@sagely In terms of reading, I had been writing a brief low-res summary of each paragraph after reading each one, and I switched to jotting those down at the end to keep the flow of my reading more natural and true to how I approach reading in my every day life. I also slowed myself down while reading a good amount. I realized that the extra time I spent reading is pretty much directly proportional to the time saved once I got to the questions.
In terms of approaching the questions, if I am able to, I formulate what I believe the answer is before looking at the ACs. This can be super helpful with RC questions because it makes me much more immune to carefully worded trap answers. I also read every AC before looking back at the passage, unless the question is about a very specific moment in the passage. Trusting my memory as the first line of defense really saves time compared to looking for textual evidence for each AC.
A big struggle for me has been RC inference questions. When I get to one that I am uncertain about, or am deciding between two ACs, a big help has been asking myself, "what would it look like if the author had inferred this?" I know that probably sounds pretty self-evident as a strategy, but forcing myself to formulate what I would have wanted to see in the passage for a given answer to be correct has been helpful in eliminating those more ambiguous or weirdly phrased traps.
The number one thing for RC that has been indispensable for me is not ever eliminating an answer choice purely based on the synonyms it uses for something in the passage. This might be more of an individual problem that doesn't apply to a lot of ppl, but I would eliminate correct answers because they used less directly equivalent wording compared to wrong answers. I would think "well those aren't totally the same thing..." and then choose a wrong answer that looked better on the surface. This would especially happen when I did not have much time or was rushing through a question. I have realized that this is basically never a reason to eliminate an AC. The LSAT will almost never have an answer be incorrect just because phrase X is a little bit different from phrase Y. Obviously there is a degree at which an AC will be wrong due to a false equivalence or part v. whole confusion, but I would get tripped up on synonymous phrases that I would judge to be not equivalent for no good reason. I can try to find a question I've gotten wrong that exhibits this if you'd like, because IDK if I am explaining it super well.
@EzraG I relate to so much of your RC approach! Your answer was super helpful. If you were able to, the synonymous phrase thing is something I struggle with as well- any more context or help with how you thought about approaching questions more recently would be so helpful!
@NixonAnderson I don't have such a simple answer for this, bc I started studying initially a couple years ago and studied for around 4 or 5 months, but then decided not to take the test until after I graduated. I started studying consistently again at the end of June, and scored a 168 on a PT when I started this round of studying
How were you able to get your LR to near perfect if you don't mind me asking? I am consistently able to score high 170s/180 on blind review, but really struggle with falling for traps/misunderstanding LR questions and losing dumb points.
@spindlynoodles To be honest, I have a tougher time elucidating my strategy with LR than with RC. My approach to different question types vary widely, but here are a few things I carry with me into a section:
Like RC, I try to predict the answer when the question type is conducive to it.
I always sketch out the logic for parallel questions. I have a tough time doing these without mapping the stimulus out.
I am willing to sometimes map out the logic of answer choices, not just the stimulus. A lot of the time, the logic in an answer choice is more jumbled or confusingly stated than the logic in the stimulus. Mapping it out can help you identify sneaky contrapositives or incorrect answers (e.g., leading to an impossible conclusion). I would avoid this if I feel like I haven't banked some time on easier questions, because mapping out anything is a time sink.
If I feel unsure about a question in any way, I flag it and come back later. Be extremely liberal with flagging. If there is any inkling of distrust of your answer choice, try to formulate why the answer choice is wrong. However I do not change an answer based solely on vibes. This goes back to what I said in another comment about my RC approach and being accepting of ambiguous language. Many wrong ACs look more appealing on the surface than right ACs. I try to only change my AC if I can explicitly say why the answer is wrong. If I am unsure about an answer, but can't formulate what the issue is, I just leave it and move on.
And finally, by far the most important attribute to my improvement, and hopefully continued improvement, in both RC and LR, is extremely rigorous blind review. This means stating exactly why your answer was wrong, and why the correct answer was right -- preferably writing this by hand. I then try to think of a general rule or tip to avoid the same kind of mistake going forward. That step is not always possible, sometimes you literally just misread something and have a brain fart. But these steps are absolutely crucial. I see a lot of ppl on 7Sage talking about not seeing improvement after a lot of studying, and I look at the profile and see like tons of PTs but zero review. I really think that just reinforces bad habits. When I get a question wrong, it means I made an error, either in execution or understanding. Developing an understanding of that error and how to avoid it through Blind Review is by far the best way to not repeat it.
@EzraG This is so helpful!! Thank you for taking the time to write all this out. I definitely have been rigorously blind reviewing/wrong answer journaling and that helped me start consistently scoring in the high 160s. I really like your Point 4 - especially the part of trap answers look more appealing superficially and to not switch your answer unless you know exactly why it's wrong. Thanks so much!!
@spindlynoodles Ofc! I think writing out my process like this is a great way for me to study too, so it's a win win. Also, I just did
PT140.S2.Q15, which is a great example of a correct LR answer using much less appealing language than the incorrect ones. The language of one incorrect answer was so appealing that I actually saw the flaw in the AC and still chose it lol.
12 comments
What were your adjustments?
@sagely In terms of reading, I had been writing a brief low-res summary of each paragraph after reading each one, and I switched to jotting those down at the end to keep the flow of my reading more natural and true to how I approach reading in my every day life. I also slowed myself down while reading a good amount. I realized that the extra time I spent reading is pretty much directly proportional to the time saved once I got to the questions.
In terms of approaching the questions, if I am able to, I formulate what I believe the answer is before looking at the ACs. This can be super helpful with RC questions because it makes me much more immune to carefully worded trap answers. I also read every AC before looking back at the passage, unless the question is about a very specific moment in the passage. Trusting my memory as the first line of defense really saves time compared to looking for textual evidence for each AC.
A big struggle for me has been RC inference questions. When I get to one that I am uncertain about, or am deciding between two ACs, a big help has been asking myself, "what would it look like if the author had inferred this?" I know that probably sounds pretty self-evident as a strategy, but forcing myself to formulate what I would have wanted to see in the passage for a given answer to be correct has been helpful in eliminating those more ambiguous or weirdly phrased traps.
The number one thing for RC that has been indispensable for me is not ever eliminating an answer choice purely based on the synonyms it uses for something in the passage. This might be more of an individual problem that doesn't apply to a lot of ppl, but I would eliminate correct answers because they used less directly equivalent wording compared to wrong answers. I would think "well those aren't totally the same thing..." and then choose a wrong answer that looked better on the surface. This would especially happen when I did not have much time or was rushing through a question. I have realized that this is basically never a reason to eliminate an AC. The LSAT will almost never have an answer be incorrect just because phrase X is a little bit different from phrase Y. Obviously there is a degree at which an AC will be wrong due to a false equivalence or part v. whole confusion, but I would get tripped up on synonymous phrases that I would judge to be not equivalent for no good reason. I can try to find a question I've gotten wrong that exhibits this if you'd like, because IDK if I am explaining it super well.
@EzraG I relate to so much of your RC approach! Your answer was super helpful. If you were able to, the synonymous phrase thing is something I struggle with as well- any more context or help with how you thought about approaching questions more recently would be so helpful!
@EzraG This is super helpful, thank you for sharing!
Congratulations!! How long have you been studying for?
@NixonAnderson I don't have such a simple answer for this, bc I started studying initially a couple years ago and studied for around 4 or 5 months, but then decided not to take the test until after I graduated. I started studying consistently again at the end of June, and scored a 168 on a PT when I started this round of studying
How were you able to get your LR to near perfect if you don't mind me asking? I am consistently able to score high 170s/180 on blind review, but really struggle with falling for traps/misunderstanding LR questions and losing dumb points.
@spindlynoodles To be honest, I have a tougher time elucidating my strategy with LR than with RC. My approach to different question types vary widely, but here are a few things I carry with me into a section:
Like RC, I try to predict the answer when the question type is conducive to it.
I always sketch out the logic for parallel questions. I have a tough time doing these without mapping the stimulus out.
I am willing to sometimes map out the logic of answer choices, not just the stimulus. A lot of the time, the logic in an answer choice is more jumbled or confusingly stated than the logic in the stimulus. Mapping it out can help you identify sneaky contrapositives or incorrect answers (e.g., leading to an impossible conclusion). I would avoid this if I feel like I haven't banked some time on easier questions, because mapping out anything is a time sink.
If I feel unsure about a question in any way, I flag it and come back later. Be extremely liberal with flagging. If there is any inkling of distrust of your answer choice, try to formulate why the answer choice is wrong. However I do not change an answer based solely on vibes. This goes back to what I said in another comment about my RC approach and being accepting of ambiguous language. Many wrong ACs look more appealing on the surface than right ACs. I try to only change my AC if I can explicitly say why the answer is wrong. If I am unsure about an answer, but can't formulate what the issue is, I just leave it and move on.
And finally, by far the most important attribute to my improvement, and hopefully continued improvement, in both RC and LR, is extremely rigorous blind review. This means stating exactly why your answer was wrong, and why the correct answer was right -- preferably writing this by hand. I then try to think of a general rule or tip to avoid the same kind of mistake going forward. That step is not always possible, sometimes you literally just misread something and have a brain fart. But these steps are absolutely crucial. I see a lot of ppl on 7Sage talking about not seeing improvement after a lot of studying, and I look at the profile and see like tons of PTs but zero review. I really think that just reinforces bad habits. When I get a question wrong, it means I made an error, either in execution or understanding. Developing an understanding of that error and how to avoid it through Blind Review is by far the best way to not repeat it.
@EzraG This is so helpful!! Thank you for taking the time to write all this out. I definitely have been rigorously blind reviewing/wrong answer journaling and that helped me start consistently scoring in the high 160s. I really like your Point 4 - especially the part of trap answers look more appealing superficially and to not switch your answer unless you know exactly why it's wrong. Thanks so much!!
@spindlynoodles Ofc! I think writing out my process like this is a great way for me to study too, so it's a win win. Also, I just did
PT140.S2.Q15, which is a great example of a correct LR answer using much less appealing language than the incorrect ones. The language of one incorrect answer was so appealing that I actually saw the flaw in the AC and still chose it lol.
@EzraG I just did it! I noticed the conditional flaw in D and picked C - was that the trap??
@spindlynoodles yeah exactly