This might seem a bit silly, but in after doing the translations into lawgic exercise...do we always diagram logic whenever we see it in any LSAT question? For instance pt 27 st 1 q 17, I started reading the stem and noticed the logic and diagram quickly but then I didn't really need it. Is that a special case? Does anyone have a recommendation? Thanks!
Comments
We see a lot of people around here who rely a bit too much on diagramming. There are certain QT's and/or stimuli that lend themselves to it (for LR) and certain rules that can pretty much only be notated conditionally (for LG). But there is no need to diagram everything that moves, so to speak! And it might make you a lil' cray if you do
As a rule of thumb ... I personally really only diagram occasionally on: MBT, SA, PR, and sometimes PF. I diagram fewer than 5 Q's a test (LG excluded). I only do it when I'm sure it's going to be helpful (though I'm still occasionally wrong on that!). Sometimes little pictures are more helpful that diagrams. Etc.
If it's helpful for you to diagram a lot now, then that's great! Do what helps you learn. Eventually you will stop walking with crutches once your ankle is healed enough to support your weight, if you get my drift.
On my second pass through an LR section to review questions I wasn't sure about, I would sometimes diagram them to illuminate relationships between premises and conclusions. But it would have been a time-suck to diagram them on the first pass.