LR Section Framework

apublicdisplay

I find that the LR section tests four fundamental aspects:

I. Our ability to make inferences
Which it tests through Most Strongly Supported, Must Be True, Must Be False, and Necessary Assumption questions.

II. Our ability to support an argument
Which it tests through Strengthen, Pseudo Sufficient Assumption, Sufficient Assumption, and Principle questions.

III. Our ability to weaken an argument
Which it tests through Weaken and Flaw questions.

IV. Our ability to recognize structure
Which it tests through Main Point, Argument Part, Method of Reasoning, Parallel Method of Reasoning, and Parallel Flawed Method of Reasoning questions.

(Miscellaneous: Resolve Reconcile Explain and Point at Issue).

Organizing question types this way helps me see the bigger picture of the section instead of approaching each type independently and getting bogged down in the weeds of the particular type. Look at how much sense it makes to test these things for aspiring law students and how fundamental these are to being a lawyer and practicing law in the future. Each question is a symptom of something larger and each question you get wrong is a question that's exploiting some weakness in your fundamentals. With this framework, you can better identify and track the fundamentals you're deficient in. For example, instead of just seeing that I miss an inordinate amount of Pseudo Sufficient question types, I now see that I'm missing something fundamental about my ability to support an argument. Now I can focus on the fundamental aspects of this shortcoming and I can complement my Pseudo Sufficient Assumption drilling by focusing on the related question types.

The accuracy of this categorization may be proven by its potential to predict your performance on other question types. So if you find that you get a certain question type wrong more than others, see how you're doing on associated question types.

What do you all think about this? Is this an accurate framework for the LR section? What helps you improve on LR?

Sami

I think this is a good framework for LR section but I have found there is even a higher framework.

Strengthen, Weakening, Assumption, Flaw, Parallel question/Parallel Flaw question, Pseudo Sufficient Assumption questions, Sufficient Assumption, Necessary Assumption, and Flaw questions all test your ability to recognize argument types in the stimulus. Lucky for us a lot of the stimulus on LSAT is cookie cutter.

For example, one of the most prevalent form of argument on LSAT is correlation-causation. If you understand this type of argument, then all that's left is to perform the operation that the question is asking of you. Based on the question you can weaken it, strengthen it, find the necessary/sufficient assumption, draw a parallel argument etc for it.

So I would say focus on finding similarities between stimulus and don't worry so much about question types. It's essential to learn question types. But to score at the highest you will have to start seeing the different argument types and once you know how that argument type works, you will find you can perform a number of operations on them without an issue.

apublicdisplay

I find that argument types, like correlation-causation, is a subset of trying to support or weaken an argument. I didn't include other argument types (like "if...then" conditional reasoning) because I consider them secondary, or rather, a means to the end. The end being one of the four fundamentals I've identified above.

Sami

I think all that matters is that this works for you. I am glad you found a system that works : )

Cant Get Right

At the highest level, I think this goes even further and they all boil down to just one thing: LR tests your ability to understand and manipulate argumentation. I think that moving towards this more holistic understanding of LR is critical for top scorers, so this represents a positive step.