Hey everyone,
I want to get feedback and see if there is an interest out their in studying LR but with a focus on strategies that increase your understanding beyond just that PT and question.
Instead of the traditional method where we are just just blind reviewing and trying to understand the question in front of us, we will be focusing on identifying patterns behind each argument so we can carry what we learned over to other LR stimulus in future PT's.
A lot of speed in LR comes from our ability to quickly spot these patterns that are constantly repeating. These patterns are not about learning question types - the core curriculum does a phenomenal job of that - but more about argument types.
So yeah, let me know what you guys think and if you are interested. : )
Update:
I am going to let all of you decide what PT series you would like to use to study these patterns.
PT 30-39:
Pros: These are basically drill materials PT's and are considered ideal for burning in order to study. Even the very beginners can join this.
Con: These are older PT's and hence a little less relevant than 40 series. We have also seen a lot of these questions as part of our core curriculum.
PT 40-49
Pros: They are a bit more relevant though I think there is not that much difference as the logic has not changed much from PT 1. I think it's fine to burn these for drills as well since we still have 46 plus fresh PT's left after these.
Cons: Some people still like to use them as fresh PT's.
PT 50-59:
I had a private request for this but since I cannot edit the poll if this series is your preference you can just write this down as a comment below and I would count it in the poll.
121 comments
@danielmoshesieradzki129 said:
@ji330. That makes perfect sense. Ultimately, it should be up to a majority vote. It would be fine to use some 50 PTs if that is what people want. I thought I should just point some stuff out based on my experience. I can't wait for this to start! 7Sage is lucky to have you.
I like proportional representation more than majority wins. But that's probably due to my own personal feelings about the voting system lol. So lets see. I can't wait for this to start as well and I am lucky that you get to come to this (3 (3 (3(/p)
Definitely interested! Count me down as a vote for the PT 50s series
@ji330. That makes perfect sense. Ultimately, it should be up to a majority vote. It would be fine to use some 50 PTs if that is what people want. I thought I should just point some stuff out based on my experience. I can't wait for this to start! 7Sage is lucky to have you.
when will this be happening and where?
I'd also be interested in the 50s!;)
@calftemp964 said:
Also interested in using the 50's!
Got it (3.(/p)
@ticiasanders877 said:
I am interested. If the session will being before June 12, 2017
Count me in Please
I will probably be starting this after June 12 since I am leaving my job in two weeks and I will have more time then. But I am sure either way you will do great. If anything I wouldn't change my strategy of doing LR so close to the test date. Good luck for June! (3(/p)
This would be great. I think its important to understand theory over specific question types. At the end of the day, question stems are just superficial. Analyzing arguments is key
A thousand times yes!
I am interested!! (3(/p)
I like your approach especially because I'm starting to see a pattern of my mistakes which the LSAT Analytics doesn't show. By watching my recordings, I found out that it really takes time for me to comprehend certain argument types.
I am very interested! I think it is great that you are focusing in on argument types. @jknauf572 is totally right, that is too often overlooked.
Understanding the strengths and weaknesses of certain argument types not only increases your speed but also accuracy.
I have noticed some argument types showing up frequently. For example, super strong deductive arguments (with little support) and conditional arguments. If someone claims all A are B, that is a bold statement that has an incredible weakness. A single counterexample tears it to pieces. As for conditional arguments like "If global warming continues, Tuvalu will disappear," You have to strengthen or weaken the argument in very specific ways. An answer like "Global warming will not continue" does not actually hurt or help this argument at all. You need to target the conditional relationship not just the individual pieces.
I really look forward to this. Thanks, @ji330.
I am interested! Identifying patterns in the LSAT arguments is an issue I have been having since I started studying LR.
I'm very much interested!
@leo555 said:
This is a great idea. Sami our hero. (3 Would love this to be in the 50-59 but I guess patterns are patterns so they should show up in the older tests as well, even if they aren't as wordy as the modern versions.(/p)
You hit it on the nail here. The grammar changes but the logic stays the same. So it kind of doesn't matter what series I do. ; )
Interested as well.
Appreciate you setting this up for all of us.
definitely intertested
I'm interested!!
interested, count me in!
I'm interested in either. Thanks!
Just in time, I need help in LR from a master.
Actually since the polling result are pretty close, will it be a good idea to pull some questions from each era?
Thank you Sami!
I'm very interested!! Thank you Sami!
I'm interested.. Thanks Sami
I'm so here for this.
Yes, any help is welcome!
Interested!
I'm interested as well!