On the LSAT, your intuition will have to carry you; there is not enough time to formally solve every problem. I would say that training your intuition to know the right answers and feel comfortable answering as fast as possible is the most valuable tool, and if you are recognizing them now then you are even better off.
Whoever recommended doing the shallow dip with the logical strength of the conclusion in the answer choices several lessons back is brilliant. it's been much easier than trying the shallow dip with the premises, and it's cutting my times in half.
Some questions have dead giveaways in premises/conclusion. "Based on past experience" in the stimulus conclusion tells you everything you need to know looking for the right answer, that it is going to be referencing events in the past to predict a likewise conclusion for the present.
Someone could probably get this right in 30-40 seconds if they realized they only need to look for a conclusion with a probability (and there's only one AC with a probabilistic conclusion).
"If someone realized they need to look for the one, single, only answer choice with a probabilistic conclusion, that someone could probably get this question right in 30-40 seconds" :)
First analyzing whether the conclusions match, ignoring everything else, is a great way to eliminate answer choices quickly. In this case, D was the only answer choice that had a matching conclusion structure.
Im not sure if this is a good method but I was able to get the answer correct and narrow answer choices quickly by matching the word strength the journalist used "strike is likely" to Ds "probable lopez will win"
I narrowed it down by looking for answers that started with a statement. Which sent me to D or E then I was able to decide from there. (idk if thats a good way to do it, but it worked for this one)
when the format of the logic of the argument is so convoluted like this, skip to the conclusion. Once you understand the format and quantifiers in the conclusion (most, any, etc.), scan the ACs and find the conclusion that matches. BH
Damn, that's 4 in a row correct just by counting the "most/more/only/all" in the stimuli and matching it with the answer. It feels like a cheat code or maybe I'm just getting lucky
I choose answer choice D but then in the blind review I moved to B and I really debated Because the more I examined B, the more I thought that the original statement in D is she would run the marathon and the conclusion is connected to her winning the marathon not running so that tripped me up because I thought it would say it is probable that Lopez will not win the marathon. as that is the original statement they are looking at sometimes a second chance is a curse because your gut is better then you'd expect #feedback
OK I don't know if I should be admitting this but I've been simply reading the conclusion of the argument and then looking at the conclusion in the answers and if they have similar language I've been selecting that one and it seems to be working. Has anyone else been noticing this pattern?
I've been finding this question type much less torturous than a lot of the previous ones because you can mostly rely on wording and semantics. For this problem, you can see that the conclusion is probabilistic rather than definitive ("unlikely/likely" rather than "will/must") which allows you to get rid of all answer choices except D. I've noticed a lot of wrong answer choices either conflate quantifiers (such as most vs. all) in one or more places, introduce one too many subjects to be relevantly similar to the stimulus, or they mess up the conclusion. So at least for me it's basically a big game of pin the tail on the donkey. Although in the real world you probably would not want to rely on heuristics to this extent.
The next question which is about taxation (PT133 S3 Q25) is a very good example of how POE can help with this question type so I'll quickly run through my thought process for it in few words:
A) "to correspond directly to" vs. "in proportion to" in first sentence. Good. "Reliable" vs. "objective" in second sentence with the same flow. Great. And in both cases, the third sentence makes a proportional conclusion based on context in the first sentence and reasoning in the second. Lovely.
B) Why "complete autonomy"? The conclusion is about a proportion, it's not absolute. [LOUD INCORRECT BUZZER]
C) "Many government programs" ... uhh, how many? And for how many "large corporations"? And why do we care?
D) Something about the second sentence feels off. The answer choice is just trying to go A -> B -> C in a very textbook way, but the stim is using the second sentence to better qualify the first.
E) There's no mediating clause. It's just one premise. Very different
73 comments
I've been going by the vibe of the stimulus and seeing if it matches the vibes of any given choices. So far it has not led me astray
Vibes are key bro I feel
The vibes don't lie ! !
Is it okay that intuition is carrying all of my solutions so far? Can't seem to apply the formal notations at all...but are still getting them right
On the LSAT, your intuition will have to carry you; there is not enough time to formally solve every problem. I would say that training your intuition to know the right answers and feel comfortable answering as fast as possible is the most valuable tool, and if you are recognizing them now then you are even better off.
I'm the same way.
saw the present-past analogy and went hunting
me to ts did not work this time lmao
Whoever recommended doing the shallow dip with the logical strength of the conclusion in the answer choices several lessons back is brilliant. it's been much easier than trying the shallow dip with the premises, and it's cutting my times in half.
Some questions have dead giveaways in premises/conclusion. "Based on past experience" in the stimulus conclusion tells you everything you need to know looking for the right answer, that it is going to be referencing events in the past to predict a likewise conclusion for the present.
"Your present performance isn't necessarily representative of your future performance. People improve."
Thanks JY!
I was 25 secs to slow. But slay
Yay! I got this answer right 3 seconds ahead of target.
Someone could probably get this right in 30-40 seconds if they realized they only need to look for a conclusion with a probability (and there's only one AC with a probabilistic conclusion).
If or only if??? lol
"If someone realized they need to look for the one, single, only answer choice with a probabilistic conclusion, that someone could probably get this question right in 30-40 seconds" :)
@ColinErickson minute and a half is more realistic, 30-40 seconds u need to understand the stimulus alone in my opinion.
First analyzing whether the conclusions match, ignoring everything else, is a great way to eliminate answer choices quickly. In this case, D was the only answer choice that had a matching conclusion structure.
@epayne17 I got the next question correct because of this tip - thanks!
@epayne17 Agreed, was able to eliminate A and B easily because their conclusions were black and white, D spoke in terms of probabilities!
Im not sure if this is a good method but I was able to get the answer correct and narrow answer choices quickly by matching the word strength the journalist used "strike is likely" to Ds "probable lopez will win"
I narrowed it down by looking for answers that started with a statement. Which sent me to D or E then I was able to decide from there. (idk if thats a good way to do it, but it worked for this one)
did this one pretty fast and didn't even read D.
skimmed the stim and grasped onto the conclusion saying "likely," so I knew the conclusion couldn't be definitive.
A B and E all had conclusions that said "will" or "will not" so I immediately got rid of them.
C had no temporal language, so it couldn't be parallel to D.
and that was it!
@nicolesteinberg133 I did exactly this!
59 seconds still HIM
Bit by bit im doing better :,)
when the format of the logic of the argument is so convoluted like this, skip to the conclusion. Once you understand the format and quantifiers in the conclusion (most, any, etc.), scan the ACs and find the conclusion that matches. BH
Thank you Dylan
AC "D" is the only AC with probability language matching the conclusion I am a god so hurry up with my damn croissant
IN THIS FRENCH AHH RESTAURANT
I picked AC (D) because it was the only answer with a matching conclusion
Okay, wow. I definitely was not the only one to notice this. Seems like everyone came to using the same strategy.
I got this correct by looking at the conclusion in the stimulus and matching it to conclusions of the answer choices.
Damn, that's 4 in a row correct just by counting the "most/more/only/all" in the stimuli and matching it with the answer. It feels like a cheat code or maybe I'm just getting lucky
I'd work on another more all-inclusive strategy as a backup plan if this strategy can't be done.
I choose answer choice D but then in the blind review I moved to B and I really debated Because the more I examined B, the more I thought that the original statement in D is she would run the marathon and the conclusion is connected to her winning the marathon not running so that tripped me up because I thought it would say it is probable that Lopez will not win the marathon. as that is the original statement they are looking at sometimes a second chance is a curse because your gut is better then you'd expect #feedback
I feel like I am going crazy
OK I don't know if I should be admitting this but I've been simply reading the conclusion of the argument and then looking at the conclusion in the answers and if they have similar language I've been selecting that one and it seems to be working. Has anyone else been noticing this pattern?
how do you compare? are you comparing terms like "unless" or "most"? I'd like to know your thought process a little more pls
I've been finding this question type much less torturous than a lot of the previous ones because you can mostly rely on wording and semantics. For this problem, you can see that the conclusion is probabilistic rather than definitive ("unlikely/likely" rather than "will/must") which allows you to get rid of all answer choices except D. I've noticed a lot of wrong answer choices either conflate quantifiers (such as most vs. all) in one or more places, introduce one too many subjects to be relevantly similar to the stimulus, or they mess up the conclusion. So at least for me it's basically a big game of pin the tail on the donkey. Although in the real world you probably would not want to rely on heuristics to this extent.
The next question which is about taxation (PT133 S3 Q25) is a very good example of how POE can help with this question type so I'll quickly run through my thought process for it in few words:
A) "to correspond directly to" vs. "in proportion to" in first sentence. Good. "Reliable" vs. "objective" in second sentence with the same flow. Great. And in both cases, the third sentence makes a proportional conclusion based on context in the first sentence and reasoning in the second. Lovely.
B) Why "complete autonomy"? The conclusion is about a proportion, it's not absolute. [LOUD INCORRECT BUZZER]
C) "Many government programs" ... uhh, how many? And for how many "large corporations"? And why do we care?
D) Something about the second sentence feels off. The answer choice is just trying to go A -> B -> C in a very textbook way, but the stim is using the second sentence to better qualify the first.
E) There's no mediating clause. It's just one premise. Very different
11 second faster than target i'll take that
almost got me- until i realized D was the only one discussing the past
Took me 2 and half minutes but I got it right