I was looking through my old LSAT prep notebook the other day and I saw this
scribble about arctic seals.
And immediately, my brain went, oh, yeah, arctic seals and volcanic ash,
the answer to that one is definitely B.
And I, I just felt this immediate wave of frustration because I remembered the exact
same thing happening when I was studying.
Ah, the classic arctic seals.
You see the seals and you think, I have mastered this question,
next.
But what did you actually master, Nora?
The logic, or just the story?
Exactly!
It is a total illusion.
I didn't actually analyze the premise or find the gap in the argument.
I just, um, I recognized the characters.
It is like seeing an old friend in the grocery store.
You recognize their face, but that doesn't mean you know how their brain works.
And on the LSAT, that cosmetic recall is a massive trap.
It really is.
And there is a real scientific reason why we fall into this.
If we look back to eighteen eighty-five, this German psychologist,
Hermann Ebbinghaus, did these famous studies on his own recall.
He is the one who mapped out the forgetting curve, which is the whole foundation for
modern spaced repetition.
But here is the catch.
Ebbinghaus was memorizing nonsense syllables.
Things like, uh, "da-ta" or "bi-to."
Completely rote, zero-context data points.
Right, so he was testing how long the brain holds onto pure,
meaningless information.
Precisely.
And if you are learning medical terminology or Spanish verbs,
Ebbinghaus's system is a superpower.
You flash the card, you see the word, you memorize it.
But the LSAT is not a test of what you know.
It is a test of how you think.
If you use standard spaced repetition on an LSAT question, your brain takes a
massive cognitive shortcut.
It remembers the volcanic ash and the seals, and it completely bypasses the logical
processing you actually need to practice.
So, basically, standard spaced repetition teaches you to recognize the prompt,
not solve the argument.
Exactly.
It actively backfires.
So how do we fix this?
Because we still need to review our mistakes.
We can't just do a question once, miss it, and never look at it again.
No, you have to let it cool down first.
We use what I call the forgetting window rule.
When you miss a question, you do not review it the next day.
You do not even look at it the day after that.
You have to wait exactly three to five days.
Three to five days?
Why that specific window?
Because you need the cosmetic details to fade.
You want to wait just long enough so that when you open that page again,
you don't instantly go, "Oh, B, seals."
You want the story to feel a little fuzzy.
That way, when you read it, your brain is actually forced to re-evaluate the
premises, find the conclusion, and map the gap from scratch.
You want to rebuild the path, not just remember the destination.
Okay, so we wait three to five days so we actually have to do the mental heavy
lifting again.
But how do we track this without turning our study space into a giant,
messy pile of loose paper?
I mean, I love a good system, but some of these digital planners are just,
uh, they are too much.
I agree.
We need to keep it simple.
Have you ever heard of the Leitner system?
It was originally designed for physical flashcards in five boxes,
but we can adapt it beautifully for the LSAT using a three-speed triage system.
Three boxes instead of five.
How do we sort them?
We sort them by confidence, not by question type.
Box one is for what I call the Terrible questions.
The ones where you were completely lost, or you fell for a classic trap.
You review these every three days.
Box two is for Shaky questions.
You got it right, maybe, but it took too long, or you weren't completely sure.
Those get reviewed every six days.
And Box three is for the Nailed It questions.
You saw the flaw, you predicted the answer, you got it right.
You review those every twelve days, and then, if you get them right again,
you retire them.
I love that because it stops people from doing what I did, which was organizing by
"necessary assumption" or "flaw" and then just getting bored.
But wait, Adrian, if we are reviewing those Box one, those "Terrible" questions
every three days, aren't we still going to run into that cosmetic memory trap?
Even after three days, I might still remember that the seals question was B.
You are one step ahead of me.
Yes, you absolutely will.
And that is why we pair Box one questions with what I call a sister question.
A sister question?
Like, a twin?
Exactly.
For every missed question you put in Box one, you have to find an uncompleted,
fresh question that shares the exact same logical mechanism.
So, if you missed a correlation-causation flaw about exercise and health,
you find a new, untouched correlation-causation flaw, maybe about crop yields and
fertilizer.
You pair them together in your box.
Oh, that is brilliant.
Because then, when you go to review, you do the old exercise one to see if you can
find the logical structure, and then you immediately try the crop yield one to prove
you can actually apply that structure to a totally fresh topic.
Exactly.
It is the ultimate test of transferrable skill.
If you can only do it with the seals, you haven't learned the logic.
If you can do it with the crop yields, you have.
And honestly, you don't need a fancy, over-engineered spreadsheet to run this.
I know people love their colorful tracking sheets, but a simple analog index card
box, or even just a basic two-column digital document, is more than enough.
One column for your active review date, one for your sister question links.
Perfect.
Keep the tool low-tech so your brain can do the high-tech work.
The LSAT is a mental gym, Nora.
You don't go to the gym just to look at the weights you already lifted.
You go to build the strength to lift new ones.
Right.
Don't memorize the seals, learn how to hunt the flaw.
Alright, let's get back to the books.