Jessica Wynn

The bad ones sell you shortcuts and hacks that don't work.

And the book only helps if you have time to use it, if you have parental support, that quiet place.

It just assumes a level of privilege that not all students have.

And the bigger conversation is why are we putting so much weight on a four-hour test taken on a Saturday morning when you're 17?

This is where things get more interesting because these tests are weird.

Logic games, data interpretation, argument analysis.

If you've never seen these formats before, you take the exams, you're at a massive disadvantage.

It seems absurd, but the thing is, these tests do measure something.

So the logic games test your ability to work within complex rule sets and constraints, which is actually relevant to legal reasoning.

Not necessarily more legitimate, but they're testing different, more specialized skills.

And because the formats are so unusual, prep materials can genuinely help.

Repeated exposure to the same logical forms does improve performance.

And good materials are written by actual instructors who've taught thousands of students and know exactly where people struggle.

Oh, absolutely.

The good ones break down the logic behind each question type, show you why answers are right and why the wrong answers are wrong.

And they give you strategies that are based on understanding, not tricks.

They just make ridiculous promises.

They go from 150 to 170 in four weeks, which just ignores that you can't build fundamental reading and analytical skills in a month.

Or they push pseudoscientific study systems.

Use our left brain, right brain method.