PT72.S3.Q07 - hospital patients' immune systems

brna0714

http://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-72-section-3-question-07/
I've struggled with the newer (70+ ish) LR sections far more than I used to struggle with older tests. I have been pretty close to freaking out as of late because while I used to be able to count on LR to be "near perfect," my section scores in LR have been fluctuating wildly in the newer sections and I couldn't figure out what was causing the change.

Today while reviewing, I came to the realization that I couldn't really rely on my intuitive sense of the argument structure any longer. The arguments seem more convoluted, OPAs are mentioned initially in an attempt to confuse the situation (case in point, PT72, Section 3, Question 7... seriously, wtf).

After realizing this, I returned to my old method of clearly labeling the premises and conclusions in each stimulus and that *seems* to be helping. It has also helped me slow down a bit and I seem to have fewer reading errors. I've found myself relying more on the old grammar/indicator lessons (I should probably review those again in a bit).

I just wanted to share and find out if anyone else had discovered/thought anything similar. I suppose if you're nose for structure is already strong then you may be less likely to notice any change at all. LR in the mid-40's to late 60's was getting a bit formulaic, in my opinion, so I'm not really surprised to see this shift. They've gotta keep us on our toes after all.

Happy studying!

ddakjiking

I found that the answer choices have also noticeably become trickier. That's why knowing the argument is so much more important. I used to feel pretty confident on LR in the 40's and 50's but for sure I felt a bit less confident in my answers in the PT 70's LR.

Same goes for the newer RC. I did PT 73 the other day and still remember @"J.Y. Ping" claiming how awful the Marcusian passage was. lol.

Dr. Yamata

For some reason I do better on the newer LRs. But at the end of the day, I think LR is about how quickly you can understand what you're reading, and how easily you can match it up with the patterns you've seen before from test-writers. I think it's as much of a test of attention span and reading comprehension as the RC section itself. Esp with the science or philosophy or literature related questions that have language way above even college textbooks, it's clear that the argument structure is not all that they're testing. One of my strategies has been to highlight words I'm not immediately comfortable with and when reviewing the PT make sure I learn the definition!

blah170blah

Just wanted to reiterate this. Missed 5 on the first LR section of PT 73 and made 2 careless mistakes all because I wasn't 100% thorough in my diagramming.