How to tackle LR weak points?

navacuenca92

Hey everyone!

I've realized that I'm consistently failing the Necessary Assumption, MSS and Flaw/Weakening Questions (Among the most frequent questions in the test). I know that I need to have intensives on each type of questions, but during my practice tests, would you recommend that I skip every single one of those types of questions and leave them for the end?

Also, Parallel reasoning and flaw questions, since they are always so long, I also leave them to the end, because I consider them a time sink. Would you recommend that?

Any help is appreciated!

akistotle

I don’t know if that’s a good approach. Those questions can be really easy ones. So I think you should at least read the stimulus and answer choices.

I was advised by a sage that I should at least read the stimulus twice and skim all the answer choices under timed conditions. If I have no idea even after that process, I would skip. This is my protocol.

For most Flaw Questions, you have to have clear understanding of what the flaw is before going into the answer choices.

That being said, maybe you should try that strategy using a used LR section, and if that strategy works well for you, I guess you should try it during PTs.

EvetteCee

I would suggest you stop taking PT's and spend some time focusing on Necessary Assumption, MSS and Flaw/Weakening Questions until you better understand how to approach them.

Once you have a better understanding, then continue doing the PT's. I believe this way you can see more improvement because there's no point in taking PT's if you're having difficulty on the same type of questions.

TheDeterminedC

I would make sure that you feel really good with argument structure first. After you can quickly identify the structure, definitely revisit the CC and go over flaws. Flaws are a crux of being able to predict the answer choices in strengthening, weakening, flaw, and even NA.

For example, knowing what a comparison in the stimulus looks like and how it should be helped/hurt based on the question stem is absolutely critical.

Here's an example of general things I am looking for when I get clued in that the stimulus is comparing two ideas either by analogy or by a similar situation.

Strengthen: we need to say how the similarities the premises give are relevant to what is being concluded.
Weaken: we need to show how the two ideas differ in a crucial aspect
Flaw: (if it makes the flaw) the argument presupposes that two ideas are similar when they are distinctly different.
Necessary assumption: (blocking type) we need to block how the two ideas do NOT differ in a crucial aspect (notice how similar this is to weakening) or (bridging type) we need to say how the similarities the premises give are AT LEAST SOMETIMES relevant to what is being concluded. (notice how similar this is to strengthening)

You could see how predicting answer choices could become very quick with this method. Indeed there are immense amounts of ways to argue and this is also only an example of one argument type, but starting with the general flaws given on the LSAT will help one identify what would be needed. After all, If they had perfect validity (excluding the questions stems that say 'if true'), they wound not need anything further as far as LSAC is concerned.

navacuenca92

@akistotle I will definitely try that method. My BR's are pretty good. Lately I've been hitting the mid170's consistently during my BR's, averaging -3/-4 for LR questions. But it's amazing how, even during BR, those type of questions are still very difficult.

Timing is definitely a set back for me. I either rush too much, or have way too much detail at first, and then I don't have enough time to thoroughly review the last ones. I had not thought about reading the stimulus twice, and it actually seems like a good idea, specially when it is grammatically convoluted. In these cases, I read the stimulus one time and I know that I haven't fully grasped the structure, but I still jump to the AC because of the time pressure. Valuable advice, thank you!

navacuenca92

@"Bay Area" Another great advice. Today I had already woken up at 5:30 to get ready and I was literally sitting in front of the PT, and when I read this comment it actually got to me. I need to tackle these kind of questions right away and stop postponing it. If not, I will just waste valuable test material, I won't get the scores that I want and there's not gonna be any improvement. I think I'm just obsessed with the fact that I have to take PT's to get used to the test, but I still have some major weaknesses.

So yeap, I'm not taking the PT today, instead I'll do some intensives. Thanks!

navacuenca92

@TheDeterminedC you're right, revisiting flaws is crucial. I was actually reading your most recent post, and I hadn't thought about the flashcard method. I will try to do it so that I can get quicker at it. I sometimes underrate predicting and think to myself "If I don't predict the flaw immediately, I'm just going to jump into the AC". What I hadn't realized is that I'm not getting the predictions fast enough because I haven't created a method of more quickly remembering them. Thanks!

TheMikey

I'd say practice those question types before even doing anymore PT's. Lots of those can be very easy and 30 second questions if you get good at them, there's no need to pass up those free points! Drill those question types in bulk and get to see the patterns!

Parallel reasoning/flaw questions can be pretty long, but it's hard to gauge whether you should skip them initially or not because lots of them can also be very easy, especially if you employ certain strategies to eliminate AC's quick (e.g. eliminating 2 AC's right off the bat based on conclusions alone). Personally, I'd say just read them, you will have to read them anyways. But if you read it and are like ehhhh about it, just move on because the AC's are just as long as the stimulus.

Sami

@navacuenca92 said:
Hey everyone!

I've realized that I'm consistently failing the Necessary Assumption, MSS and Flaw/Weakening Questions (Among the most frequent questions in the test). I know that I need to have intensives on each type of questions, but during my practice tests, would you recommend that I skip every single one of those types of questions and leave them for the end?

I wouldn't recommend skipping them. The thing with necessary assumption questions is that they are in the same family as Sufficient Assumption, Strengthen and weaken questions, and PSA. The answer might be phrased differently but the stimulus are all structured similarly in that they have a gap. So I recommend a drill from the early PT series and each time you do a stimulus from this family, I want you to write down before you go into the stimulus the gaps you see between premise and conclusion or if it has a sub-conclusion, also the gap between sub-conclusion and main conclusion.

For Flaw questions, instead of just a gap there is something that is wrong with the argument. So under time if you read the stimulus and you don't see what's wrong with it, you have to circle it and move on. But in blind review you want to understand the flaw and draw a parallel argument so the next time you can spot this flaw.

MSS questions are in the same family as resolve paradox and MBT, in that you want to just understand what the sentences are saying in the stimulus before you go into the answer choices. I think in your last post when you mentioned how you do MBT I felt like you were looking for a conclusion of the stimulus, instead these questions work more like which answer choice can be supported. So maybe a review of the curriculum for MSS before doing the drills.

Also, Parallel reasoning and flaw questions, since they are always so long, I also leave them to the end, because I consider them a time sink. Would you recommend that?

I wouldn't recommend that. It all depends how hard the parallel argument is. Some of the parallel arguments are super easy -which means easy points. So at least read the stimulus and if you think you understand the structure of the stimulus I would do that question. If you do not or you think you understand it or its too complicated, I would then circle and skip it.