games section.

    T Transition words [conjunctions (correlative; subordinating; coordinating), as well as transition words that denote cause/effect or illustration]

    S Structure (ensuring that roles are in the same place in the reasoning of the argument, and that any logical or conditional sequences go in the same direction and are not reversals (the converse of an implication). Only contrapositives will maintain the same structure.

    Hosted by Shana Ginsburg, Esq., CEO of Ginsburg Advanced Tutoring. This podcast is developed, edited and mixed by Shana Ginsburg. Music by Taha Ahmed.

    Podcast listeners take 15% off our LSAT Boss course on Teachable with offer code GAT15 at checkout.

    Ginsburg Advanced Tutoring is a full-service tutoring, accommodations and admissions company designed to support the needs of the anything-but-average student.  For tutoring and accommodations inquiries, find us on the web at ginsburgadvancedtutoring.com or email us at hello@ginsburgadvancedtutoring.com.

    Like what you hear? Leave us a review!


    ---

    Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/lsatboss/message
    Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/lsatboss/support

    • 23 min
    S2E13: Parallels, Gap Years, and Discussing Your Past in Your Essay

    S2E13: Parallels, Gap Years, and Discussing Your Past in Your Essay

    In this episode, Shana and season 2 cohost Trudel discuss Parallel the Reasoning and Parallel the Flaw Questions. The pair also bust a pesky myth about not discussing events that happened before college in your personal statement, and also discuss why it can be a great idea to take a gap year, or two, or even more. 

    Your goal for Parallel the Reasoning questions is to first establish the inductive reasoning of the stimulus.

    Is it a causal, analogous, or data sampling argument structure?

    Is it based on abductive reasoning,7,] requiring you to follow multiple steps in a line of reasoning to reach a probable conclusion?

    Or does it establish a general rule, and an exception to that rule?

    Answering those questions will allow you to establish how the argument is reasoned.

    Then, you’re ready to find the argument’s parallel. Consider that the correct answer choice will be an analogous form of reasoning to the original argument (or stimulus).

    Parallel arguments are, in a way, analogous. They rely on the assumption that the two scenarios (the original argument and the correct answer choice) must be similar with respect to their reasoning and argument structure.

    Example: Suppose the reasoning of the argument is “making the case for the conclusion of one argument by showing the argument’s resemblance to another, presumably cogent, argument.”

    Then the correct answer choice must be similar with respect to that type of reasoning.

    An incorrect answer choice will state a different method of reasoning (i.e developing a case or attempting to show that a piece of reasoning is incorrect).

    Mnemonic: MITS

    The MITS mnemonic is designed to ensure you that you have checked for the different ways that the argument and the answer choice must parallel:

    M Modifiers (adjectives, adverbs, prepositional phrases, that/which phrases)

    I Intensifiers (degree of likelihood and degree of certainty language from the inference lessons) 7 Abductive reasoning is a form of logical inference which starts with an observation or set of observations then seeks to find the simplest and most likely explanation for the observations. This process yields a plausible conclusion but does not positively verify it. This is different than deductive reasoning, which yields a definite and verifiable conclusion. You will use deductive reasoning in the Logic Games section.

    T Transition words [conjunctions (correlative; subordinating; coordinating), as well as transition words that denote cause/effect or illustration]

    S Structure (ensuring that roles are in the same place in the reasoning of the argument, and that any logical or conditional sequences go in the same direction and are not reversals (the converse of an implication). Only contrapositives will maintain the same structure.





    Hosted by Shana Ginsburg, Esq., CEO of Ginsburg Advanced Tutoring. This podcast is developed, edited and mixed by Shana Ginsburg. Music by Taha Ahmed.

    Podcast listeners take 15% off our LSAT Boss course on Teachable with offer code GAT15 at checkout.

    Ginsburg Advanced Tutoring is a full-service tutoring, accommodations and admissions company designed to support the needs of the anything-but-average student.  For tutoring and accommodations inquiries, find us on the web at ginsburgadvancedtutoring.com or email us at hello@ginsburgadvancedtutoring.com.

    Like what you hear? Leave us a review!








    ---

    Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/lsatboss/message
    Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/lsatboss/support

    • 31 min
    S2E12: Flaws Pt. II, Motivation, & Law School Accommodations

    S2E12: Flaws Pt. II, Motivation, & Law School Accommodations

    This is the second part of the Flaw lesson. Before listening, it is recommended that you listen to Season 2 Episode 11 first. 

    In this episode, Shana and Trudel unpack Analogy, Data Sampling, and Sufficient/Necessary Conflation Flaws. They also bust myths about whether motivation is necessary in order to study for the LSAT, and whether getting approved  for LSAT accommodations means you will automatically be approved for law school accommodations as well.  

    Flaw Pt. II Notes:  

    Remember when we talked about Willy Wonka and the Golden Tickets in Season 1? If you recall, Charlie’s golden ticket to get into the Chocolate Factory was both a necessary and sufficient condition. Why? Because he needed the ticket to enter, however, it was not the only ticket given out—there were five given out. It would be accurate to say that “If Charlie doesn’t lose his golden ticket, then he can enter the Chocolate Factory.” But, it would not be accurate to say “Only if Charlie doesn’t lose his golden ticket will he be able to enter the factory.” Why? Because there are 4 other tickets, and if he’s really lucky, maybe he can find one of the others. Here’s how that would look symbolically: 

    GT 1 → CF

    (Golden Ticket #1) → Get to enter the Chocolate Factory 

    It would be a flaw or error in the reasoning to simply negate the conditional statement above: 

    ~GT 1 → ~CF 

    Why is this flawed? Because if Charlie has GT2, GT3, GT4, or GT5, he can still get into the Chocolate Factory.

    Thus, a negation of sufficient condition creates a flawed necessary condition, which is not true. You will see an answer choice to reflect this that takes the following form: “...takes a condition that by itself makes an action possible, to also be necessary in order for the action to be possible.”





    Hosted by Shana Ginsburg, Esq., CEO of Ginsburg Advanced Tutoring. This podcast is developed, edited and mixed by Shana Ginsburg. Music by Taha Ahmed.

    Podcast listeners take 15% off our LSAT Boss course on Teachable with offer code GAT15 at checkout.

    Ginsburg Advanced Tutoring is a full-service tutoring, accommodations and admissions company designed to support the needs of the anything-but-average student.  For tutoring and accommodations inquiries, find us on the web at ginsburgadvancedtutoring.com or email us at hello@ginsburgadvancedtutoring.com.

    Like what you hear? Leave us a review!


    ---

    Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/lsatboss/message
    Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/lsatboss/support

    • 19 min
    S2E11: Flaws, Mint Tea, & Is February the Hardest Exam?

    S2E11: Flaws, Mint Tea, & Is February the Hardest Exam?

    In this lesson, Shana and Trudel introduce you to LSAT Logical Reasoning Flaw questions, and bust the myth that "The February LSAT is THE HARDEST LSAT".  Simply not true. 

    Flaw Notes:

    A flaw is a fault in an argument that impairs the quality of its logical reasoning. In causal arguments, the flaw is found in the causal assumption, and often will reverse the cause and effect or create causation where there isn’t any.

    In arguments by analogy, the flaw will illogically relate two groups or ideas whose differences are significant and being ignored.

    In data sampling arguments, the flaw will often be found in how the survey was conducted and highlight a human error or a sample that misrepresents a whole.

    A flawed causal argument will contain a flaw in the assumption; it will establish causation when there is merely correlation, or, it will establish only one cause when there is clearly more than one cause. Any time you have two things merely present or coexisting in the premise, and then you find a conclusion connecting them through a causal relationship, you will likely have a correlation/causation flaw. The correlation/causation flaw takes on three possible forms:

    A. Correlation/Causation Confusion a. Example: If evidence suggests that people who snore have throat damage, a flawed argument might conclude that snoring causes throat damage, although the evidence only suggests a relationship (that snoring and throat damage are both traits of certain individuals). An answer choice might say: “The argument takes for granted that because certain characteristics are present whenever a condition occurs, those characteristics are a cause of that condition.” b. Example: Suppose an argument states that negative news reports cause damage to people’s confidence, which in turn can decrease the willingness of people to spend money

    (A → B → C ). Then, it would be a flaw to say that a correlation between B and C couldn’t exist, without B and C being wrapped up in a conditional causal argument. Here, the correct answer choice will open the door to the possibility that B relates to C for reasons other than A, such as “people who have little confidence in the overall economy generally take a pessimistic view concerning their own immediate economic situations.” See Preptest 65 Section 1 #17.

    c. Example: Suppose studies show a negative correlation between diet A and disease B, and suppose to conform to diet A you have to eat things within diet A that may also include non-diet-A foods (like a higher-fiber diet that also increases your calcium intake). To conclude that diet A directly causes a change in the incidence of disease B is a flaw. The reason why is because other non-diet-A foods (like high-calcium foods) could have just as easily caused the change in incidence of disease B.



    Hosted by Shana Ginsburg, Esq., CEO of Ginsburg Advanced Tutoring. This podcast is developed, edited and mixed by Shana Ginsburg. Music by Taha Ahmed.

    Podcast listeners take 15% off our LSAT Boss course on Teachable with offer code GAT15 at checkout.

    Ginsburg Advanced Tutoring is a full-service tutoring, accommodations and admissions company designed to support the needs of the anything-but-average student.  For tutoring and accommodations inquiries, find us on the web at ginsburgadvancedtutoring.com or email us at hello@ginsburgadvancedtutoring.com.

    Like what you hear? Leave us a review!








    ---

    Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/lsatboss/message
    Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/lsatboss/support

    • 22 min

Customer Reviews

4.3 out of 5
11 Ratings

11 Ratings

Hale2kahle ,

Not your average LSAT Podcast

The LSAT is not for the faint at heart. It’s a whirlwind of mental gymnastics coupled with an emotional roller coaster ride. So anyone who can actually make this entertaining gets a gold star.

Shana is an expert in her field and has a true passion for the LSAT. Shana breaks down strategies and concepts into palatable, meaningful nuggets so you can actually retain the information.

This informative, educational podcast is an easy listen and will keep you engaged and ready to take this head on!

Michelle Zaman ,

Review from a real life student

I am currently on my LSAT journey and love love love the LSAT Boss Podcast!! It’s so hard to find LSAT related podcast that don’t all sound the same and this podcast gives insight to what most people won’t tell you. It helps you stay motivated and positive while facing the exciting and stressful task of the LSAT and the law school journey, in general.

I also have been working with Shana for a couple months now and she is the real deal LSAT Boss — she breaks things down to where people can understand and genuinely cares about the success of her students.

ellewoods180 ,

Essential LSAT Intel!

Just starting my LSAT journey and was looking for something just like this! Such an easy listen. Very informative.

Top Podcasts In Education

Jordan Harbinger
Dr. Jordan B. Peterson
Ashley Corbo
Francesca Amber
Rich Roll
Kathrin Zenkina

You Might Also Like