If you understand LR PLEASE help me!! #desperate

ndilmagh

Hi guys!! I'm having some trouble with Logical Reasoning, specfically with SA/NA/PSA. I have gone through the CC, read powerscore/loophole/trainer, and i just cannot figure them out!

I'm taking the exam in August and was hoping to create some problem sets with these questions and go through them. I'm looking for someone to do this with me/listen to how I go through it and aid me ?! Thank you so much!!

jamiemill27

What is your average LR score? I might be able to help

Kris4444

Hi, @ndilmagh Do you know what's throwing you off with these question types specifically? These question types tend to rely heavily on formal conditional logic--the very basics of the CC and Loophole (haven't read Powerscore or Trainer but I assume they have something similar). I would recommend reviewing the formal logic lessons from the CC. Do you map out the stimulus, especially for SA? Generally, these questions have two disconnected concepts and you need to draw the bridge between them, if that makes sense.

jandrus1

One thing I think may help is possibly watch debates, political or not. A good professional debater will have a well rounded argument similar to what we see on the LSAT. When they're done presenting their argument, pause the video and really think about what YOU would say in response to their argument. Where it's weakest, where it's strongest, what could make it stronger, yada yada yada. Then listen to the other debater respond, pause it. Think about it their reponse, keep doing that.

ndilmagh

Thank you so much that would mean A LOT. My avg score is between -7 to -9!

@jamiemill27 said:
What is your average LR score? I might be able to help

ndilmagh

@"christina.parchem" said:
Hi, @ndilmagh Do you know what's throwing you off with these question types specifically? These question types tend to rely heavily on formal conditional logic--the very basics of the CC and Loophole (haven't read Powerscore or Trainer but I assume they have something similar). I would recommend reviewing the formal logic lessons from the CC. Do you map out the stimulus, especially for SA? Generally, these questions have two disconnected concepts and you need to draw the bridge between them, if that makes sense.

I am able to figure out the conclusion and premises, I just have a hard time digesting it I believe while putting them together. I drilled a bunch of the conditional logics and went back through the CC and actually found them fun, however when it's in the stimulus I just can't understand any of it.

Tempore Novissimo

I don't know how your process is with other question types but I had the same problems with NA questions and a two-part process really helped me get comfortable with them. A NA question is pretty much a type of STR question in that the right AC has to strengthen the argument. So before I look at the AC I do a quick pre-phrase and then look for ACs that strengthen the argument. This usually helps me get rid of two-three ACs. My next step is negation testing. Just plug in "it is not true that" in front of the answer AC and see what it does to the conclusion (conditionals are much easier cause you can just negate one side of the condition). If the negated AC totally wrecks the conclusion then it is the right AC. Feel free to PM me if you have any questions! Hope this helped!

ndilmagh

@johnjyoo said:
I don't know how your process is with other question types but I had the same problems with NA questions and a two-part process really helped me get comfortable with them. A NA question is pretty much a type of STR question in that the right AC has to strengthen the argument. So before I look at the AC I do a quick pre-phrase and then look for ACs that strengthen the argument. This usually helps me get rid of two-three ACs. My next step is negation testing. Just plug in "it is not true that" in front of the answer AC and see what it does to the conclusion (conditionals are much easier cause you can just negate one side of the condition). If the negated AC totally wrecks the conclusion then it is the right AC. Feel free to PM me if you have any questions! Hope this helped!

That makes a lot of sense, I have never thought about it like that. I will try that out, thank you so much!

SurfandSailandFly

I would approach PSA and Strengthen questions similarly. Look for something that goes a long way toward fixing the argument entirely. Most of the time, the language in the correct answer choice will be quite strong. This is why Loophole categorizes the correct answer types as "powerful." NA questions require a little more analysis. They language of the answer choice is usually not nearly as strong. I've also noticed that NA answer choices that have conditionals need to be looked at extra carefully. Often these choices are wrong.

DINOSAUR

SA and PSA are strengthen question types. And NA is MBT question type. SA strengthens the argument perfectly, PSA I would say almost perfectly. NA questions are assumptions that must be true for the argument. Negation test is useful, but I prefer to see whether the answer choice is MBT for the argument or not rather than doing negation.

99thPercentileOrDieTryin

I think about them like this:
The correct answer choice in an NA will be something that must exist in order for the conclusion to be true.
The correct answer choice in a SA will be an additional premise that, when added to the premises already provided, will enable the conclusion.

For what it's worth, I went -2 per LR on the real LSAT and had a -1 section average at the end of my studies.

ndilmagh

@99thPercentileOrDieTryin said:
I think about them like this:
The correct answer choice in an NA will be something that must exist in order for the conclusion to be true.
The correct answer choice in a SA will be an additional premise that, when added to the premises already provided, will enable the conclusion.

For what it's worth, I went -2 per LR on the real LSAT and had a -1 section average at the end of my studies.

Do you mind if I PM you!?