How often should we use Lawgic language in LR?

JohnnyKarate

So it seems like for MSS, Main Point, and Weakening/Strengthening there doesn't seem to be much need for using Lawgic language (ex: A some B -> C, therefore A some C). However, when it comes to validity, MBT/MBF, Sufficient/Necessary Assumption there is a large need for Lawgic language. Should we only use Lawgic language for those types of questions, or is there a strategy for this? Can Lawgic language be used for all questions, or only some (in the name of efficiency)?

TexAgAaron

It depends on how the stimulus is formulated. For SA and MBT, you will find a lot of times you will use a lot of logic but not every time. Main conclusion and argument part you won't have to worry about it at all. Flaw you will need to have a decent understanding of it since many of the flaws use some form of logic.

Just be aware and ready for it. If you have your lawgic down pat, it will kick in immediately and it won't matter if a question presents it or not because you'll be ready.

Hope this helps!

ajaraya0

I had a similar question a couple days ago and stumbled upon this helpful webinar: https://7sage.com/webinar/when-to-actually-diagram-in-lr/

My main take away was that in order to decide when to diagram, you first have to master lawgic ie the diagramming language. Then just start drilling LR questions so that you develop your own comfort level with when to and when not to diagram using lawgic.

LSATcantwin

One goal I had when trying to learn Lawgic was to not over incorporate it.

Is Lawgic extremely important to understand, and to be successful on this test?

• Yes, it absolutely is.

Can Lawgic make a simple problem seem way more complex than it is if you over use it?

• Yes, it absolutely can.

The path I used, and would ultimately suggest, is to learn Lawgic, practice it, become efficient with it, and then try not to use it unless absolutely necessary.

For instance with SA questions what happened for me was;

I learned lawgic, I mapped it out, I saw how the premises connected. I then would see the gap. I did this hundreds of times, I practiced it, I became really good at doing it. I personally found myself getting easily confused with the letter abbreviations however and would get bogged down.

Then I worked on trying to just spot that gap without writing out long chains and trying to tie it all together. Since I knew argument structures really well, and was well practiced at chaining lawgic out I found finding the gap to be relatively easy when I'd read SA questions. I actually stopped trying to map SA questions out all together and to focus on looking for a leap in subject matter. I got really good at knowing what incorrect reversals looked like and finding negation errors.

After doing that I found I sped up on my tests a TON, and on my actual Dec 2017 test I did 0 actual mapping on my test. (minus LG)

So I like to suggest learning lawgic to its core, and then trying to aim to eliminate using it all together. That combination does well to get you to learn the structure and function of questions, but keeps you moving fast!

Return On Inference

I diagram lawgic very sparingly, usually only once or twice per LR section.

The question type I most often diagram are those big monster parallel flaw/parallel reasoning questions. I like to map them out so that when I get to the correct AC, I can see that it's a perfect match and I can choose it without wasting time trying to understand the other ACs. Sometimes the correct AC is the very first AC, and I can bank like 2mins+ of time not even glancing at the other AC.

paulmv.benthem

@LSATcantwin said:
One goal I had when trying to learn Lawgic was to not over incorporate it.

Is Lawgic extremely important to understand, and to be successful on this test?

+ Yes, it absolutely is.

Can Lawgic make a simple problem seem way more complex than it is if you over use it?

• Yes, it absolutely can.

Haha! This is SO well put and SO TRUE!!

LSATisJustLikeDarkSouls

@"trevor.sikes" said:
So it seems like for MSS, Main Point, and Weakening/Strengthening there doesn't seem to be much need for using Lawgic language (ex: A some B -> C, therefore A some C). However, when it comes to validity, MBT/MBF, Sufficient/Necessary Assumption there is a large need for Lawgic language. Should we only use Lawgic language for those types of questions, or is there a strategy for this? Can Lawgic language be used for all questions, or only some (in the name of efficiency)?

I would say try to diagram as little as possible. The more you can do in your head the better. When I feel the need to diagram logic my reaction has become to skip and come back to that question on the second round.