Subscription pricing
Hi all,
Curious about your thoughts on how often and under what circumstances you turn LR questions into "lawgic" diagrams. I find that in a lot of cases, even when I see conditional relationships or logical indicators, I get to the answer faster without drawing them out. Or, at least sometimes, when I do draw out the relationships, it doesn't necessarily help me answer the question and I feel like I've just wasted a bunch of precious precious time.
Appreciate your thoughts and advice!
0
13 comments
As others have said, there isn't enough time to map out all of the conditional logic in LR, but it's also essential to have a strong grasp of lawgic for those questions that require it. My solution: diagram every question that includes conditional logic during BR.
On the test, though, I pretty much exclusively use it for parallel flaw and parallel method questions. I'll also use it to confirm an answer choice that I'm unsure about for a question that relies heavily on conditional logic.
@[Deleted] - me too. @mmaritzagarcia303 and @igbodoe249 - it's emphasized in the course that you rarely will have time to draw or map out the lawgic when the clock is ticking. You have to go with your gut because you don't have time to do it for every single question. But the only way to improve your gut instinct is to like @[Deleted] and others said to draw it out when you're Blind Reviewing.
And what @nielsinha488 said, lawgic is absolutely essential to the LSAT. Cool title by the way, I don't think I've seen "Mentor" before.
Depending on the question type such as SA, MBT, ASSUMPTION, ETC. I use a lot of lawgic in drilling but when I take PT I may use it less than 5 times.
Hahaha thanks everyone!
Hey @mmaritzagarcia303, in a 25/26 LR section, I'll use lawgic maybe like 2/3 times. I use it when I don't have a 100% understanding of the stimulus for MBT/MSS questions (common when there are a lot of trigger words or term shifts). I use it briefly to map out the logic for parallel questions as well as sufficient assumption questions.
I personally drew the diagrams in really long winded questions... some questions are a direct application of lawgic, some do not require them directly... and in some questions you use the framework of lawgic sub-consciously... that said @mmaritzagarcia303 lawgic is ESSENTIAL to LR, LG and the LSAT in general. In fact, one of the best things you can do in your prep is to revise the lawgic curriculum again and again as it is one of the most important concepts (if not THE most important concept) tested on the LSAT. In fact I would go so far as to say that IF you want a good score on the LSAT (GSL), develop strong lawgic skills (SLS) i.e. a sound understanding of lawgic is a necessary condition for your doing well on the LSAT : GSL-----> SLS ;)
@mmaritzagarcia303 I do apply it for the stimulus that have lots of lawgic language such as December 92, LR 1, Q. 2
@allisonmcmahon10493 Do you see yourself using it a lot?
@igbodoe249 Are you not applying it at all?
I'd say I'm mid-way through the course. I've been at it for MONTHS! There is so much material. I'm diving into LGs now and I don't feel comfortable trying to wrap my head around that section until I have a pretty good grasp of LR. Just trying to figure out if Lawgic is crucial. If so, i'll need to go back to all of those sections (ugggggggh).
The use of lawgic really depends on what question type you're answering. Typically, people write down the lawgic for MBT and MSS question types. It's also helpful to at least draw the logical structure for PF and parallel question types.
I felt the same way that's why I've never been a big fan of lawgic. My tutor said to use lawgic when you see 1-3 sentences. Short paragraph indicates lawgic especially when you see a lot of lawgic words like if then unless, etc.
Bumping this....
Question: When do you find yourself using lawgic? I gather that it should be used when trying to breakdown / understand confusing sentence structures. Is that the only time? Does it only apply to certain question types? If so, which ones? I agree with @schyule645 in that it takes a long time to convert sentences into lawgic. I usually find the AC just by reading.
@devinbalut560.balut - What do you mean by "especially when you need to compare arguments and find similar ones"? Do you mean when ACs are very similar (almost identical looking)?
7Sage does a great job of explaining how to convert sentences into Lawgic but they don't apply it to many LSAT questions. The Intro to Logic section is really long and there is a lot of information to learn. Are we supposed to just memorize and hope that we are subconsciously applying it when we attack every LSAT question? I just don't get it....
Can someone please tell me why it's important and when it should be used. Again, I am referring to "Lawgic," not "Logic."
I think I am thinking about this way too much. Ha
Great, thanks!
I only bother writing anything on the LR section on questions with stupidly confusing presentation, especially where you need to compare arguments and find similar ones when the original presentation is very complex. Generally I agree that if you understand the logical principles you'll come to an answer quicker just reading the question. More often I'll underline key words and relationships, but usually find formal logic slows down answering the question.