Understanding Each Question Type on LR

horrisglad

I have been studying for the LSAT for less than one year and would like to further improve on LR. I have read that many people have learned to identify each question type and apply unique strategies for tackling that particular question type. Currently, I am not employing this method and I am unsure if I will see great results if I learned this technique. If necessary I have no issue putting the time and work in to learning this method, but I am unsure how helpful it will be. If you have used this method, has it had a positive impact for you? Do you believe that learning this method is necessary in order to perform well on LR?

Alex

Yes, although all of the questions have similarities, I would say learning to tackle each different LR question slightly different has been helpful for me. I'm not sure whether it's necessary to do well, but I think unless you have a background in conditional logic and are just intuitively good at LR, I'd say having a strategy for the different qts is important.

What method for LR are you currently employing?

jberger295

I would agree with Alex. Reading the stem first gives you the direction, and having the background to know what each type of question will present is critical to speed and proper selection in my opinion.

TheMikey

How do you approach LR?

I mean, I'm assuming you just go through the section and literally just DO what the question stems says? (you weaken an argument, strengthen one, find a flaw in one, etc.). Learning certain strategies for each question type can definitely help you improve, I think. I know someone who never learned strategies for each question type and is doing amazing on this test. But learning Q type strategies can be really helpful, so go for it!

horrisglad

@TheMikey said:
How do you approach LR?

I mean, I'm assuming you just go through the section and literally just DO what the question stems says? (you weaken an argument, strengthen one, find a flaw in one, etc.). Learning certain strategies for each question type can definitely help you improve, I think. I know someone who never learned strategies for each question type and is doing amazing on this test. But learning Q type strategies can be really helpful, so go for it!

That is exactly what I'm doing right now. I'm simply answering the question based on what it asks me to do. Perhaps learning how to tackle each question type will help me.

mdiberar

Before employing question specific strategies I was getting 10 questions wrong per section. Now i get 6-7 wrong per section. Helped me improve. This test is really difficult for me in general though.

jberger295

@horrisglad said:

@TheMikey said:
How do you approach LR?

I mean, I'm assuming you just go through the section and literally just DO what the question stems says? (you weaken an argument, strengthen one, find a flaw in one, etc.). Learning certain strategies for each question type can definitely help you improve, I think. I know someone who never learned strategies for each question type and is doing amazing on this test. But learning Q type strategies can be really helpful, so go for it!

That is exactly what I'm doing right now. I'm simply answering the question based on what it asks me to do. Perhaps learning how to tackle each question type will help me.

And you are still doing the same thing - it's not like it totally changes your approach, what it does is help you know what function you are going to perform while you read the stimulus. It basically better directs how you read the stimulus, which helps.

LSATcantwin

What really helped me by learning question types was seeing how they all interact and are similar and different.

For example a sufficient assumption? That's the ultimate strengthening question. It's literally making the conclusion valid. It's FORCING the outcome.

A necessary assumption? Ultimate weakening question. If this assumption isn't true your argument is boned. It rips your support away from your conclusion.

Flaw question? Again weakening. I'm just describing what you suck at. Your argument sucks because XYZ.

Okay cool, so then it works the other way. A strengthen argument can have a sufficient assumption as an AC.

A weaken question will have one of the flaws as an AC, or it could even have a necessary assumption.

It's all interrelated. Something I tried doing for awhile is to take a stimulus and covert it into different types of questions. I'd rip a premise out and turn it into an SA. I'd take a SA and turn it into a strengthening question etc.

This helped me become familiar with the test and gave me a better sense of what each question is looking for.