Tips for attention to detail?

BenjaminSaka

Seems that this is my biggest weakness when I look back on why I'm missing questions on LR and RC. I'm really struggling to fully process the arguments without missing the smaller details. Like 70% of the questions I'm getting wrong on LR are mostly from missed details, the others being not properly I.Ding the argument and not understanding the abstract language in some ACs.

Any tips for getting better at reading for detail? Obviously an important quality to have in law, but I've always been a big picture reader/thinker rather than a detailed oriented person, so it's a hard transition for me to make.

This problem of mine is really exacerbated in the I.D the disagreement questions. I'm terrible at figuring out what word was misunderstood and what the two disagree about, since the questions require you to understand all of the more detailed implications of the two arguments.

runningmari99

I am struggling with the same thing so looking forward to hearing other answers but what's helping me right now is reading the stimulus as many times as needed, carefully and repeating the argument (and the why's of it) in my mind so that I understand it completely. After that prephrasing the answer leads me to finding the right one much more quickly.

ShiftingScales

Do you miss the smaller details during blind review and when doing sections untimed?

On average how much time do you have left at the end of timed sections?

Do you understand the dictionary definition of the detail or misunderstood word?

Did you read it with a different definition or concept in mind? (I recall an answer choice that was about a person's position and I thought it meant their title, which was mentioned in the passage, but it actually referred to their point of view.)

BenjaminSaka

@ShiftingScales said:
Do you miss the smaller details during blind review and when doing sections untimed?

On average how much time do you have left at the end of timed sections?

Do you understand the dictionary definition of the detail or misunderstood word?

Did you read it with a different definition or concept in mind? (I recall an answer choice that was about a person's position and I thought it meant their title, which was mentioned in the passage, but it actually referred to their point of view.)

I have a solid vocabulary. My issue is more that when I'm working under timed constraints I struggle to establish an understanding of the argument when the argument is more complex and there's a lot of information. Some examples being questions with longer stimuluses and as I mentioned before, questions where there are two arguments. The question with two arguments requires you to clearly understand what the first speaker is saying, then also what the second is to the point that you know what concept the second misunderstood or disagrees with. I can't get that solid an understanding of the argument within 35 minutes. I can read fine and get about 90% right when I'm BRing (the questions I miss in BR still also have to do with misreading/not enough attention to details). Again, my problem is being able to solidly grasp all of the details under timed constraints.

My other issue is when LSAT uses wording like "The argument takes for granted that if the truth of one claim implies the truth of the second claim, then the falsity of the first claim proves the falsity of the second claim." I wouldn't be confident in how that applies to the stimulus, much less under timed constraints.

nnnnnnzzzz

@frankbnakasako said:

@ShiftingScales said:
Do you miss the smaller details during blind review and when doing sections untimed?

On average how much time do you have left at the end of timed sections?

Do you understand the dictionary definition of the detail or misunderstood word?

Did you read it with a different definition or concept in mind? (I recall an answer choice that was about a person's position and I thought it meant their title, which was mentioned in the passage, but it actually referred to their point of view.)

I have a solid vocabulary. My issue is more that when I'm working under timed constraints I struggle to establish an understanding of the argument when the argument is more complex and there's a lot of information. Some examples being questions with longer stimuluses and as I mentioned before, questions where there are two arguments. The question with two arguments requires you to clearly understand what the first speaker is saying, then also what the second is to the point that you know what concept the second misunderstood or disagrees with. I can't get that solid an understanding of the argument within 35 minutes. I can read fine and get about 90% right when I'm BRing (the questions I miss in BR still also have to do with misreading/not enough attention to details). Again, my problem is being able to solidly grasp all of the details under timed constraints.

My other issue is when LSAT uses wording like "The argument takes for granted that if the truth of one claim implies the truth of the second claim, then the falsity of the first claim proves the falsity of the second claim." I wouldn't be confident in how that applies to the stimulus, much less under timed constraints.

That example you gave is A -> B means /A -> /B. I think the most helpful thing I realized for me is to be able to translate the stimulus into my own words.

Do you have a strong foundation on common flaws and spotting flaws in the argument?
Are you able to identify the conclusion most of the time?
Can you make inference from the stimulus?

For most questions, if you are able to do these things, you are more likely to be able to anticipate the right answer before reading the answer choices.

For most questions, it's easier for me to use my prediction to find the right answer choice.

BenjaminSaka

@nz889910 said:

@frankbnakasako said:

@ShiftingScales said:
Do you miss the smaller details during blind review and when doing sections untimed?

On average how much time do you have left at the end of timed sections?

Do you understand the dictionary definition of the detail or misunderstood word?

Did you read it with a different definition or concept in mind? (I recall an answer choice that was about a person's position and I thought it meant their title, which was mentioned in the passage, but it actually referred to their point of view.)

I have a solid vocabulary. My issue is more that when I'm working under timed constraints I struggle to establish an understanding of the argument when the argument is more complex and there's a lot of information. Some examples being questions with longer stimuluses and as I mentioned before, questions where there are two arguments. The question with two arguments requires you to clearly understand what the first speaker is saying, then also what the second is to the point that you know what concept the second misunderstood or disagrees with. I can't get that solid an understanding of the argument within 35 minutes. I can read fine and get about 90% right when I'm BRing (the questions I miss in BR still also have to do with misreading/not enough attention to details). Again, my problem is being able to solidly grasp all of the details under timed constraints.

My other issue is when LSAT uses wording like "The argument takes for granted that if the truth of one claim implies the truth of the second claim, then the falsity of the first claim proves the falsity of the second claim." I wouldn't be confident in how that applies to the stimulus, much less under timed constraints.

That example you gave is A -> B means /A -> /B. I think the most helpful thing I realized for me is to be able to translate the stimulus into my own words.

Do you have a strong foundation on common flaws and spotting flaws in the argument?
Are you able to identify the conclusion most of the time?
Can you make inference from the stimulus?

For most questions, if you are able to do these things, you are more likely to be able to anticipate the right answer before reading the answer choices.

For most questions, it's easier for me to use my prediction to find the right answer choice.

You're right. I can those things, but not well enough to get the score that I want on LR. I feel like LR is forcing me to develop new lawerly reading habits and that getting to the score that I want is mostly a matter of putting in the work. It's like building up in intensity on your workouts. LR is like being able to bench 250 or whatever, and I've never bench pressed before in my life.

Do you have any tips for translating abstract statements like the example which I gave? I still struggle to translate those efficiently.

nnnnnnzzzz

@frankbnakasako said:

@nz889910 said:

@frankbnakasako said:

@ShiftingScales said:
Do you miss the smaller details during blind review and when doing sections untimed?

On average how much time do you have left at the end of timed sections?

Do you understand the dictionary definition of the detail or misunderstood word?

Did you read it with a different definition or concept in mind? (I recall an answer choice that was about a person's position and I thought it meant their title, which was mentioned in the passage, but it actually referred to their point of view.)

I have a solid vocabulary. My issue is more that when I'm working under timed constraints I struggle to establish an understanding of the argument when the argument is more complex and there's a lot of information. Some examples being questions with longer stimuluses and as I mentioned before, questions where there are two arguments. The question with two arguments requires you to clearly understand what the first speaker is saying, then also what the second is to the point that you know what concept the second misunderstood or disagrees with. I can't get that solid an understanding of the argument within 35 minutes. I can read fine and get about 90% right when I'm BRing (the questions I miss in BR still also have to do with misreading/not enough attention to details). Again, my problem is being able to solidly grasp all of the details under timed constraints.

My other issue is when LSAT uses wording like "The argument takes for granted that if the truth of one claim implies the truth of the second claim, then the falsity of the first claim proves the falsity of the second claim." I wouldn't be confident in how that applies to the stimulus, much less under timed constraints.

That example you gave is A -> B means /A -> /B. I think the most helpful thing I realized for me is to be able to translate the stimulus into my own words.

Do you have a strong foundation on common flaws and spotting flaws in the argument?
Are you able to identify the conclusion most of the time?
Can you make inference from the stimulus?

For most questions, if you are able to do these things, you are more likely to be able to anticipate the right answer before reading the answer choices.

For most questions, it's easier for me to use my prediction to find the right answer choice.

You're right. I can those things, but not well enough to get the score that I want on LR. I feel like LR is forcing me to develop new lawerly reading habits and that getting to the score that I want is mostly a matter of putting in the work. It's like building up in intensity on your workouts. LR is like being able to bench 250 or whatever, and I've never bench pressed before in my life.

Do you have any tips for translating abstract statements like the example which I gave? I still struggle to translate those efficiently.

I would recommend you try the book LSAT Loopholes as a supplement to your 7sage prep course. I have learned from that book a lot.