NA Q

harrismegan

Hi,

I recently look a weekend LSAT course, and I wanted to share some info that maybe supplements this course? Or maybe I just missed some aspects in the lectures, but I found it really helpful.

For NA questions, there are two types obviously. But there is a distinct way of solving both type.

NA Bridging. For bridging questions, it was kind of lost on me how to solve them, because I was never writing out the conclusion and stimulus. I was just kind of rushing through them. But I was also getting caught up in the..... you have to negate the answer choices, so instead I would just write the conclusion, start negating the answers and I would get lost.

For bridging, I was now told that you solve them strictly by writing the conclusion and the premise and find the missing gap. Just like SA.

An example of this is this question:
"Lines can be parallel in E systems of geometry, but the non-E system of geo that has the most empirical verification is regarded by prominent physicists as correctly describing the universe we inhabit. If they are right, our universe has no parallel lines."

Premise - E system, parallel lines. non-E system, the most empirical verification.
Conclusion: Our universe has no parallel lines.
What premise is missing? That there are no parallel lines in the non-E system that has the most empirical verification, which is the right answer.
No negation of the answer choices necessary. Just birding the information and finding the gap. Which, probably was being done by all of you, but was completely lost on me.

NA Shielding, in contrast, can be solved by negation. However, i think we were told to solve it strictly by negation of the answer choices, but I was taught that it is more effective to negate BOTH the conclusion AND the answer choices and make them match up, which works perfectly for me now.

An example of this is in this question:
"Novelists cannot become great as long as they remain in academia. Powers of observation and analysis, which schools hone, are useful to the novelist, but an intuitive grasp of the emotions of everyday life can be obtained only by the kind of immersion in everyday life that is precluded by being an academic."

Premise: (basically) that you can only get an intuitive grasp of emotions through everyday life and not through academics.
Conclusion: Novelists cannot become great as long as they remain in academia.

Negate the conclusions: Novelists can become great ... as long as they remain in academic.
Which means that the premise, that they need emotions through everyday life, is irrelevant.

The negation of the answer choice: "Novelists CAN be great if they stay in academia. They don't need an intuitive grasp of emotions."

Negate the conclusion. Negate the premise. Make them match.

Seems so easy now, but before I was so lost. Hope this helps some people!!