When doing the BR, do you guys write short notes on the wrong answers?

Calgary77321

I'm wanting to make sure I get rid of the wrong answers with the right rationale, and I'm starting to write little notes on all the wrong answers and then watch the video afterwards, to see if my rationale is the same. Also on the less obvious ones I'll write a tiny note on why it's right. Anyone else do this?

Creasey LSAT

@Calgary77321 said:
Anyone else do this?

Heck yes, I do!

sarahmelton6

Yes, I am doing this too. Sometimes my note on a wrong answer is as brief as stating that it is irrelevant. However, I am working towards writing more detailed explanations because it deepens my understanding when I do. Baby steps. Don't you love when your rationale matches up with J.Y.'s rationale?

jknauf

@Calgary77321 Absolutely! When you do make a mistake, make sure you write that down as well. Then review that mistake, and incorporate a system to not make that same mistake. This is huge, realizing your mistakes and making sure you don't make that same mistake again is ideally the reason for BR.

A wise man once told me, an expert is someone who has made every mistake at least once. =]

Sprinkles

@sarahmelton6 said:
Don't you love when your rationale matches up with J.Y.'s rationale?

Haha yes!!!!

@jknauf said:
A wise woman once told me, an expert is someone who has made every mistake at least once. =]

Don't be modest, you can just include my name next time . Lol jk, I like this quote!


OP - I think you're doing an awesome thing by taking notes!

Q.E.D

With all respect for JY and the makers of the 7sage curriculum, I was disappointed by the frequent resort to "irrelevant!" as a reasoned dismissal of an answer choice. I've watched a close friend derive zero benefit from those demonstrations, and I've concluded that the very judgment of relevance is the biggest key to success in LR. I don't think JY realized what he could offer by analyzing and explaining his intuition of relevance.

My friend made significant progress after we analyzed, in great depth, every possible bearing each answer choice could have on an LR question. Most often, the difficulty lay in relationships between things and concepts that don't readily offer themselves to folks who haven't read widely and seen the same words/expressions in countless contexts. The same experience helps develop an ability to see logical form. Not knowing principles of science and evidence is also a serious disadvantage. Mostly, I think it's at bottom reading comprehension, broadly understood.

Anyway, I'd advise everyone to pay close attention to the relationship of relevance. I hope someone here will someday propose a taxonomy of important criteria of relevance that may figure usefully in a more straightforward process for ppl struggling to understand and repeat these apparently arbitrary and inscrutable judgments so crucial to swiftly eliminating wrong answers.

Creasey LSAT

@Q.E.D said:
My friend made significant progress after we analyzed, in great depth, every possible bearing each answer choice could have on an LR question.

But soooo many times an answer choice will have absolutely no bearing on anything mentioned or implied in the stimulus passage. Like you said, it's all about relationships. If there is no relationship, it is helpful to know an answer can and should be eliminated without having to think about anything else other than the fact that it is irrelevant. Sometimes the LSAT wants to trick you into overthinking things and start rationalizing why something could be correct when, in reality, all we need to care about is how it relates to the other words on the paper. Answers that are irrelevant or beyond the scope of sometimes entice me to begin inputing my own thoughts into the argument. That's not good, but I can usually able to nip this in the bud with a good 'ol "Irrelevant!" and save myself.

Q.E.D

@"Creasey LSAT"

Absolutely agree. It's important to quickly strike 1-3 choices without agonizing over unseen relationships. I'm not recommending that. My point is simply to ask How do you know that an answer choice is irrelevant? My friend's problem was that she jumped to "irrelevant" whenever she failed to see a connection, and it was costing her dearly. Failing to notice the relevance was clearly an awful basis for eliminating choices.

I'm suggesting that it may help to clarify the objective criteria in virtue of which a choice succeeds or fails to be relevant. I mean, there must be such criteria for your judgment to be rational. (I emphasize objectivity bc, as you said, we have to be leery of the subjective element.) It was actually helpful practice for me to articulate my own reasoning to my friend in the course of analyzing several LR sections, one prob at a time. It can be done, and the exercise revealed to both of us how much of your LR performance rests on this capacity to decide, for each choice, how it might bear on the question and whether that bearing is persuasive. Just carrying out the analysis reveals your understanding of things at issue in the stimulus. I think passing over the relevance problem is passing over the meat of the problem.

On the clock, yes, you say "irrelevant" and move on. In BR, I think you're cheating yourself if you cut those corners. Calling "irrelevant" and seeing the right answer are two sides of the same coin. Seems easy to settle into a false sense of security selecting answers that conform to our positive expectations and heuristics. The negative side is illuminating. It's especially useful for understanding trap answer choices. Many times, I had to explain to my friend why a choice should look really good to her even though I'd have to turn around and point out the flaw.

But, as usual, just my drivel. We all have to find our own way through the LSAT.