LR not improving

MISC_K79

I've been studying now for 10months and do not see much of the improvement.
Comparing to what it felt like 10 months ago when I first started to study, it was very difficult to understand the passages as well as the answer choices, and comprehending took so much time. I was always short in time by 5~10 minutes when I do the time section on LR(getting -7 ~ -14wrong).
Now, I feel more familiar with the LR passages, sometimes see the pattern and most of the time able to solve 1~2 star questions quickly and some of 4~5 star questions easy, and I am now able to finish timed section roughly in time.

But I don't see much of the apparent improvement and keep getting -8 and sometimes -12 if I was unable to focus and distracted. I will be very happy if I could get less than 3wrong consistently.
I am so devastated. Is this normal? Any advice will be very appreciated.

iamgrateful

PM me. Like you, I was consistently scoring within the -8 to -13 range in LR. Now I'm consistently scoring within the 0 to -3.range. Would be more than glad to share how I got to this point.

kanature99

Hey! I feel you, I have also been really struggling with getting my LR to improve and I've been studying for almost 5 months now. While I'm still not getting the scores that I want on that section, what I think helps is Ellen Cassidy's translation drill (she wrote The Loophole, it's a good investment tbh). Basically, you:
1. Read each stimulus and then re-write or re-explain it in your own words. This demonstrates that you actually know that is going on. I feel like a lot of issues with LR revolve around not knowing what the heck you just read before going into the questions.
2. You design your "CLIR", which is basically a basic prediction for each stimulus type:
- Debate (the A and B convos) --> figure out their Controversy (what they disagree abt)
- Argument (typical stimulus w/ premise and conclusion) --> figure out a Loophole/ basically a way to destroy their argument by attacking the truth of the conclusion... something like "well what if..."
- Premise Set (the stimuli with no conclusion/ usually the MBT and Inf Q's --> figure out a safe Inference you can draw from what is given
- Paradox (these are the RRE Q's) --> figure out a Resolution that explains how the conclusion can be true
3. Then you address the Q stem and go through the questions with a prediction in mind. Your prediction (Controversy, Loophole, Inference, Resolution) might not always be what is in the AC's but at least it forces you to engage with the stimulus and know what is actually going on
4. There might be some stimuli that you can't apply this to, but I've found that it's a lot more helpful to have some sort of idea of what you're looking for instead of drowning in wordy AC's. You should do this drill untimed.

Additionally, I think it's helpful to combine this with explaining and justifying each answer choice either by writing it down or typing it on a google doc. Again doing this untimed, you can go through and for each answer choice, write down why you think it's the wrong AC or why you think that it's the right AC, as if you're explaining it to a friend. I think this is helpful for tracking your reasoning errors or seeing what kind of questions give you a hard time. It also forces you to ask yourself if what you're choosing is actually relevant/happening in the stimmy or if you're just picking an AC out of (poor) intuition.

All in all, I know this is super lengthy but I hope it helps some!! I would also suggest getting a solid tutor who can point out errors in your reasoning that you likely have not noticed. I totally get the frustration and it's hard not to feel like you're behind but you got this!! Good luck!!

rdyoung12

discussing LR questions in detail on voice calls, sometimes spending 30+ mins on a question, helped me. also some questions diagrams can really help. hope that helps you. but I got to commend your 10-months getting beat up by this test. wow! my spirit could not take it.

Slippin_Jimmy

You have to figure out what learning style is best for you. Are you a visual learner or understand better by reading or listening. I have been studying on and off about a year and feel the same way. I completed both Blueprint prep and 7sage, However, I discovered that reading physical textbooks has helped me internalize the information better. Reading Powerscore bible lessons and actually doing questions on physical paper has helped me better understand the fundamentals than watching videos.

One piece of advice I'd give is to get very specific with the conclusion ( a lot of arguments in the LR section deal with conclusions) and DO NOT GENERALIZE! Try to understand exactly what the author is getting at word for word.

Also, I think most of the LSAT prep is very technical and abstract, and the best way to sometimes approach questions is intuitively. I like to look at the structure of the stimulus (which usually includes background info/context/other peoples argument) and which then the author steps in and basis their conclusion on the information in the stimulus. So instead of looking mechanistically at premise/conclusion indicators like how the lessons plans teach you, pay attention to how the author uses the information in the stimulus to make a conclusion ( and remember the purpose of a conclusion is to be persuasive). This is essentially what logical reasoning is (using information to make a conclusion/explanation/persuasion. etc...) How reasonable an argument is depends on how the information is interpreted and whether the assumptions are warranted or not ( most of the LR questions are flawed) such as, necessary/sufficient assumption, strengthen/weaken, flaw, parallel flaw. So you know you're dealing with flawed args.

So once you start recognizing structural patterns, it's much easier to find gaps in the reasoning.

MISC_K79

@kanature99 said:
Hey! I feel you, I have also been really struggling with getting my LR to improve and I've been studying for almost 5 months now. While I'm still not getting the scores that I want on that section, what I think helps is Ellen Cassidy's translation drill (she wrote The Loophole, it's a good investment tbh). Basically, you:
1. Read each stimulus and then re-write or re-explain it in your own words. This demonstrates that you actually know that is going on. I feel like a lot of issues with LR revolve around not knowing what the heck you just read before going into the questions.
2. You design your "CLIR", which is basically a basic prediction for each stimulus type:
- Debate (the A and B convos) --> figure out their Controversy (what they disagree abt)
- Argument (typical stimulus w/ premise and conclusion) --> figure out a Loophole/ basically a way to destroy their argument by attacking the truth of the conclusion... something like "well what if..."
- Premise Set (the stimuli with no conclusion/ usually the MBT and Inf Q's --> figure out a safe Inference you can draw from what is given
- Paradox (these are the RRE Q's) --> figure out a Resolution that explains how the conclusion can be true
3. Then you address the Q stem and go through the questions with a prediction in mind. Your prediction (Controversy, Loophole, Inference, Resolution) might not always be what is in the AC's but at least it forces you to engage with the stimulus and know what is actually going on
4. There might be some stimuli that you can't apply this to, but I've found that it's a lot more helpful to have some sort of idea of what you're looking for instead of drowning in wordy AC's. You should do this drill untimed.

Additionally, I think it's helpful to combine this with explaining and justifying each answer choice either by writing it down or typing it on a google doc. Again doing this untimed, you can go through and for each answer choice, write down why you think it's the wrong AC or why you think that it's the right AC, as if you're explaining it to a friend. I think this is helpful for tracking your reasoning errors or seeing what kind of questions give you a hard time. It also forces you to ask yourself if what you're choosing is actually relevant/happening in the stimmy or if you're just picking an AC out of (poor) intuition.

All in all, I know this is super lengthy but I hope it helps some!! I would also suggest getting a solid tutor who can point out errors in your reasoning that you likely have not noticed. I totally get the frustration and it's hard not to feel like you're behind but you got this!! Good luck!!

Thanks for the advice. Actually, I have read the Loophole twice, and agree that it was very helpful with understanding the fundamentals and gave me some good tips with approaching the question types. However, I kinda gave up on doing the translation drills which required me to burn the questions and doing it verbally was so exhausting. Since English is my secondary language, it was also difficult for me to rephrase it into my own words even though I kind of got the idea but I will take your advice and add translation drill into my practice.

MISC_K79

@Slippin_Jimmy said:
You have to figure out what learning style is best for you. Are you a visual learner or understand better by reading or listening. I have been studying on and off about a year and feel the same way. I completed both Blueprint prep and 7sage, However, I discovered that reading physical textbooks has helped me internalize the information better. Reading Powerscore bible lessons and actually doing questions on physical paper has helped me better understand the fundamentals than watching videos.

One piece of advice I'd give is to get very specific with the conclusion ( a lot of arguments in the LR section deal with conclusions) and DO NOT GENERALIZE! Try to understand exactly what the author is getting at word for word.

Also, I think most of the LSAT prep is very technical and abstract, and the best way to sometimes approach questions is intuitively. I like to look at the structure of the stimulus (which usually includes background info/context/other peoples argument) and which then the author steps in and basis their conclusion on the information in the stimulus. So instead of looking mechanistically at premise/conclusion indicators like how the lessons plans teach you, pay attention to how the author uses the information in the stimulus to make a conclusion ( and remember the purpose of a conclusion is to be persuasive). This is essentially what logical reasoning is (using information to make a conclusion/explanation/persuasion. etc...) How reasonable an argument is depends on how the information is interpreted and whether the assumptions are warranted or not ( most of the LR questions are flawed) such as, necessary/sufficient assumption, strengthen/weaken, flaw, parallel flaw. So you know you're dealing with flawed args.

So once you start recognizing structural patterns, it's much easier to find gaps in the reasoning.

Thank you for the great advice. Yes, indeed understanding the passage seems to be the key, and often times it is difficult to understand those abstract and convoluted sentences. When I approach the LR, I will keep your advice in mind and try to apply.

MISC_K79

@rdyoung12 said:
discussing LR questions in detail on voice calls, sometimes spending 30+ mins on a question, helped me. also some questions diagrams can really help. hope that helps you. but I got to commend your 10-months getting beat up by this test. wow! my spirit could not take it.

Many thanks for the comment. I feel so dumb for taking this long with LR but I do not want to give up.

MISC_K79

@iamgrateful said:
PM me. Like you, I was consistently scoring within the -8 to -13 range in LR. Now I'm consistently scoring within the 0 to -3.range. Would be more than glad to share how I got to this point.

Thank you. I sent you a message.