LR in the 80's is destroying me

Comments

• CRISPR24 Alum Member

  August 2020 262 karma

  I am PTing in the 70s and just noticed the questions I got wrong are all the ones that tricked me based on a typical prephrase I would have after reading the stimulus. The trap ACs looks correct frame wise but if I read closely, they are indeed wrong! I wonder what kind of issue do you have with the 80s?
• lexxx745 Alum Member Sage ⭐

  August 2020 3190 karma

  i did best with the LR in the 80s. I found them to be less formal logic and more intuition based with more assumptions needing to be made. I dont think its necessarily harder. Do a couple more PTs, I think youll get used to it pretty quickly.
• 1 Like

  FindingSage Alum Member ⭐

  August 2020 2042 karma

  Because the PT's in the 80's were less formal logic based and some of the subject matter isn't quite as abstract as earlier PT's it seems more approachable and that is where they catch you. PT's in the 80's reward close critical reading and also people who can find flaws beyond the most typical easy to memorize flaws. What helped me get better was as part of my blind review process to tranlsate out each stimulus, write out a prediction/loophole ( regardless of weather I made it under time or not) and then write out in detail why each answer choice was right or wrong. You can start practice this with PT's you have already taken. Write out a translation of each stimuli and then based on that try to make a prediction. Answer choices are secondary. What I found is that questions I got wrong, always came back to stimulus- sometimes incorrect reading or not understanding something, but once I slowed down and made sure I translated it became much easier to spot the flaws/how the arguments were weak and then of course answer accordingly.
• lexxx745 Alum Member Sage ⭐

  August 2020 3190 karma

  @FindingSage said:
  Because the PT's in the 80's were less formal logic based and some of the subject matter isn't quite as abstract as earlier PT's it seems more approachable and that is where they catch you. PT's in the 80's reward close critical reading and also people who can find flaws beyond the most typical easy to memorize flaws. What helped me get better was as part of my blind review process to tranlsate out each stimulus, write out a prediction/loophole ( regardless of weather I made it under time or not) and then write out in detail why each answer choice was right or wrong. You can start practice this with PT's you have already taken. Write out a translation of each stimuli and then based on that try to make a prediction. Answer choices are secondary. What I found is that questions I got wrong, always came back to stimulus- sometimes incorrect reading or not understanding something, but once I slowed down and made sure I translated it became much easier to spot the flaws/how the arguments were weak and then of course answer accordingly.

  100% agree. for me the 80s were easier because it felt like half the time the right answer choice was predictable.

  The earlier PTs relied more heavily on formal logic. I feel like you couldnt predict the answer choice as easily but you could brute force your way through
• 1 Like

  FindingSage Alum Member ⭐

  August 2020 2042 karma

  Once I got the hang of the 80’s they became easier and yes I also always try to predict the answer. I remember getting a weaning question wrong that once I saw it blind review I was literally laughing because it was a simple reading error. I had a 100% accuracy level on weakening questions for the previous 5 tests but I wasn’t reading closely and missed an easy question because of it. I will use formal logic if I need to do but I take many entire sections of LR without writing a thing down so in that sense once I adapted to making sure to read closely the 80’s became easier. Those tests are harder for some because they are trapping speed readers and also people who like to diagram everything out. Some of these arguments don’t lend themselves well to being diagrammed in formal logic because they have nuances in them that aren’t conducive to being diagramed.