Struggling to Improve on Logical Reasoning

sophiacastro

I am really struggling to see improvement on logical reasoning. I consistently score-8/-9. I have went through the curriculum on 7sage and have been consistently drilling. There is not a single question type I am always getting wrong, it seems to be random. I am starting to panic as I plan to take the January Lsat.

aghhga08

following

faisel_najibi16-1

Honestly would highly recommend the LSAT Bible by Mike Kim. Within it, he includes a detailed breakdown of each question type and what it expects from you. I've also made some notes which if you include your email in the comments, I would happily forward to you to assist.

After reading and really just carefully understanding each question type, I understand it a lot more. I'd say I jumped from -5 to -2 after a few days of really just delving into it. For example, a common question I would get wrong is what assumption does this argument require? Basically, I would often pick a sufficient condition as opposed to a necessary one. If you recall logic games, when the necessary fails the sufficient automatically fails which in this question type is the argument.

The tip he gave was choose the answer which if negated, is most detrimental to the argument because the answer you seeking isn't meant to make the argument fool-proof but rather an answer that allows the argument to simply continue.

For match the argument, he speaks on how you must pay attention to specific modifiers such as if the argument uses all people and an option uses some people, it is likely a poor match.

TE CSC 2021

There really are two fundamental skills to doing well in LR - argumentation and inference. To understand argumentation, you have to be really good at isolating the conclusion and evidence in arguments. When most folks miss in LR it's because they've misunderstood conclusion and evidence. The more you focus on conclusion and evidence, the more you can see patterns in the way they can be presented. For instance, you'll see arguments by analogy, contrast, direct evidence, etc. You'll also see the different types of arguments that exist out there - those that attempt to prove causation, those that attempt to explain phenomena, those that attempt to predict future events, and those that make a subjective judgement about situations/events. Predictable types yield predictable weaknesses, which can predictably be identified, made better, or made worse.

Inference is the ability to select something that is most likely to be true based only on a specific set of information. The usual struggle in inference is with oneself - you'll easily substitute yourself where there should only be the LSAT. Look at your misses and see if you find yourself drifting into using your own knowledge/common sense instead of sticking solely with what's on the page.

Yes, it can be so tempting to think that success in LR is all about mastering that long list of question types and the strategies attached, and that is important, to be sure. But a sure sign of someone who is excellent at LR is how little they care about the specific question type. They know that once they've nailed the argument they can do anything the test asks them to do.

curlyhairobsession-1

LR is my best section so I can help with this. Ive done 100s of questions and noticed not only how to attack a question type, but traps test makers use and knowing those traps can help cancel out answers and make it easier to choose the right one.

Number one thing is to make sure you know the different question types and mode of attack. How I divide
Main conclusion (MC)
- The main point B is making is...
Inference (I)
- From the passage we can infer...
Point at Issue: Agree/Disagree (PAI)
- B agrees/disagrees with F with...
Must be True (MBT)
- If the statements are true, what answer must be true
Must be False (MBF)
- If the statements are false, what answer must be false
Resolve (R)
- Which helps resolve the paradox
Weaken (W)
- What weakens the argument
Strengthen (S)
- What makes the argument stronger
Method (M)
- B's argument proceeds by
Assumption (A)
- What can we assume to be true
Principle (P)
- B's argument is true following what principle

Memorize the question types and then move on here-->
This section will tell you my game plan for each question and the 2nd line will tell you common traps I see for these question types

MC- Highlight the conclusion and premises in different colors and double check if its correct and the premises support the conclusion. Find the conclusion in the answer choices.
- Traps: You infer the conclusion, choose a main premis instead, The paragraph is long and wastes time on what the author disagrees on so you choose the disagreement instead of the small short almost hidden conclusion. This is why highlighting helps so you focus on the actual argument.

I- Highlight the argument same way as MC. See what the specific premis is that supports the conclusion and make the most obvious inferment.
- Traps: You mistaken assume instead of infer. Also sometimes long and confuses you. Most are science based with long words, gloss over those words and replace them with a letter.

PAI- Don't highlight conclusion, there are none. See what the main point is instead and highlight/underline what they are claiming. Take this word for word.
- Traps: Do not infer or assume anything. Most wrong answers in the section are basically you inferring. One wrong answer will be an agreement or disagreement so make sure you know if its agree or disagree and don't get confused.

MBT- No conclusions here, just premises. Go through each answer choice and see if its supported by the passage. The answer is IN the passage and it will be obvious when you see it.
- Traps: not reading WORD for WORD. This is the biggest trap by far. Not looking and underline buzzwords such as only and never. NEVER ASSUME!! Also most wrong answer choices. The answer is IN the passage.

MBF- Same as MBT but make sure its false and can not be supported.

R-

Ill finish later lol I need to go but I hope this helps