My Argument is Solid, But Is It "LSAT Argumentative Writing" Solid?

[Deepler]

I need a reality check from this community. I've been practicing the LSAT argumentative writing section for about three weeks now, and I think I'm getting the hang of it. My arguments are structured, I'm addressing counterpoints, and I feel like my reasoning is pretty tight. But here's my worry: Am I confusing "being logical" with "writing logically"? I come from a philosophy background, so constructing arguments is literally my jam. But my study buddy (who's a total saint for reviewing my stuff) pointed out that my writing sometimes assumes the reader will follow these massive logical leaps that make sense to me but aren't actually explained on the page. She said LSAT argumentative writing needs to hold the reader's hand a little more—spelling out each step so there's zero ambiguity.

Is that true? How do you balance being thorough without sounding like you're explaining basic concepts to a child? I want my argument to be airtight, but I also don't want to lose the graders in my own head. Any tips on finding that sweet spot would be amazing!

 

[SamuelS]

Your study buddy is absolutely right—LSAT argumentative writing demands a level of explicitness that feels almost painful to a trained philosopher.

Why the difference?

Philosophy values parsimony—the most elegant argument with the fewest words. The reader is expected to work, to fill gaps, to engage. That's the pleasure of philosophical reading.

LSAT writing values accessibility. Admissions officers read hundreds of essays. They're not looking to be challenged; they're looking to understand quickly. The Princeton Review explicitly advises: "Make sure each idea is supported and connected; do not leave loose threads" .

Where you're probably going wrong:

You're likely writing arguments that are logically complete but rhetorically sparse. Every step exists in your mind, but not all of them made it to the page. To a philosopher, that's efficient. To an admissions reader, it's confusing.

The fix:

Manhattan Review suggests using transition words like "therefore," "because," and "this means that" to explicitly connect every claim . If it feels like you're over-explaining, you're probably at the sweet spot.

Also, remember the 15-minute prewriting phase . Use it to map out EVERY step of your reasoning before you write. That way, nothing gets left in your head.