“LSAT Logic Applied” breaks down everyday arguments in news, politics, and ads using the tools of LSAT logical reasoning. Learn to spot flawed assumptions, strengthen arguments, and think like a law student—without "prepping" for the test. Quick, clear, and a little nerdy.
LSAT Logic Applied
Claim This Podcastby Andrew Leahey
5.0(3 reviews)
28 episodes
Updated Daily
Accepts GuestsHas Sponsors
Podcast Overview
“LSAT Logic Applied” breaks down everyday arguments in news, politics, and ads using the tools of LSAT logical reasoning. Learn to spot flawed assumptions, strengthen arguments, and think like a law student—without "prepping" for the test. Quick, clear, and a little nerdy.
Language
🇺🇲
Publishing Since
1/24/2026
1 verified contact email on file for LSAT Logic Applied
Pitch yourself as a guest, propose sponsorships, or reach out directly to the host.
Recent Episodes
May 8, 2026
Life’s Ingredients Are Not Life: The Logic of Detecting Alien Biology
<p>Can scientists detect life without knowing what alien life looks like? A <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/sb-admin/2025/12/12/can-scientists-detect-life-without-knowing-what-it-looks-151468" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferer">new article</a> about NASA’s Bennu asteroid sample and a machine-learning framework called LifeTracer raises exactly that question.</p><p>Material from the asteroid Bennu contained many of life’s chemical building blocks, including nucleobases, amino acids, and complex organic molecules. But that does not mean scientists found life. In this episode of LSAT Logic Applied, I use core LSAT concepts like necessary and sufficient conditions, false positives, causation, analogy, and assumption testing to unpack the difference between chemistry that is consistent with life and chemistry that proves life.</p><p>The episode also looks at LifeTracer, a new approach that classifies full chemical patterns rather than searching for one decisive biosignature. That move may help scientists avoid Earth-centered assumptions—but it also raises a classic LSAT question: how much can a model trained on known Earth biology and meteorite chemistry tell us about unknown samples from Mars, Europa, Enceladus, or beyond?</p><p>This episode is about astrobiology, but the logic applies everywhere: evidence can be relevant without being conclusive. Life’s ingredients may be necessary for life, but they are not sufficient to prove life existed.</p>
April 23, 2026
Is Everyone Really Dehydrated? The Logic Behind Gatorade’s Big Claim
<p>A new <a href="https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/150-million-americans-feel-dehydrated-gatorade-aims-to-change-how-people-think-about-hydration-302743912.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferer">press release</a> from Gatorade claims that over 150 million Americans feel dehydrated—and positions its products as a science-backed solution that can hydrate “better, faster, or longer than water.” That sounds compelling. But what exactly is being claimed?</p><p>In this episode of LSAT Logic Applied, I break down the argument using core LSAT concepts like equivocation, necessary assumptions, problem-solution framing, and vague appeals to authority. When does “feeling dehydrated” actually mean dehydration? What does “better than water” mean without context? And is hydration really confusing—or just being framed that way?</p><p>This episode explores how definitions, framing, and selective use of science can turn an ordinary condition into a large-scale problem with a convenient solution. If you’re interested in applying LSAT-style reasoning to marketing, health claims, and everyday arguments, this one’s for you.</p>
April 20, 2026
Linked to Death? The Logic Behind an IBS Drug Study
<p>A new large-scale <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s43856-026-01498-6" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferer">study</a> found that some medications used by patients with irritable bowel syndrome—especially antidepressants, and in IBS-D patients loperamide and diphenoxylate—were associated with higher all-cause mortality, while other IBS treatments were not. That is a serious finding. But what exactly does it prove?</p><p>In this episode of LSAT Logic Applied, I break down the study using classic LSAT concepts like causation versus correlation, confounding by indication, scope, statistical framing, and overreading cautious conclusions. The central lesson is simple but important: a strong association can justify concern without yet proving that the medication itself caused the outcome.</p><p>This is a good example of how scientific headlines can be both grounded and easy to overread. When does “linked to” become “caused by?” What would strengthen that inference, and what would weaken it? And how should we think about large observational studies that are careful, sophisticated, and still not the same thing as proof?</p><p>If you like applying LSAT-style reasoning to medicine, research, and public discourse, this episode is for you.</p>
28 total episodes available
Similar Podcasts
Discover related shows you might enjoy
Deep-dive analytics for LSAT Logic Applied
Frequently asked questions
Have a different question and can't find the answer you're looking for? Reach out to our support team by sending us an email and we'll get back to you as soon as we can.
- What is LSAT Logic Applied?
- How often does this podcast release new episodes?
This podcast updates daily.
- Where can I listen to this podcast?
This podcast is available on 4 platforms including Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and more. You can also use the RSS feed directly.
- Does this podcast accept guests?
No, this podcast does not typically feature guests.
Legal Disclaimer
Pod Engine is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or officially connected with any of the podcasts displayed on this platform. We operate independently as a podcast discovery and analytics service.
All podcast artwork, thumbnails, and content displayed on this page are the property of their respective owners and are protected by applicable copyright laws. This includes, but is not limited to, podcast cover art, episode artwork, show descriptions, episode titles, transcripts, audio snippets, and any other content originating from the podcast creators or their licensors.
We display this content under fair use principles and/or implied license for the purpose of podcast discovery, information, and commentary. We make no claim of ownership over any podcast content, artwork, or related materials shown on this platform. All trademarks, service marks, and trade names are the property of their respective owners.
While we strive to ensure all content usage is properly authorized, if you are a rights holder and believe your content is being used inappropriately or without proper authorization, please contact us immediately at hey@podengine.ai for prompt review and appropriate action, which may include content removal or proper attribution.
By accessing and using this platform, you acknowledge and agree to respect all applicable copyright laws and intellectual property rights of content owners. Any unauthorized reproduction, distribution, or commercial use of the content displayed on this platform is strictly prohibited.