Discussion of Question Types that work best with Pre-Phrasing

Comments

• blanklaw Member

  November 2022 490 karma

  I would put Sufficient Assumption also on that list -- especially when it uses conditional logic
• Matt Sorr Alum Member ⭐

  November 2022 2245 karma

  I agree with most of these, though I think flaw can be a bit risky. That's not to say pre-phrasing isn't generally worth it; I'm sure for many, prephrasing helps even if you don't predict exactly what the answer is looking for. In my experience, however, some of the tougher flaw questions can sometimes pick up on a pretty nuanced part of the argument that I likely didn't pay attention to during my first pass. As a result, I often don't prephrase flaw questions later in the LR section because I don't want to erroneously cross out the correct AC.
• 1 Like

  Cant Get Right Yearly + Live Member Sage ⭐ 🍌 7Sage Tutor

  November 2022 27900 karma

  None of them.

  It saves very little time when it works, and it can be really time-consuming when it doesn’t. Assuming strong fundamentals, it’s also just not as accurate as the alternative. (And assuming weak fundamentals, it won't help you anyway.)

  If you understand the stimulus well enough to have a legitimate basis to think you know what the answer is likely to be, that’s great. If the answer is what you think it is, you should know it when you see it whether you pre-phrased or not. When it works then, you gain very little. If it’s something other than what you think it is—and it will often be just that—now your positioning on the question is in trouble if you’ve solidified your expectations with a pre-phrase. Worse, the test writers are well aware of what the most likely pre-phrases are, so it is a very vulnerable procedure when the test writers exploit it, which they frequently do.

  There are things incidental to pre-phrasing procedures which are valuable, and it’s important to highlight those. The main benefit is that you aren’t actively resolving every AC into absolute correct or incorrect determinations. This is really important. I have five classifications, rather than determinations, for AC’s—correct, contender, no clue, counter-contender, and incorrect—and I never go deeper than those initial assessments until I’ve seen the other AC’s and it’s clear that (1) additional work is necessary, (2) I know exactly what that work is, (3) I’m confident that work will meaningfully improve my probability of getting the correct answer, and (4) I’m confident I can do the work in an amount of time which is worth the added value. If any one of those factors fails, I move on immediately.

  To whatever extent pre-phrasing strategies work, it is coincidental to breaking the need to definitively resolve every answer choice as either right or wrong. “No clue” or “maybe” or “I really don’t want to deal with this if I can avoid it” are perfectly okay assessments and are often all that is needed.

  But none of this has anything to do with having a pre-phrase. Flaw questions serve as the best example. You can think the argument is valid for all I care. If your fundamentals are sound, the correct answer should clue you in on what’s wrong. The best testers don't solve the question to find the answer. We could. But we opt not too as a matter of efficiency. Rather, we find the answer which solves the question for us. A pre-phrase is completely unnecessary and is far more likely to misguide than to benefit.

  So let the AC’s prompt you. That is the single most exploitable feature of the multiple choice format. No matter how clever a question they’ve constructed, they’ve got to provide the answer. They just give it to you. It’s right there, waiting to be understood, offering up clarity on the stimulus. The answers, if you exploit this weakness effectively, give themselves up. Pre-phrase strategies not only fail to attack the test at its weakest point, but they transform that advantage into a disadvantage.