Strategy for question types, please let me know if I'm on the right track

Markmark

Hi I'm almost pushing into the 170s and I'm trying to solidify my strategy for LR. Right now I read the question stem, read the stimulus and find the C, P's, and background info, then I translate the stim into my own words. After that I find the flaw and ask "What if...?" then I move into PoE looking for that pivotal wrong word that disqualifies an AC. At the end of all that I give myself a confidence score for each question.

My issue is this approach doesn't take into account the specific strategies per question type. I know you could say "just do it intuitively," I'd rather have a very concrete strategy for LR. Not remembering what to do under pressure is hard for me so this is what I've come up with and I'd love to know any feedback you have.

For labeling questions (argument part, MC): underline the conclusion, see where specifically support is flowing to and from

Argument questions: underline the conclusion in all of these, then follow specific strategy
Weaken / strengthen: no strategy!
Flaw: JY's 2 part test
NA: do MBT test and then the negation test
SA: see the structure of the argument, graph if needed
PSA: same as SA
Pmor: same as SA
MoR: understand what the author is doing, describe in my own words
Pfmor: see the flaw and get a strong understanding of what I'm looking for
point of agree/diagreement: do the chart where 1 person agrees / disagrees / no opinion

Premise set questions (MSS, MBT):
MSS: read the stim really, really well. Get a solid translation of my own of the stim, then move into ACs
MBT: if I can't do it in my head, graph

RRE: No real strategy. I generally try to find the point of tension and try to explain it, but I find these questions are just LSAC gauging how well your assumptions match their own (bit of cynicism here haha)

I'd love any links to good resources, recommendations, suggestions!!! Thanks in advance.

btownsquee

For strategy on weaken/strengthen, I recommend trying to identify what kind of cookie cutter argument this (e.g. phenomenon/hypothesis, causal, argument by analogy) is, if any, and then using the strategy from Nicole Hopkin's webinar to weaken or strengthen that kind of argument.

One note is that Parallel Method of Reasoning and Parallel Flaw questions both use a lot of conditional logic. I recommend answering these in the first round if the structure is very obvious. If the structure is not obvious or you need to diagram, I recommend waiting till the next round to diagram. These questions tend to be long and with the additional time to diagram, the time can add up here.