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
- 193 Webinars
- 12 Scholarships
- 194 Test Center Reviews
- 2.2K Study Groups
- 111 Study Guides/Cheat Sheets
- 2.5K Specific LSAT Dates
- 30 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
- 636 Technical Problems
- 286 Off-topic
Related Discussions
What is your method of mastering LR?
TexAgAaron
Alum Member
LR is by far and away the section I struggle with the most. Some question types I have no issue with but there are others (NA, Flaw mainly) that just blow me out of the water sometimes.
My question is, what is your method of studying for LR in general? How do you break things down to better understand question types? I'm starting to see how answering "why" is so important and I want to be more effective with my study time. I typically have used the problem sets and mixed timed and un-timed individual questions and tried to break them down, along with watching J.Y.'s videos. However, I just don't know if this is effective or not.
So what do you all say? What is your weapon (strategy) of choice when it comes to general LR studying?
Comments
It appears like your method of practice/drilling looks pretty good.
My weapon of choice was first learning all the fundamentals for LR -- that just meant learning what I'm looking for in each correct answer choice / stimulus.
I then learned to weed through the excess verbiage in the stimulus and focus on identifying the conclusion first, then the reasoning, and figuring out why the premises do not completely substantiate the conclusion. I got really good at this by re-doing problem sets and drills a bunch of times. After the first time around I would then turn my focus to the process just as much as trying to find the right answer. Once I was able to do this pretty automatically I got much better at LR!
For LR it is also very important that when your BR you try to figure out what you did wrong and how you're going to fix it from happening again in the future. Try to take notes when reviewing a section and try to make little rules or things to remember next time to ensure you don't make the same mistakes more than once.
Let me preface this by saying that I am in no way a master at LR, BUT one thing that has helped me immensely is truly understanding what is happening in the stimulus. By that I mean understanding the relationship between the premise(s) and conclusion on a deeper level. In the beginning, I would rush through the stim with a superficial understanding of what was happening in order to get to the answer choices as quickly as possible. Doing so resulted in having to return to the stimulus a number of times when attempting to eliminate ACs. Since implementing this strategy, I have been able to eliminate wrong ACs and arrive at correct ones more efficiently.
@"Alex Divine" So you do not mess with the premises first but rather the conclusion?
@Freddy_D That is literally me right now haha. I know one of my biggest issues is going through the stimulus carefully and gaining an exceptional understanding so I only have to read it once. I typically, probably due to stress and nerves, have a hard time putting the picture together under timed conditions. I mark up the stimulus and label but for some reason still either miss a link or can't quickly put the pieces together.
It depends on how the question is written but I think for me the important thing is seeing the entire argument core (premises + conclusion) and understanding how those premises are supporting the conclusion.
On assumption questions I know the premises are going to have a gap in the reasoning. The premises aren't going to fully support the argument made in the stim. So I'm just on the hunt for the argument core and then trying to find the gap, for example.
What I have done for LR, particularly with Flaw and NA questions is as follows.
For NA questions I did this;
FOR CORRECT ANSWERS:
FOR INCORRECT ANSWERS:
For Flaw questions;
FOR CORRECT ANSWERS:
FOR INCORRECT ANSWERS:
This is a very slow process, but it has helped me with these types of questions a lot. Especially NA questions, being able to see negation of the argument is a KEY to destroying this question type.
@"Alex Divine" Ah I see what you mean now. Yes, my success rate has gone up when I have shown discipline and marked up my stimulus and focused on the core parts. Not super consistent yet but I have seen the benefits.
@LSATcantwin I really like that strategy. I have hurt myself many times because I couldn't quickly ID the negation of the AC. I think I will give your strategy a shot because it would really force me to understand what I am doing. Do you time yourself when doing the 5 questions and then is that review part, a part of your blind review?
Yes I time myself whenever I am doing questions. I personally feel that I need to always incorporate time to keep me on my feet. That way it always feels as close to test day conditions as possible.
I then do blind review as suggested by 7Sage
THEN do the method I have stated here. Like I said, its a long process but it has paid off for me.
Gotcha. Under timed conditions, after a while did it just start clicking for you after a while when it came to recognizing the negations?
Yes, after doing this it actually felt like I jumped over the wall that had been blocking me. My speed in LR as a whole increased because I was more effectively eliminating the wrong answers and spotting the correct answer. It's still not always 100% clear how a negation hits the argument, but when I can work the possible correct answer down to 1-2 choices the negation helps me see which has the potential to impact the argument at all.
@LSATcantwin Awesome! That is extremely encouraging! I'll give it a go! Thanks again!!!
Is there a list of all the NA questions from every test that I can find somewhere?
I don't think every test, but there are 21 Drills for them in the Core Curriculum. Each drill contains about 5 questions. I used these
Looks like you've gotten some really good advice above so I'll try not to repeat. I've noticed with flaw questions in particular that the flaw can sometimes be 'concealed'. I mean, sometimes you'll read something and it seems totally fine and then you see it's a flaw question and you're like why??
For example: A child cannot have a social healthy social life if they don't spend sufficient time outside playing with their friends. Joey plays videos games at least 5 hours a week so he doesn't have a healthy social life.
Flaw: Asserts that because one spend 5 hours with another activity that they necessarily do not spend enough time outside playing with their friends without justification.
Did you get that? It's a little bit more subtle and you kind of have to be on your toes to catch it. If you are, this problem should be cake. Sometimes you just have to get used to reading the material.
@fmihalic2 I caught that example. I'm familiar with many of the flaw types, but as you said due to the subtle nature of them it is hard to pick up sometimes, especially under timed conditions. I'm getting better but its a process as you probably know.
It won't be every test because you have the Starter package, but you should definitely utilize the question bank for more specific drilling by question type. Type in "NA" in the search box and have at at!
@akeegs92 thanks for starting this thread. I've found it helpful.
I'd agree with @"Alex Divine" about getting the conclusion right. Sometimes when I'm listening to J.Y.'s explanations for wrong answers, they seem inconsequential. i.e.
A) cats drink milk,
J.Y.: "who cares?"
A)).However, what I've found is that a lot of answers choices seem exactly that irrelevant when I accurately understand the conclusion and what the question stem wants me to do to it. Understanding the conclusion helps me eliminate wrong answers much more confidently and quickly.