LR Study tips

_kizilbash

Hey Everyone. So I've particularly been having trouble increasing my score for LR. I'm getting -10 to -13 and I feel really hopeless. Can someone perhaps give me some tips on how they are approaching studying for LR for better results

tanes256

@_kizilbash howdy! Look for the missing assumption in applicable question types and try to fill the gap. Be really familiar with the common flaw types. Make sure you have those memorized. Your logic should be up to par as well, especially for SA questions. For MSS make sure you’re looking for an AC that can be supported by the stimulus. It also helps to find the conclusion in the AC. Try to prephrase before hitting the AC. Find the missing assumption for NA and then negate the AC to determine if you have the correct answer. If the argument isn’t harmed when negated, your AC isn’t correct. I tend to look at the AC as MBT as well. If it’s not, then it’s not the correct AC. Your AC will either bridge or shield the argument. Those are just a few general tips. Do you know the question types that are giving you issues?

Ari_Gold180

@tanes256 would you mind explaining the meaning of AC, SA and MBT?

Thank you.

studyingandrestudying

AC means Answer Choice, SA is Sufficient Assumption, and MBT is Must be True; NA is Necessary Assumption.

_kizilbash

@tanes256 generally I feel like I am having trouble getting to the core of the argument which slows me down in real time trying to find the right answer. I'm having trouble with Flaw, MBT, and NA quite a bit.

Ohnoeshalpme

The more you practice, the more you improve. Start off by doing untimed drilling. Print off 30-40 LR questions and finish them all at a comfortable speed. Move from one question to the next question only when you think you got the answer correct. Once you finish, go back over the ones that you had a hard time with. Take some extra time to make sure these are correct. Then you can check your answers. For the ones that you get incorrect try and figure out why the answer is incorrect, or find an explanation online or on 7sage. Get a pair of scissors or knife and cut out the questions that you got wrong and keep them in a binder or folder or something. You should do this until you're missing only a couple or none at all.

Once you reach this point, try picking up the speed. Start off doing 10 questions in 10 minutes. Once you can regularly get the first 10 questions in a section in 10 minutes, try to get 15 questions in 15 minutes. Then 20 in 20 and finally 25 in 25. See where your weak spots are. You can even film yourself during this process to see where you're spending the most time. If you struggle on a question type then drill that question type specifically.

Finally, return to the CC. Watch how JY attacks a specific question type that's bothering you. If you do this process diligently you will definitely improve. I started off -18ish in both LR sections combined, now i'm averaging -10 combined. I'm not finished, but It's worked so far.

Also, here's a great webinar that goes into detail about the post CC study strategies!
https://7sage.com/webinar/post-core-curriculum-study-strategies/

Good Luck

J.CHRIS.ALST

For flaw questions I would suggest reviewing the flaw types in the cc, but I would also recommend doing some supplemental reading on informal and formal logical fallacies and examples of those fallacies. One of the hardest parts about the flaw questions is the abstract language employed in the AC's and if you don't know flaw types/fallacies front and backwards, there's a good chance you will get lost in the abstract language.

MBT can be tricky because the correct ACs can pull from a very particular part of the stimulus, or it could be asking you to draw an inference from the whole. So sometimes the answers can be broad, or they can be very specific.

For NA, I really try to emphasize that the correct AC is usually bridging the premise of the argument to something in the conclusion, or are blocking aspects that absolutely cannot be the case because if said AC were true, the argument would not follow. In some ways MBT are very comparable to NA. Don't lump the two together per say, but I think it is very important to recognize that they are very closely related.

But as for how to get better at each of these, I'd find problem sets that correspond with the areas in which you struggle and focus on them. You might benefit from doing some questions un-timed as well as easy/medium difficulty-level questions, just to make sure you get the mechanics down; make sure you can walk before you can run. To maximize your improvement from each question, make sure you are thoroughly BRing. If you circled a question for BR or missed a question write down an explanation for why each AC is correct or wrong. Prioritize questions that you BRed and still got wrong. I also like to write down where exactly I think I went wrong in a particular question. BRing is crucial for success, and I think writing explanations is something that ensures you are BRing correctly. Make sure your explanations are close to JY's explanations. If not, try to write your explanation that mimics JY's but in your own words.

You can take it a step further and make a copy of each problem you miss, cut it out and carry it around with you. This is something that I've done and I've noticed it can help.

I'm also a fan of note cards. Write down each question type one side of the card. Then, on the opposite side write everything you possibly can about that question type that you think will help you (typically key points from CC). When you go through the note cards, train yourself to know exactly what each question type requires you to understand and do it as quickly as possible.

m.c lshopeful

@_kizilbash said:
@tanes256 generally I feel like I am having trouble getting to the core of the argument which slows me down in real time trying to find the right answer. I'm having trouble with Flaw, MBT, and NA quite a bit.

NA was one of the last types of LR questions that i really struggled with. I'm not one of the consistent 170+ scorers like some others on these boards but perhaps telling you my approach to these questions can help you....

One nice aspect of NA questions is just how obvious it is that you are doing a NA question. There aren't any strange negations or tricky wording in the questions... You can literally scan the question stem and the moment you see a word like depends or requires you know what you are dealing with.

Next, while you are reading the stimulus, you don't have to worry TOO much about the type of argument or special kind of logic that you would in a flaw or strengthen/weaken question. The most important part is that you read to understand the "story" aspect and the tough part is keeping track of the details that make the mini-story coherent.

When you move on to the answer choices you should keep this question in your mind.... "If this answer choice is NOT true, does the story make sense? Is it still possible for the story to hold true if this answer choice is INCORRECT?"

It will be possible for 4 of the answer choices to be incorrect and the story still hold to be true. The correct answer choice will be NECESSARY, the story will REQUIRE this fact, it will DEPEND on this being correct to be true.

The easier NA questions will have answer choices that will jump out to you because they will rely on obvious connections within the stimulus. The harder NA questions will require you to understand more deeply the very slight inferences you can make between the connections/relations of the stimulus. You might even have to go 2 layers deep on the most difficult ones. This is why keeping track of the details that piece the story together is the difficult part. It is from these that you'll need to be able to determine which answer choice IS the inference that must hold true for the story to hold true.

Maybe it's just me, but I had the hardest time changing the way I was reading NA questions... Most of the other question types sort of have a feeling that is similar for me but NA questions feel more like i'm doing a little RC style passage in the way i read it.

Like I said, there are people with more LSAT knowledge than me here but I was having similar problems to you. On my LSAT Analytics through the resources tabs on this website (which is awesome by the way) the NA questions were by far my most missed until I focused on them and came up with this strategy. Now I've turned this weakness into one of my strengths and least-missed question type.

I hope this will help someone.

_kizilbash

thanks everyone. I'll take all this into consideration as I move forward

Trust But Verify

-Main Conclusion drilling will help you spot Conclusions faster and faster as you improve. Realize that the conclusion and the support relationship is flawed and majority of the questions that ask you to be critical will play on this relationship.

-Additionally, it's helpful to understand why 3-4 answer choice is wrong immediately than it is to spot a correct choice. Especially with the subtle answer choices (i.e. Required Assumption).

-You want to be in a consistent comfortable groove of crossing out at least 3 answer choices before you decide (and confirm) the correct answer choice.

-Understanding what context is (aka background information aka fluff), where it end and where the argument starts is crucial. Expect a wrong answer to speak on this, which is, commonly tempting. (Depends on the question of course)

_kizilbash

@"Trust But Verify" thanks. I definitely notice that I get sidetracked by the background information. I need to work on honing on on the core of the argument. I'll take that into consideration as I move forward.