How to do LR Cookie Cutter Review

Prudenter Discere

@Sami @"Cant Get Right" @NotMyName
Hey Sages, I've read about different methods of doing Cookie Cutter Review, but I was curious how you guys do it, and what method worked best for you guys. I think the community would benefit from y'all insight.

keets993

Not a Sage but generally cookie-cutter review consists of seeing patterns in LR questions [and RC/LG]. There's different methods and advice you'll get for it but it's not just about being able to see these patterns but coming up with effective strategies for tackling those patterns when you come across them - based on question types. It's about breaking down the structure of the argument and going past the superfluous detail and analyzing how the writers of the test attempt to support the conclusion of the argument. This can include things like phenomenon/hypothesis, cause/effect, sufficiency/necessity, correlation/causation. You have to know by heart what to look for in the answer choices if you're given a phenomenon/hypothesis. Strengthen question? You have to block any other competing explanations or strengthen the likelihood that ours is the best possible explanation.

The more exposure you have to LR, and the more thorough your cookie-cutter review becomes, the more patterns you'll see. I think cookie-cutter review is beneficial when you don't understand the stimulus but can still focus on structure. For example, the stimulus may be something complicated about physics that you don't understand but if you know that the argument is essentially arguing 'A causes B' the more likely you are to find the right answer and spend less time pondering wrong answer choices.

Cookie-cutter review is also critical because you'll notice some cookie-cutter trap answers. For example, most correlation/causation questions will have an answer choice that says something to the effect of A some /B. That type of answer choice doesn't weaken an 'A causes B' relationship, and it's a trap answer choice that repeats often. As far as I'm aware of, no exhaustive list is being circulated, I think everyone just comes up with their own patterns. The most common list of flaws in the CC is a good place to start in my opinion. Because a lot of those flawed reasoning types appear across different question types and sometimes your job is to strengthen it.

Hope that helps!

Prudenter Discere

Hey @keets993 , thank you for sharing that was awesome! I'd love to share some with you later and get your take . Thanks again

Cant Get Right

Well, was going to try to respond to this, but I think @keets993 pretty much dropped the mic.