Self-study
Hi all! I am currently studying to take my LSAT in September. I am fairly new at studying ( I did previously take my LSAT in 2024.. bombed it ) and have run into a very annoying issue of eliminating all answer choices but two, getting to blind review, choosing the alternative answer choice and getting it right in the blind review. I'm still new so I am trying to cut myself a break and just say " study more" but I am wondering if you all have any tips at closing this gap?
Also, does anyone have any tips of breaking down stims? Any hacks or alternative resources? I feel like I take a long time doing it.... Could also be because I am new but anything would help! :)
2
8 comments
read the stimulus paying attention to adjectives/qualifiers, underline the conclusion, and highlight the MAIN premise(s) supporting it. I emphasize main because there can be more than 1-2, and although those provide support sometimes they can be context or like auxiliary information. what works for me is, the job is to identify what's necessary for the argument to work. I treat every argument as a necessary assumption question after first read & before going to answer choices ask myself what must be true for the author's conclusion to work? that's typically the weak point in the argument, and from there you can SA, strengthen, weaken, find the flaw in it.
@Marcus91 You make it sound so simple! I will try this when I drill. Thanks!
@YasmineJohnson haha oh no, not simple. I use the highlighter religiously. they sneak in these little adjectives slightly modifying one sentence, you overlook it, spend 2 mins totally confused on a question, then realize the answer hinged on that one little modifier the entire time. happened to me enough times I vowed to never let it happen again. I read SO SLOW to make sure I don't miss a single word lol
@Marcus91 That sounds like an interesting way to look at it, I'll definitely try that too!
Hi Yasmine!
As far as breaking down the stimuli, I would suggest two things. First, nearly all stimuli present either an argument or a conclusion. A conclusion is the takeaway part of the argument (the argument also includes the reasoning or justification for the conclusion). So, the default mindset should always be to identify the full argument if there is one, or at least the conclusion if there is no supporting reasoning present.
Now more specifically, every single LR question will identify for you what part of the stimuli you are being asked to treat. Typically it will be to find a flaw in the "reasoning", or to stregnthen the "argument" or to identify and apply the "principle".
So, really, in my opinion, breaking down the stimulus should be something we do not only after we read the stimulus but also AFTER we read the Question. This way we can find exactly what the part of the stimulus/passage we are being asked to treat. That tells us exactly how to break down the passage and prepares for answering the question.
Of course, all of these stimulus/passage parts distinct and have a basic, but precise definition that needs to be consistently applied. But you have several months to crush through all that.
That's my hack...hope it helps out!
@SCOTT_LEBO Thank you ! I'll try this hack out for sure, I know it's gonna take some time to get used to but i'm sure this will be helpful !
Your initial selection between the two answers must be based on an articulable reason. For example, suppose I'm looking at a most strongly supported inference question, and I've narrowed it down to the following answers:
(A) Nematodes are an important part of every ecosystem they inhabit.
(B) Without nematodes, each ecosystem they currently inhabit would collapse.
Both answer focus on the role nematodes play in ecosystems and both answers say it is crucial. Additionally, both answers use strong language, answer (A) using the term "every" and answer (B) saying "Without... each... would collapse," making nematodes a necessary condition of continued ecosystem survival. However, all things being equal in the hypothetical stimulus, I'd prefer (A) over (B) because a relationship of necessity is a stronger and more precisely defined relationship than one of mere importance. That is, (A) is still the weaker claim. It's useful to note, if you haven't studied this question type yet, that is most strongly supported questions we generally prefer weaker, less precise answers over stronger, more specific ones.
My point is, I would get the sense of which words in (B) amounted to a stronger claim before picking (A) rather settling for (A) because it feels more correct. I don't have to sit there and actually lay out an explanation in my stream of consciousness that someone else can understand, but I should be confident that I'd be able to do so if necessary. When the deciding factor between two answers is one that is more formal, I might emphasize the inappropriately placed conditional language in the answer, or I might diagnose the error as a mistaken negation/mistaken reversal.
@BenjaminSegal Thank you so much!!! I will definitely update you on how your tips work for me!