Cookie Cutter LR Questions

FiestaNextDoor

Hey 7sagers! Happy studying to all.

Throughout the curriculum, JY talked about four LR question types that are usually so formulaic that they can become "freebies". I think he put SA, MBT, PMOR, and PFMOR in this category. I am noticing that these questions, especially when the stimulus seems long and daunting, make me have a mini heart attack lol. I want to overcome this weakness and turn it into a strength.

For those that attack these question types with confidence and accuracy, what did you do to get to that point? I want to redo all problem sets for the question types but don't know what to do aside from that.

Thanks you guys are the best!

Cheers,
CP

LSATcantwin

For me it was all about understanding what the question was getting at in a logic sense. For instance on a SA question, it was all about spotting gaps.

If they said A->B and then conclude A->C I want to know how the hell C got connected into that argument. I will look for an AC that seems to link C in some how. B->C. You don't even need formal logic half the time.

If it is hot as hell in California, then Californians will complain. I conclude that many Californians will move out of the state soon.

where the hell did moving out of state come from?

AC: If Californians complain, then many will move out of state.

or

Negation: If many Californians are not move out of state, then they aren't complaining.

Obviously that is simple, but just seeing that gap is often enough a good way to plow through a SA. Be mindful of Negations

With MBT it's 100% in conditional logic. It's all about understanding how chains and negations link together.

Bob won't go to the store unless he needs milk. Bob has just gone to the store.

What MUST be true here?

Two ideas;
1.) Bob wont go to store /BGS
2.) He needs milk BNM

Conditional indicator "Unless" - Negate an idea and make it sufficient.

BGS -> BNM

We are given Bob going to the store,

So Bob MUST need milk. He wouldn't go otherwise.

I don't know what PMOR and PFMOR are so I don' know how to help with those lol

LSATcantwin

Okay I'm an idiot. Parallel method of reasoning is just like a MBT question - it's all in the conditional logic. It's all about knowing how they built their argument and then matching it.

A most B. Therefore B some A.

This is a valid argument form. We need to match it.

Most dogs have tails. Therefore some tails are on dogs.
Most cookies are sweet. Therefore some sweets are cookies.

They parallel each other.

With Parallel flaw its a whole new ball game. While you still want to be aware of structure it becomes more important to see what support is backing the argument. Is it confusing sufficient and necessary? cause and effect? Sample size? whats going on in the argument that is bad. Then match that.

Most dogs have tails. Therefore most tails are on dogs. (what if cats out number dogs 100 to 1)
Most cookies are sweet. Therefore most sweets are cookies. (what if candy bars out number cookies 100 to 1)

This one is much less embedded in conditional logic than the other 3

FiestaNextDoor

@LSATcantwin I hear you man. One of the deterrents when approaching these questions for me is that I usually have to write out the logic so I don't mix up ideas, which ends up taking too much time. I get that "seeing it in your head" comes from hours of practice with these questions. What did you do to practice with these?

LSATcantwin

@FiestaNextDoor said:
@LSATcantwin I hear you man. One of the deterrents when approaching these questions for me is that I usually have to write out the logic so I don't mix up ideas, which ends up taking too much time. I get that "seeing it in your head" comes from hours of practice with these questions. What did you do to practice with these?

I actually stopped myself from looking for logic first. I started saying to myself "what's missing" especially with the SA questions. Then I worked logic back in after I got good at spotting that leap in topic.

TheMikey

@LSATcantwin said:
I actually stopped myself from looking for logic first. I started saying to myself "what's missing" especially with the SA questions. Then I worked logic back in after I got good at spotting that leap in topic.

This.

I typically try to just spot the gap without diagramming it, but if I have difficulty after the first run through I just skip the question and go back to it after a few questions to diagram it.