LR, how best to formulate what an answer may look like before going to the answers, anyone?

FirstOne

Good morning. This is a recurring thought that I've had and trying to find a framework/rule of thumb that I can use, although it may not work for every question, I'd like to have a go-to base to start from.

One of my toughest things, on the LSAT, has been trying to come up with how JY have what the potential answer may look like. An Answer Choice Framework (this is what I call it), as you think about which answer choice maybe correct before you get to them. I think I've found what JY may use as a basis, other than just gut intuition, as an Answer Choice Framework (as I summon my inner JY), please tell me if I'm wrong: A caused B; B caused A; C caused both A&B; or total Unrelated/or off topic?

I'm thinking, if I label the parts of the argument as 'A' or 'B', etc., then simply look for reversals or alternatives, etc.

What I'm thinking is, that should be my ground rules or rule of thumb, to formulate what a potential answer may look like. Please tell me if I'm totally off base?

PS
On the logical indicators, "Is/Are", they introduce subsets, JY didn't say this but it seems to me that the Subsets these words introduce should be the Sufficient Condition. Am I wrong in thinking this way when speaking of them as Logical Indicators?

LSATcantwin

I think a lot of the time people get TOO caught up in conditional logic. To prephrase an answer, what are you actually doing? You are shoring up/attacking the argument. So let it come naturally.

If you have an argument that says:

Today Bob went to the store. They had apples and grapes. Bob is allergic to both apples and grapes. Therefore Bob did not buy a fruit.

If I asked you to weaken this, what would you INSTINCTIVLY say to me?

How about: Yeah, but the store carries other fruits that he's not allergic too.

Boom. Without even going to the AC I just showed that the above argument sucks. I have an idea of where the gap is. I show that it can be attacked. Now is there an AC that reflects this?

Many times yes, sometimes no. But this is really what prephrasing is a lot of the time. Conditional logic is extremely, extemely, important. That does not mean you can't use your gut sometimes to attack an argument without some sort of map!

Engage with the stimulus, question it, be skeptical.

I hope this helps at least a bit.

FirstOne

It does. Thanks

jaefromcanada

I like to use the Trainer's method.
Find conclusion
Find premise
Find the FLAW in how premises support the conclusion.

This flaw is usually my prephase.
One layer deeper, I like to phrase my prephases with the terms "Takes for Granted" and "Fails to Consider".

FTC = forgets to think of something
TFG = assumes something is the case

I try and go through these steps every single questions.

FirstOne

@jaefromcanada Thank you, this is what I have been looking for, a starting place and of course conclude the thought(s) with how it feels in my gut.

jaefromcanada

The end goal isn't to anticipate the right answer.
IMO, prephasing the answer helps me engage in the stimulus and FORCE myself to think:

"X because of Y; but this is GARBAGE because it TFG/FTC Z"

It's almost never 'correct' but I know what X and Y is clearer because I've articulated in my head.

That's more important to me, especially in hard questions.

I encourage you to supplement 7sage with Trainer for LR/RC. Helped me be more mechanical.

FirstOne

@jaefromcanada Funny, I was thinking of DM you to ask what you just answered. I like to systematize things (mechanical as you put it) so that it is repeatable/I can count on it. I already purchased the Trainer, thinking similarly, I was trying to get through 7Sage curricula first then supplementing my understanding (or lack thereof with the Trainer) if I needed to see/hear something from a different perspective. One school of thought is to do each section (LR, LG, RC, etc) going back and forth between the two systems (7Sage & Trainer) for each section. The other is complete one, then go through the other, then just do PTs (untimed/timed) while blind reviewing. Thanks again for sharing, it's greatly appreciated.

FirstOne

What has been your approach in interchanging the two systems? If I may ask...

Cant Get Right

I usually don't try to anticipate anything. I focus on just understanding the argument, particularly what's wrong with it; if I can do that, I know the right answer when I see it whether I've predicted it to some degree or not. I feel like this also helps me keep my mind open to the unexpected answer choices that defy the most likely anticipations. Something like: Bob loves apples so much that he eats an entire dozen every night and just suffers through the allergic reaction. I actually have a friend who's kinda like this with apples. When he was a kid, his mom got a rubber stamp made that said "Feed No Apples" and she'd stamp his hands every day before school to try to help keep the cafeteria workers from letting him get one, lol.

FirstOne

That's similar to what I had been doing up to this point. Wanted to check it the 7Sage Community to see if I was missing anything as it relates to Prephrasing. Thanks again.

FirstOne

My 3 Step Process to LR now, thank you so much for your help:
1) ID: Characters, Components, Indicators
2) Find: Concl, Prem(s), Flaw/missing Assumption
3) Locate: Key words in C&Ps to look for together in an answer choice.

conrad.p

Do more LR questions. If you cannot form the answer on about half of them, then you simply have not done enough of them.

You are too focused on the trees, too focused on the methodology, and you are overthinking it. You need to just practice and learn for learning's sake and stop worrying about the "way" or "how." There is no secret methodology to creating an answer, you just have to be very familiar with the questions. Forming an answer immediately after reading the stem is more about instinct and history with the questions than it is about knowing a method of doing so.

FirstOne

@"conrad.p" Thanks.