I'm a private LSAT tutor who uses a mix of past LSATs, commercial books, and my own material for my students. I have to say I really like this book and the others from Examkrackers.

I respect the opinion of the previous reviewer (AW), who has written a lot of quality reviews for many LSAT books, but I disagree that with the opinion that this book is overly simplistic. For example, the book advises you to ask yourself for flaw questions, "Is this a flaw in the argument?" While this sounds obvious, this advice is followed by a discussion of why answer choices for flaw questions can be wrong, and it turns out that there are only two kinds of wrong answer choices for flaw questions: choices that don't describe real flaws, and choices that don't accurately describe the argument. Thus, this simple question reminds you to check whether each choice really describes a flaw and really describes the argument. Only the correct choice will do both. So, yes, this approach is simple, but it gets you to the right answer, so why make things more complicated? I like the simplicity. Of course, the book also provides a lot more advice about how to spot common flaws as well.

The point about conditional reasoning is analogous. The LRB has tons of material regarding this topic, and while it is all true, about half of it is beyond the scope of any question that would appear on the LSAT more than once a decade. I started advising my students to skip large portions of this book when they came to me utterly confused. If you can handle All, Most, and Some, including combining these concepts, you're golden for the LSAT. The EK book has a great approach for doing so, and you can forget all about powerscore's double not arrows, negative logic ladder, and the dreaded "complete table of formal logical additive inference relationships."

Bottom line: I now use the EK series with my students, along with the home study regimen available on their site and a bunch of past LSATs. My students like it a lot.

In the logical reasoning portion of the LSAT, this book has only one competitor, the Powerscore Logical Reasoning Bible (LRB).

This book is a nice attempt and it's good to see Powerscore getting some competition, but the book is still just a bit too simplistic for my liking. It's not as basic as Kaplan's material, so I would say it's halfway between something like Kaplan and Powerscore.

For example, a lot of the book is telling you things like: to test a flaw, ask yourself, is this really a flaw in the stimulus? If it's not, discard it. Well, this kind of advice is obvious.

And the book's treatment of conditional reasoning isn't nearly as good as the LRB. So if you have problems understanding sufficient/necessary, some/most, etc. get the LRB.

That is not to say that it doesn't contain useful advice. It does. It's just not quite as detailed as I think it could be. That's why I say it isn't a replacement for the LRB. More like a nice supplement.

So, I'd say that if you only get one book, get the LRB. But if you have some extra time and money, this book is a worthwhile read. It's got 165 LR problems so that alone is good for some extra practice.

I was really impressed with this book. Really thorough, but surprisingly efficient. Unlike the power score bible, this doesn't make everything unnecessarily complicated. I know the LSAT is hard, but I like how it showed me how answering every problem is just a matter of using the same small set of skills in slightly different ways. This also has a lot more example problems, timed quizzes, and drills.