5 star LR questions, What's the strategy here?

Redentore3337

Hello 7sagers.

So wondering if I should be approaching these 5 star questions differently. I recently took a PT where I missed 5 LR questions and all of them were 5 star questions, (Weaken, Strengthen, Parallel, Flaw, AP) so, I decided to start by drilling some of the 5 star strengthen questions and I got like 10 wrong in a row.

What should be my strategy going forward here? Go back to the CC?

Is there something you think specificially about 5 star questions that help you get them better?

Or should I not even be focusing on the difficulty of the questions and just focus on the type of questions I'm having difficulty with.

Thanks

Habeas Porpoise

I personally haven't found 5-star questions to be particularly different conceptually from "easier" question -- often it's just that the stimulus is more confusing, more cleverly worded, has more distracting fluff, or conversely, the ACs are harder to parse/more cleverly worded/etc. Sometimes both the stimulus and ACs are confusing and that just compounds the difficulty.

I've found that really digging into the stimulus/ACs and understanding what made the question difficult helps. Why was the wrong AC attractive? What about the stimulus was difficult? Did you make any assumptions that were unwarranted--if so, why? If you can, see it from the perspective of the test writers, that's a huge advantage. How did they take the base concept (flaw, paralell flaw, MSS, PSA, etc.) and up the difficulty? For flaw questions it could be by including two flaws with the ACs focusing on the more easily missed, underlying flaw. With parallel flaw questions, maybe three of the ACs are super similar, and there's just a couple key words differentiating one AC from another and making it more akin to the flaw in the stimulus. With PSA questions, maybe there are a couple gaps, and just like some tough flaw questions, the test writers bank on you focusing on the more obvious gap.
Analyses like this help with subsequent hard questions. I'm more aware of how I can be tricked into making unwarranted assumptions, more wary of ACs that are really enticing but are similar to traps I've seen before, and better able to wade through the unnecessary crap to get to the crux of the argument. Beyond this I would say it's just continued exposure and quality analysis of the questions you miss.

Though if you got a bunch of one question type wrong that might hint at an underlying issue with the question type itself. In that case you'll likely benefit from going back to the CC and drilling that question type. It could also be possible that you're going too fast (did you do the 10 questions under time pressure?) -- the idea is to spend less time on the easy questions so you can dedicate more time to the tough ones.

I'm sure others will chime in with advice, but this is what I've noticed from my own experience. Hope it helps!

Ohnoeshalpme

Obviously when you're taking a test you can't know before hand what the difficulty is. However, it seems that the general rule among high-scorers is to skip a question that throws an unusually large wrench into your plan. Perhaps you come to a question and read through the stimulus but have a hard time grasping the concepts. In this case, you should just circle and move on. You want to keep the flow of the easy-medium difficulty questions and maintain a good rhythm through most of the section. Once you finish the questions that seem simple in nature, you can return to the questions that you have circled (provided there are a reasonable number of them) and devote your time to understanding the intricacies of these questions that may not be apparent with one or two readings alone.

These questions are challenging and you have to accept that you're going to fall for their tricks some of the time - very few people can score a 170 let alone a 180 on this test. For the hardest questions, there is usually something that most test takers miss. This is different from question to question though; it can be a long series of conditional chains, or a complex set of referential phrases. In any case, these questions will only become easy as your ability with logical reasoning as a whole begins to improve. To use an analogy, imagine that you are learning to hit a baseball. You'd start by hitting slow-moving softballs before moving on to the 100 mile per hour fast ball.

Based on your statement above, it sounds like you're managing to hit most of the slow-pitches that the test is throwing at you. When it comes to hitting the fast ball, I suggest that you practice by hitting fast balls. Try doing more 5 star difficulty questions or questions that are inherently difficult like parallel flaw or parallel method of reasoning. Additionally, you might want to improve the speed with which you complete easier questions by drilling sections for speed. You really want to become comfortable with the easy questions and you want to enhance your ability to differentiate between a trap-answer-choice question and a time-sink question. If you can make this distinction it will be easier for you to return to the questions that just require a little bit more time.

Redentore3337

@"Habeas Porpoise" said:
I personally haven't found 5-star questions to be particularly different conceptually from "easier" question -- often it's just that the stimulus is more confusing, more cleverly worded, has more distracting fluff, or conversely, the ACs are harder to parse/more cleverly worded/etc. Sometimes both the stimulus and ACs are confusing and that just compounds the difficulty.

I've found that really digging into the stimulus/ACs and understanding what made the question difficult helps. Why was the wrong AC attractive? What about the stimulus was difficult? Did you make any assumptions that were unwarranted--if so, why? If you can, see it from the perspective of the test writers, that's a huge advantage. How did they take the base concept (flaw, paralell flaw, MSS, PSA, etc.) and up the difficulty? For flaw questions it could be by including two flaws with the ACs focusing on the more easily missed, underlying flaw. With parallel flaw questions, maybe three of the ACs are super similar, and there's just a couple key words differentiating one AC from another and making it more akin to the flaw in the stimulus. With PSA questions, maybe there are a couple gaps, and just like some tough flaw questions, the test writers bank on you focusing on the more obvious flaw.
Analyses like this help with subsequent hard questions. I'm more aware of how I can be tricked into making unwarranted assumptions, more wary of ACs that are really enticing but are similar to traps I've seen before, and better able to wade through the unnecessary crap to get to the crux of the argument, etc. Beyond this I would say it's just continued exposure and quality analysis of the questions you miss.

Though if you got a bunch of one question type wrong that might hint at an underlying issue with the question type itself. In that case you'll likely benefit from going back to the CC and drilling that question type. It could also be possible that you're going too fast (did you do the 10 questions under time pressure?) -- the idea is to spend less time on the easy questions so you can dedicate more time to the tough ones.

I'm sure others will chime in with advice, but this is what I've noticed from my own experience. Hope it helps!

Thanks for the insight! I think you summed it up well "continued exposure and quality analysis of the questions you miss" !

Redentore3337

@Ohnoeshalpme said:
Obviously when you're taking a test you can't know before hand what the difficulty is. However, it seems that the general rule among high-scorers is to skip a question that throws an unusually large wrench into your plan. Perhaps you come to a question and read through the stimulus but have a hard time grasping the concepts. In this case, you should just circle and move on. You want to keep the flow of the easy-medium difficulty questions and maintain a good rhythm through most of the section. Once you finish the questions that seem simple in nature, you can return to the questions that you have circled (provided there are a reasonable number of them) and devote your time to understanding the intricacies of these questions that may not be apparent with one or two readings alone.

These questions are challenging and you have to accept that you're going to fall for their tricks some of the time - very few people can score a 170 let alone a 180 on this test. For the hardest questions, there is usually something that most test takers miss. This is different from question to question though; it can be a long series of conditional chains, or a complex set of referential phrases. In any case, these questions will only become easy as your ability with logical reasoning as a whole begins to improve. To use an analogy, imagine that you are learning to hit a baseball. You'd start by hitting slow-moving softballs before moving on to the 100 mile per hour fast ball.

Based on your statement above, it sounds like you're managing to hit most of the slow-pitches that the test is throwing at you. When it comes to hitting the fast ball, I suggest that you practice by hitting fast balls. Try doing more 5 star difficulty questions or questions that are inherently difficult like parallel flaw or parallel method of reasoning. Additionally, you might want to improve the speed with which you complete easier questions by drilling sections for speed. You really want to become comfortable with the easy questions and you want to enhance your ability to differentiate between a trap-answer-choice question and a time-sink question. If you can make this distinction it will be easier for you to return to the questions that just require a little bit more time.

Thank you for the insight. I think speed has been an issue because I find that I don't even have time to skip the questions, just because I've sort of trained myself to do it that way. Or if in the moment, I'd be perceptible enough to accurately know which questions are especially easy or especially hard. I think the more exposure I get the quicker I'll get and might have to utilize skipping a five star or two.

That's an interesting analogy of using easier questions for speed.. I might have to do that. Thanks for your response!

keets993

100% agree with what has already been said. 5 star level difficulty questions aren't really different from any other question, they're just more convultued. Whether it's the subject matter, grammar, answer choices, or structure. I think the difficulty in more difficult question lies in being able to understand what is actually being stated. The easier it is for you to grasp what the stimulus is stating and what the gap is and which answer choice addresses it, the easier the question will seem. That's why it's also important to analyze the wrong answer choices and why they are attractive or wrong so that you can see the patterns or the assumptions they were baiting you to make.

I remember specifically this strengthening question I did that was about causation with smoking. And two of the trap AC's would have worked SO well had the stimulus been arguing for something else. They were baiting my understanding of smoking in real life but they weren't addressing the gap in the argument. When you strip an answer choice down to the structure of it's wrong-ness you can see that it no longer looks appealing, you can also see the pattern. The trick is that they often add attractive subject matter to trap you.

I would just like to add that you should get in the habit of skipping easy questions too. If you're down to two answer choices and you know it's an easy question just skip it and come back to it. Actually, even if you don't know what difficulty level it is, skip it. Chances are, whatever you overlooked or misunderstood you'll get in the second round in less than 30 seconds and move on. Any time you feel unsure of what you read, whether it's in the stimulus or answer choice, and briefly re-reading doesn't help you understand then that means its time to skip.

Redentore3337

@keets993 said:
100% agree with what has already been said. 5 star level difficulty questions aren't really different from any other question, they're just more convultued. Whether it's the subject matter, grammar, answer choices, or structure. I think the difficulty in more difficult question lies in being able to understand what is actually being stated. The easier it is for you to grasp what the stimulus is stating and what the gap is and which answer choice addresses it, the easier the question will seem. That's why it's also important to analyze the wrong answer choices and why they are attractive or wrong so that you can see the patterns or the assumptions they were baiting you to make.

I remember specifically this strengthening question I did that was about causation with smoking. And two of the trap AC's would have worked SO well had the stimulus been arguing for something else. They were baiting my understanding of smoking in real life but they weren't addressing the gap in the argument. When you strip an answer choice down to the structure of it's wrong-ness you can see that it no longer looks appealing, you can also see the pattern. The trick is that they often add attractive subject matter to trap you.

I would just like to add that you should get in the habit of skipping easy questions too. If you're down to two answer choices and you know it's an easy question just skip it and come back to it. Actually, even if you don't know what difficulty level it is, skip it. Chances are, whatever you overlooked or misunderstood you'll get in the second round in less than 30 seconds and move on. Any time you feel unsure of what you read, whether it's in the stimulus or answer choice, and briefly re-reading doesn't help you understand then that means its time to skip.

That makes a lot of sense. Yea I'm spending a lot more time on BR this time around, so hopefully that helps. Thank you for the insight