Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- 33.6K All Categories
- 28.2K LSAT
- 17.1K General
- 5.2K Logical Reasoning
- 1.4K Reading Comprehension
- 1.7K Logic Games
- 70 Podcasts
- 192 Webinars
- 11 Scholarships
- 194 Test Center Reviews
- 2.2K Study Groups
- 112 Study Guides/Cheat Sheets
- 2.5K Specific LSAT Dates
- 36 November 2024 LSAT
- 18 October 2024 LSAT
- 9 September 2024 LSAT
- 38 August 2024 LSAT
- 28 June 2024 LSAT
- 4 April 2024 LSAT
- 11 February 2024 LSAT
- 22 January 2024 LSAT
- 38 November 2023 LSAT
- 43 October 2023 LSAT
- 14 September 2023 LSAT
- 38 August 2023 LSAT
- 27 June 2023 LSAT
- 30 Sage Advice
- 5K Not LSAT
- 4K Law School Admissions
- 13 Law School Explained
- 10 Forum Rules
- 646 Technical Problems
- 288 Off-topic
Related Discussions
some thoughts about Harder logical reasoning question
JS
Free Trial Member
Please first take a look at two really tough question PT53 sec1 Q16 and PT55-S1-Q21
For PT55-S1-Q21, it seems to be most supported question, but actually it turns out to be sufficient assumption question, which the correct answer build up the gap between "many people took certain action" and "everyone ought to take action".
For PT53 sec1 Q16, I think if LSAC change the question type to necessary assumption this one will become way easier. But instead of asking assumption, they just throw Must Be True question in front of you. That makes this question much harder.
For most of inference and most supported question, there is no argument. So we can just draw the conclusion or reference based on the stimulus. But for some special inference and most supported question, there did exist an argument, sometimes with terrible flaw or gap, and then the question require you to draw the inference, then the right answer choice about this type of inference about should be the choice that build up the gap.
This type of question is really tough cause it is counter-intuition and against our judgement about the question type. They turn inference question to be assumption question.
Any thoughts? comments?
For PT55-S1-Q21, it seems to be most supported question, but actually it turns out to be sufficient assumption question, which the correct answer build up the gap between "many people took certain action" and "everyone ought to take action".
For PT53 sec1 Q16, I think if LSAC change the question type to necessary assumption this one will become way easier. But instead of asking assumption, they just throw Must Be True question in front of you. That makes this question much harder.
For most of inference and most supported question, there is no argument. So we can just draw the conclusion or reference based on the stimulus. But for some special inference and most supported question, there did exist an argument, sometimes with terrible flaw or gap, and then the question require you to draw the inference, then the right answer choice about this type of inference about should be the choice that build up the gap.
This type of question is really tough cause it is counter-intuition and against our judgement about the question type. They turn inference question to be assumption question.
Any thoughts? comments?
Comments
It seems to me that the nature of principle questions has slightly changed in the recent PTs. They seem to be hybrid MSS and PSA. I think we should be more focused on 1:1 matching with these questions.
We just gotta get used to the fact that the new Principle questions have slightly changed more towards being really uptight about specific words.
For example, "generally" rules out all the answer choices with "one ought to blah blah."
First, for A it seems to be BP/-->C not BP--C/, I think he draw completely opposite map.
Second, he didn't catch the real reason about why A is wrong. A is wrong because it didn't do anything about the gap in the stimulus between "many people took certain action" and "everyone ought to take action".