Binary Solution is an approach to the LSAT that employs a few ideas in order to solve every LSAT question. Competing approaches are piecemeal: they solve questions on a case-by-case basis by employing many ideas in order to solve a single LSAT question. These approaches are difficult to apply to every LSAT question, and consequently, many questions remain unsolved.
Binary Solution is based upon a trademark tripartite theory that completely deconstructs the LSAT. Our solution relies on three concepts- truth, transition & cause- each of which corresponds perfectly to a section of the LSAT. The minimalism of our approach is a powerful weapon under timed circumstances
Our founder, who was an award-winning chemical researcher, wrote the course after she built a predictive model of the LSAT based on repeated word patterns and relations. The Binary model was built by counting every word that has ever contributed to the solution of any LSAT question, and mapping that language onto the section of the test where it appeared. Since 1991, the Binary Solution has predicted questions several years before they have appeared on the LSAT.
According to our theory, there are only a few fundamental relations on the LSAT: similarity, dissimilarity, quantity and causality. These concepts are binary- because they introduce bright lines, which are either/or distinctions. The language that triggers these ideas is also binary: consider the word IF, which bifurcates any sentence by creating a sufficient proposition and a necessary one. ['If A, then B' implies that A is sufficient to guarantee B, while B is necessary to A]
The three sections of the LSAT possess different types of language. For Analytical Reasoning (aka Games), the preferred language takes the form of truth and words like must, can and cannot rule the day. In Reading Comprehension, similarity and its flip side-- difference-- dominate the landscape and so, every transitional word in the passage gives rise to at least one question. Finally, Arguments (aka Logical Reasoning) is the domain of cause. The linguistic fingerprint of an Argument usually contains at least one propositional operator (if, only, unless)- or some other way of triggering the necessary/sufficient relationship.
Binary Solution uses three bedrock concepts- truth, transition and cause -to create a unique theoretical framework for the LSAT which allows us to explain and predict the nature of the test. These concepts have deep roots in legal reasoning: without a finding of truth, an observation of similarity or difference, and a basis for a cause of action, no legal case can be raised. Our solution to the LSAT translates into a theory of law, so our students understand the relevance of the LSAT to future legal studies.
RESEARCH MODELS: Innovative Concordances Demonstrate the Distinct Linguistic Patterns of each LSAT Section
Empirical evidence demonstrating the validity of the Binary Solution can be found in the diagrams generate by TextArc (created by Bradford Pailey of Didi Design). The TextArc application was used to:(1) position text from the LSAT along the perimeter of an ellipse and (2) count the frequency of every word in that text. TextArc creates a separate field for each word and ranks the words according to frequency. The brighter and more central a word appears in the diagram, the more often it is used in the LSAT. The spindles that radiate out of each word reach back to the location of the word within the LSAT text. Each TextArc is a spatial word distribution: simultaneously depicting both the frequency and location of any word.
{Textarc of Games}
{Textarc of Arguments}
Notice that the central terms in the Games are: can/must/cannot. The dominant language in Games is TRUTH because all Analytical Reasoning questions call for a determination of truth. Games are open-ended exercises that provide no conclusions because the whole point of Games is to have the student determine what outcomes hold true for the Game, and that usually requires a diagram.
Meanwhile the Arguments section traffics heavily in CAUSALITY, typically triggered by words like: if/since/when/unless. Arguments also contain conclusory language because, unlike Games, they provide conclusions as well as premises. Arguments are complete (albeit flawed) systems which the student is asked to critique. Hence the questions take the form of weaken, strengthen, provide the assumption.
Textarc has shed a bright light on the meta-level organization of the LSAT by allowing us to observe that the sections of the test are distinguished by the probability of encountering certain words. However, no language is limited to a single section: for example the ubiquitous if operator appears in all three sections. Which means the divisions between LSAT sections operate like semi-permeable membranes, allowing some terms to pass freely between the sections while other language tends to be more localized in a particular section. Hence the three sections are both different and the same- which helps reconcile the idea of the exam's single scale with the notion of three distinct sections.
The LSAT's form is ultimately consistent with its mission to measure legal reasoning: the notion of simultaneous similarity and difference underpin the case law method. Our research demonstrates the LSAT's relationship to the law, which in turn, supports the validity of both the exam and our solution for it.
Copyrighted by Binary Solution Test Preparation,Inc. All Rights Reserved. 2005-2008
