Q+A: Andrew Brody, Princeton Review's LSAT Logic in Everyday Life

If you didn't study logic in school, listening to the Princeton Review's LSAT Logic in Everyday Life is a little like cleaning your car's windshield off after a long winter. You don't really notice how hazy everything looked until suddenly everything is clear.

Logic, as host Andrew Brody points out in every episode, isn't about finding the right answer to a problem—it's a way of framing it. And after you listen to Brody frame issues ranging from unemployment to the financial meltdown, you start getting a sense of how it works, even if you never learn the formal terms for this process. Listen to enough episodes, and the logical frameworks will start to snap over even the fuzziest topics like a grid.

You don't have to have an LSAT test looming to appreciate the way Brody deftly handles even the trickiest issues of the day—there's a reason the podcast earned a "Best of iTunes" nod in 2006.

He agreed to answer a few questions for Atomic Podcasts about the challenges of a show like his, some of the alarming questions that never made it to air, and the shows he likes to listen to when he's not creating his own.

When and why did you start the podcast?

I started the podcast in the summer of 2006. At The Princeton Review, we’re always looking for creative ways to help people prepare for exams, and podcasts as a medium were just exploding into popular consciousness. Because the LSAT tests a way of thinking and not just memorization, it really lends itself to outside-of-the-box preparation formats. As an LSAT instructor, my students would often tell me that studying for the LSAT was changing the way they read the newspaper and argued with their friends, so a podcast discussing how the concepts tested on the LSAT can apply in everyday life seemed very natural.

What podcasts do you enjoy listening to?

Living in New York, I spend a lot of time in headphones, so I do listen to a few podcasts pretty religiously: WNYC’s RadioLab, NPR’s Wait, Wait Don’t Tell Me, PRI: To the Best of our Knowledge, Slate’s Political Gabfest, This American Life, Science Talk: The Scientific American podcast. I also really enjoy the video podcasts of TEDtalks.

What are the challenges and enjoyable parts of coming up with the topics and angles for episodes?

I’m a big news junkie, so scouring blogs and newspapers for topics is extremely enjoyable for me. I would be doing that anyway even if there was no podcast. Often the core of an episode will come out of discussions I am having with my friend as we try to take apart each other’s logic. Even though I have strong opinions, I usually try to see both sides of a story, so I’m always very interested to hear people forcefully argue their point.

Finding the right angle for a podcast can be difficult, because the stories I choose have to underline a technique or teaching point that relates to the LSAT, but the core of every podcast is always about critical thinking and identifying key assumptions of arguments.

You get a lot of great listener feedback and questions—and I suspect some off-the-wall stuff, too. Can you share any memorable logic questions/stories that didn't make the podcast?

I do get a lot of off-the-wall stuff. Mostly, people seem to confuse me with an advice columnist. I get a lot of people wanting me to settle arguments with their friends, and a lot of people wanting me to discuss why Candidate X is a lying, horrible person. I’m usually not very helpful with either of those.

The most memorable email I received was from a listener who had gotten herself into some trouble. I don’t completely recall the exact circumstances, but it definitely involved assault with a broom at a movie theater. She actually was looking for legal help, which I was not qualified to give, so I advised her to seek counsel.

You apply logic to a wide array of hot topics and current events. Is this something you do to your own life? Are there areas of your life where you don't employ logic, (like maybe you buy lottery tickets or something)?

I get this question a lot, which makes me think people perceive me sort of as an automaton. I don’t perceive myself that way, although I do tend to apply critical thinking to most areas of my life and many decisions I make. In my personal life, I’m often very happy to let logic go, especially when winning an argument is not as important as keeping the peace.