Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- 33.4K All Categories
- 28.1K LSAT
- 17.1K General
- 5.2K Logical Reasoning
- 1.4K Reading Comprehension
- 1.7K Logic Games
- 70 Podcasts
- 191 Webinars
- 11 Scholarships
- 194 Test Center Reviews
- 2.2K Study Groups
- 112 Study Guides/Cheat Sheets
- 2.5K Specific LSAT Dates
- 31 November 2024 LSAT
- 18 October 2024 LSAT
- 9 September 2024 LSAT
- 38 August 2024 LSAT
- 28 June 2024 LSAT
- 4 April 2024 LSAT
- 11 February 2024 LSAT
- 22 January 2024 LSAT
- 38 November 2023 LSAT
- 43 October 2023 LSAT
- 14 September 2023 LSAT
- 38 August 2023 LSAT
- 27 June 2023 LSAT
- 30 Sage Advice
- 5K Not LSAT
- 4K Law School Admissions
- 13 Law School Explained
- 10 Forum Rules
- 641 Technical Problems
- 286 Off-topic
Related Discussions
Name the trickiest LR tactic used by test writers!
NotMyName
Alum Member Sage ⭐
This could be anything from the subtle way an assumption is introduced in the stimulus to a misleading QS. I'll give two:
1) The Bait 'n Switch assumption. Most of the stimulus/premises will be talking about A, but the conclusion is B or AB (overreaching conclusion). https://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-33-section-3-question-24/
2) The Extra Baggage Dual Speaker. Many times when there is a dual speaker, you are asked to consider both speakers to solve the question like "How do they agree or disagree" or "what is Bob's best response". But sometimes, not only is it unecessary to read the second speaker, but it may actually obfuscate your task. In this case they may give you two speakers but ask you to strengthen/weaken the first speaker's argument... no need for the second speaker at all! https://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-28-section-3-question-06/
Comments
@jkatz1488 your first one is something used quite often and something really important to be attuned to. The slide between something in the premise vs. another thing in the conclusion is often so subtle that it is difficult to see.
Not necessarily the biggest: Flaw Questions that incorporate two flaw, only one (the major flaw you have to attack) being the flaw tying in support and the conclusion.
I find that the hardest questions are those that have 4 very attractive wrong answer choices and one atrociously worded, but still technically correct, correct answer choice. The stimulus is usually pretty straightforward, but the answer choices sink up a bunch of time. What is particularly hard is that I have a terrible time letting the question go. I sink 3 minutes into them and still get them wrong. It's one thing to get a super hard question but let it go after 30-40 seconds, but those questions that seem like they are going to be easy and end up killing you with the wrong answer choices, oh man those ones get me every time.
I thought that they did away with the 'Extra Baggage' type of question. I remember JY mentioning that in a video.
Darth Jurist, can't agree more on the 4 wrong AC, 1 barely right. I always move on with a bit of a cringe but can justify that the 4 others were even worse.
My personal distaste is for ambiguous referential phrasing. Sometimes the author will leave it ambiguous enough that it is easy to misattribute the reference. Usually this just ends up being a time sink until I go, 'ohhhh' and notice where I strayed off path.
@danielznelson said:
Yeah I agree. I think the subset of this where the speaker makes a logical error in the premise but we have to assume it to be true is one the worst.
Also questions where the logic is so erroneous that I'm actually not so sure what's going on
what @danielznelson said. I always fail to anticipate correct answer doing a flaw question when i encounter multiple flaws. Usually i just get attached to first flaw i notice and sink the question. Pretty evil of LSAC!!!!
@Mo Zubair Sounds like Weakening and Necessary Assumption questions where there are like a hundred potential errors and assumptions an argument can make, and it's difficult to anticipate which one the LSAT will choose. But at least for Flaw and Necessary Assumption, there are tests you can apply to help (For Flaw you can check to see if 1. the answer is descriptively accurate and 2. whether it identifies the main flaw and for Necessary Assumption you can deny the answer choice to see if the argument still stands). Really wish there was something like that for Weakening questions.
For me, it's when there's an assumption that is so obvious, we don't realize it isn't actually stated. So something along the lines of:
If we let students use cell phones to look up information during tests, there will be no reason for them to learn and retain vital information. Every test would essentially be turned into an open book test.
The missing assumption is that if a test is open book, there is no reason for a student to learn and retain vital information. This may seem to follow so naturally that we miss the fact that it's not there. This example is actually really conspicuous compared to some of the questions I've seen. If you add in a bunch of fluff and obscure it all with some overly complicated grammatical structures, these can become really challenging.
Those NA questions suck super hard because the assumption is so basically necessary it almost seems irrelevant.
Cool thread. I would like to make a contribution by asking some questions.
Suppose I claim that all swans are white. I offer this evidence. Every non-white thing I saw in my garage yesterday was not a swan. Does that in any way support my claim?
Or how about this. I think all my friend's stock investments will fail this year because none of the investments he made last year that succeeded were stock investments. Does that support my claim?
Or this. I think my car is more likely to break down than my friend's car. His car is a Toyota, mine is a VW, and more than half of the cars that break down in my city are German cars.
The truth is that standard Confirmation Theory, the academic analysis of evidence, says all of these kinds of evidence actually do support those claims to some extent. Puzzling at first, yes, but nevertheless true.
It is abundantly clear to me that LSAC does not follow the literature on evidence. I've seen stuff like that all over LR in answer choices that are intended to be obviously wrong in weaken/strengthen problems. Luckily, they usually pale in comparison to the intended choices, but sometimes I get stuck asking myself whether I should think more about evidence or more about LSAC's methods when I'm doing a section.
That's what I find trickiest about it.
@Q.E.D , This is exactly why they add the "most" haha!
Hey @"Cant Get Right". Yeah, I have to give the writers their due. They're crafty. Listen, thanks for hanging around and helping us out. Your voice on this forum definitely contributed to my preparation. There's nothing like the experience of someone who went through it and came out on top.
Thanks @Q.E.D ! Your knowledge of formal logic has always added a great perspective, and I always love opening a thread to see you've provided some input!
@DumbHollywoodActor found this comment of yours and felt it was a good addition to this thread. If you have any others, please do share! Also, "premise booster" seems like it would be the correct AC in a MSS question.
"A premise booster is...a typical wrong answer choice...that seems to puff up the power of a premise but has very little to do with the conclusion."
https://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-29-section-4-question-20/