Analyzing My Answers

CharberLSAT

I took a look at the September LSAT and what questions I missed in the logical reasoning section. I scored a 147, and I would like to raise that score to a 155 or higher. I think that these questions are the key to that improvement.

Missed questions as follows:
Parallel Argument- 5
Flawed Reasoning- 3
SA- 4
NA- 5
Weakening- 3
MBT- 2

I was wondering if you could look at the question types that I missed and maybe help me pin point a few of the problems that are causing me to miss these questions types? Like am I not focusing on relationships or assumptions? Really, anything would help me.

I look at the questions and I think the issue falls somewhere between the SA, NA, and weakening questions. I know those questions are connected is similar style, but I am not sure how and why I am missing them. Thank you for the help.

Broccoli

I want to know too... I'll wait for the comment with you

amedley88

Maybe misidentifying the premise and conclusion. I'd also guess a general misunderstanding or misreading of the stimulus before attacking the answer choices. Are you paraphrasing the question as you read it so you can understand it in your terms and not get thrown off by the purposely intimidating language in LR? How are your conditional logic diagramming skills (i.e. do you know your Groups 1-4 off by heart? Can you separate the context from the argument in your diagramming?) Also, how is your understanding of various argument flaws and valid argument forms? I actually am struggling in the same areas as you are and this is what I'm focusing on to maximize my LR potential and it seems to be working. On top of these things, we also have to practice timed sections so we develop a solid skipping strategy and not wasting time on questions that are time sinks

CharberLSAT

These are all good questions

Leah M B

I feel like with SA, NA, MBT and usually parallel reasoning, those are all question types that lend themselves well to "lawgic" diagramming. I feel like maybe you drill some of those question types and practice diagramming them to see connections, it could help. Flaw, I really feel like the only way to improve is reviewing the list of common flaws and then drill drill drill. Just do a ton of them so you start quickly recognizing which of the usual flaws it might be.

Alex

Seems like you need some work with assumption family questions. Flaw, NA, and SA, all use the same skills. You're basically identifying the premise + conclusion and figuring out what is wrong with the argument. I would return to the CC review the lessons on those and practice identifying the parts of each argument. For SA/MBT/Parallel questions, you should review lawgic and argument form lessons. Practice diagramming each answer choice out on each parallel question. Eventually, you will be able to see most of the arguments in your head without diagramming them.

jennybbbbb

Parallel Flaw/Reasoning questions might be easier to understand if you recognized the pattern/flaw in the stimulus. I find it harder to do these questions mechanically and try to just read it and understand the stimulus/reasoning. For flaw questions, I ALWAYS paraphrase before going into the answer choices unless I really have no idea. You know that the argument is flawed, now you just need to figure out the MAIN flaw. Sometimes a stimulus might have more than one flaw, but your job is to find the flaw that the reasoning/argument depends on.

I agree with @"Alex Divine", all these questions use the same type of reasoning/skills.

I recommend drilling down these question types after looking at the corresponding lesson in the CC.

Good luck!