Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- 32.1K All Categories
- 27.1K LSAT
- 16.5K General
- 5K Logical Reasoning
- 1.3K Reading Comprehension
- 1.7K Logic Games
- 72 Podcasts
- 193 Webinars
- 9 Scholarships
- 193 Test Center Reviews
- 2K Study Groups
- 108 Study Guides/Cheat Sheets
- 2.4K Specific LSAT Dates
- 1 June 2024 LSAT
- 1 April 2024 LSAT
- 11 February 2024 LSAT
- 23 January 2024 LSAT
- 37 November 2023 LSAT
- 41 October 2023 LSAT
- 12 September 2023 LSAT
- 38 August 2023 LSAT
- 27 June 2023 LSAT
- 1 August 2024 LSAT
- 30 Sage Advice
- 4.8K Not LSAT
- 3.9K Law School Admissions
- 11 Law School Explained
- 9 Forum Rules
- 573 Technical Problems
- 280 Off-topic
Related Discussions
8 Likes
Easiest way to increase Logical Reasoning Score for Jan
lsat2021-1
Core Member
Hi,
I’m currently at -10 in LR and want to get to at least -5 before the Jan exam
to reach my goal. What would be the easiest and quickest method to do that? I have just started with reading the loophole but it seems like going over it will eat into a lot of my precious time and I don’t know if it’s worth it or if I have enough time to try new LR strategies at this point. Any tips?
My weak areas seems to be parallel flaw, method reasoning and necessary assumption questions. I think I struggle most with negation and writing out the lawgic in a timed practice test. Any suggestions about how to improve these areas would also be helpful. Thanks!! 
Comments
The powerscore method has helped me immensely. Stimulus first, break it down into what's evidence, conclusion. And then approach the question and answer choices. Cancel out the obvious wrong choices and go from there. Also study each type of question one at a time. Mastering them individually makes it way easier.
Remember that logical reasoning tests you on Logical Reasoning. Your usual reading/thinking habits are not what the sections tests you on.
You might be able to get 60-70% right with your usual habits, but to get to 95%+ you're going to have to learn to process information in a wholly new way.
Parallel flaw: What I would suggest is while reading through them, to write down conditions and negations, as simple as ( A -> B; B/ ->A/; or more if you can write fast), memorizing what each letter stands for on the stimulus on the run, and testing / crossing out wrong answers using what you wrote down to see if they match up. This would most likely give you the right answer or leave you with 2 options. Then I would read through differences between the two carefully and find the right one.
Necessary assumption: Identify the conclusion, and identify the premises that support the conclusion. See if they match up or make sense. It would not. Think about what is the missing link and link them using the answer choices. You would be able to cross out at least 3 choices. Now you are left with 2. Negate the answer choices (ie. If you are studying for LSAT, you hate the LSAT -> if you don't hate the LSAT, you are not studying for one). See if that negated condition holds true, the conclusion falls apart. That one is the right answer as it is necessary for the argument to work.
Method reasoning - I go with my guts and always got it right using above two methods. Now, sufficient - necessary will be one of the answer choices. See if it holds. if not, you can cross it out
Happy holidays btw!! I never read that book although I heard it was good bc I was always on the crunch. For me, I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed but I did get my score up by doing PT as a routine. Think of it as building your muscle; you won't get buff by knowing a trick but by doing routine on a continuous basis.
Here is a LR cheat sheet I created from my studies with LSAT Trainer and taking PT's! It's not all LR questions, but hope this is helpful.
Logical Reasoning - Sufficient Assumption & Supporting Principle (Argument based)
*require conditional logic.
Identify Q Type
**Since SA or SP, your job is to find the answer that completely fixes the issue/gap/flaw in the argument.
Read stimulus and have clear picture of flaw (and therefore, argument)
_(SA)The conclusion follows logically if which one of the following is assumed?_
_(SP-less absolute than SP) Which one of the following principles, if valid, most helps to justify the economists’ reasoning?
(SP) Which one of the following principles underlies his argument?_
_(CP - like SP. Less about flaws, more as opinions) The reasoning above most closely conforms to which of the following principles?_
_(CP) Which one of the following propositions is most precisely exemplified by the situation presented above?_
Logical Reasoning - Give an Example (Argument based. Very rare.)
*The stimulus will state a principle/generalized-rule, and ask you to match an example.
Which of the following best illustrates the principle mentioned above?
Which of the following most closely conforms to the principle that the passage above illustrates?
Logical Reasoning - Inference (Stimulus to Answer, not argument based)
Identify Q Type.
**Since Inference, you are using stimulus to find which answer is most provable. Often inferences answer choices are in contrapositive format of original conditional statement.
Read stimulus, mark indicators.
Eliminate to find correct answer.
Which one of the following inferences is most strongly supported by the information above?
If the statements above are true, each of the following could be true, except?
Which one of the above can be properly inferred from the statements above?
If all of the statements above are true, which one of the following must also be true? (Link - Rare)
Thanks!! This was helpful. I will try to use this method when I PT next. Happy holidays to you as well!
This looks super helpful! Thanks!!
Thanks!! I’ve noticed that because I now understand that LR requires me to use a completely different way of thinking, in the flex LR sections my first few questions which are presumably the easiest don’t go by that fast. Perhaps the pressure of getting every LR question (especially the first 10) right under a minute gets to me. Would you suggest that building stamina is probably the only way to overcome my nerves? Or any other tips? Thanks!
I don't think that the 7sage curriculum gives you a very good foundation for LR. You should look into a prep book that teaches you the fundamentals. I hear good things about The Loophole LR book. I don't think that a 2 minute review of all the question types then just examples of the questions is a good approach to teaching the LR section.
I wish I could give you more advice, but I'm trying to improve my LR right now, hahaha.
I've already gotten impatient and shot myself in the foot and gotten discouraged due to my impatience... I took another timed test even though I knew I wasn't ready to do so... So there's that. Learn from my mistakes! Don't get impatient!
I have a few chapters left to finish in The Loophole, but I am already scoring -3/4 on LR sections - that's an improvement from -10 (on average). I started reading a few months ago. I plan to practice more translation in hopes of further improvements. I feel I owe a lot to the author, Ellen Cassidy. I think the Translation and CLIR Drills are brilliant. The rest of the book is not proprietary. Though, she might help to explain certain concepts/strategies in simpler terms. Highly recommend!
There is no quick fix. You'll get out of it what you put into it. If your aim is to do your best, maybe consider delaying the LSAT until you feel you are ready. I don't think you should be drilling LR questions (and taking practice tests) until you at least get down some of the basics (like Conditional Reasoning + Negation and SA/NA). You could argue that there are plenty of tests to work with, but...
Best of luck! Keep pushing!
@IncrediblyLongName so the first 6 chapters are basically all we need right?
@This_is_Hard Maybe, maybe not. But the first 7-8 Chapters should get one far.
Hey so I was having similar issues LR, by far my weakest section.I really love 7Sage for LG and RC but something about LR wasn’t clicking for me so I ordered Loophole by Ellen Cassidy and that helped immensely. I know you won’t be able to fully take advantage the book since January is super close and the book does take sometime to fully soak in the concepts, so I’ll just give you some advice on what helped me.
To get better at LR I think a central key is to understand what the stimulus is saying. What I mean by this is break it down to its conclusion and premises and try to get good a rephrasing it into your own words.
Once you understand the section should get a little easier.
For me it was kinda hard dealing with stimuli that didn’t have a conclusion, like fill in questions or MBT, where the stimulus is all premises basically. But honestly I would take a section or two of LR that you have done before and just practice translating the essence of the argument premise, conclusion in the stimulus and just get comfortable with that.
There are certain questions that require you to do more than just translating the essence of the argument to get the correct answer but I this could help you marginally in the short run. Good luck! I’m also taking it in January
@natal310 hi there! just wanted to pop in and give you my two cents on this as someone who has been in your shoes before. I took the LSAT twice and LR was consistently my area of weakness. Like you, I found certain question stems especially challenging and of course, those were usually the ones I would get wrong. What I found most helpful between my first take and second was drilling the question stems I found most challenging for LR. For context, I fluctuated anywhere from -2/3 to -8/10 and sometimes even worse depending on how difficult the LR section was. Once I started drilling those question stems, my LR score stabilized a lot more. That said, there will always be off days and especially difficult sections, but I personally found this method to be the most helpful! Going over the core curriculum and JY’s explanations/ plan of attack for the question stems were also great for review! Lastly, if you have time, check out the Loophole by Ellen Cassidy. It’s a great alternative to help supplement what you already know about LR and gives you a new perspective on how to attack the questions. I found that book most helpful after I got a good foundation on LR. Overall, I say it comes down to multiple practice runs and becoming laser focused on areas you know are challenging for you. Best of luck on your LSAT journey! It’s is definitely possible to go from -10 to -5 or lower
I would say drill, drill, drill problem sets. And then drill some more. If you had more time, I might have suggested to read some books on philosophical logical fallacies---because that's basically what most of LR is.
I loved and have faith in the loophole book too. Great luck!
I totally understand the fear of wasting time by reading a big book like that. However, I feel the biggest waste of your time is doing constant drills without out any change in your study habits or and change in your knowledge base. I LOVED the loophole, its got me from -12/10 to -2/3 with repetition of the translation drills, the CLIR, making sure I REALLY understood the structure of an argument, and breaking down the types of questions and their patterns. Once you have a really strong base I think drilling is extremely important so you can see patterns and narrow down your weaknesses, but your score won't budge unless you make sure your base is super strong.
Hope this helps!
TL;DR - read the loophole if you feel like it's bridging concept gaps you have with LR
I know translation/CLIR drills might seem like a waste of time, but even dedicating a solid week or two to just translating and CLIRing could help you a ton on LR. The biggest path to improvement for me was learning how to read simuli and actually understand them--most of the questions I was getting wrong before that were due to not having a good understanding of what the stimulus was saying. The translation drills helped so much for me, then moving on to CLIRing without reading ACs.
Hey, I've been thinking more since my original post... It may not be ideal for you to start with a new program, with just a month till your test, but, if not The Loophole, you might want to check out LSAT Demon. I was listening to a recent episode of the Thinking LSAT podcast, and the founders of the Demon said something that I have been thinking for some time now... They didn't explicitly say but suggested that the 7Sage (LR) curriculum is nonsense. I have to agree. There was no mention of "existential quantifiers" in The LSAT Demon/The Loophole... I felt so overwhelmed whilst working thru the 7Sage Logic curriculum. I'm convinced the 7Sage curriculum is unnecessarily complicated.
I couldn't agree with this more, trying to go through existential quantifiers made no sense to me, it takes a process which is intuitive and makes it unintuitive.