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
- 17K 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
- 29 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
Any Suggestions for Becoming Better at LR?
Harrison_Pav
Alum Member
So I've taken about 6 full PT and a few more timed LR sections, and I seem to not being getting too much better at LR. Currently I'm getting about -10 per section and really would like to be getting -2 or -3. When I BR I get nearly all of the questions right. I have a skipping method, but I was curious if there were any other fixes, or if it was just something that comes with time, patience and practice?
Comments
record yourself and distinguish which questions you are slow on. David did this to identify which question he was going slow on then focused on those. He mentions it on the webinars "89 point increase" and i forgot the other one.
Well I know for certain Necessary Assumption, and Flaw/Descriptive Method of Reasoning are my weakest questions. I guess than at this point I should drill those, or any other suggestions?
How do you blind review? This is where you should be analyzing which questions you are having trouble with and why.
If you have 6 full PTs and a few more sections make sure you are utilizing the analytics feature which will let you know which question types you are weak on. Return to the CC and review the lessons for those question types and drill those question types afterwards.
If you can get them all correct during BR, that is a very good sign. Are you feeling rushed and running out of time?
I always feel rushed and out of time... lol
I definitely know NA and Flaw are worst question types. The way I BR is by taking the test and circling the ones I don't feel 100% on (like wrong answers and everything 100%) than the next day I look at the ones I circled and review them by putting why reasoning for why AC's are wrong and right.
Haha! I feel you, dude. That's me on hard RC passages -- never enough time!
Well, the first thing I will recommend is doing BR with a clean copy of your test. This way you aren't fighting against your ego when you get to the circled ones.
Also I would suggest really scrutinizing your thought process when you're doing BR. See if maybe there is a more effective and efficient way to approach the questions that are taking longer or getting incorrect. I also try to write a maxim or two for the questions I get wrong. This way I am forcing myself to reflect on what I can do going forward to do my best not to make the same mistakes. They are also useful to review before taking another PT/timed section.
That idea for BRing with a clean copy is great. Seems similar to foolproofing LG. Thanks for the advice!
I just finished my initial run through of the Cambridge LR Flaw pkg. I will make my second run through and break down each question that I missed. Even though I reviewed it while going through the pkg I want to see if I'm retaining what I'm learning. In the meantime I've moved on to the NA pkg and I have to tell you that it feels like the LSAT Gods are having mercy on me because I'm whipping through that thang! NA was always problematic for me but I'm amazed by how "easy" they seem now. I had some extra copies from whenever so I used those instead of printing the pkg again. I had no idea I was working on the 4th section, the hardest section! I think the 2-3 weeks I spent on nothing but flaws has helped tremendously. I'm not sure if you have enough PT to get an adequate reading from your analysis but it looks like you know your foundation is weak for flaws and NA so I would stop and thoroughly drill before hitting more PT. Once you're comfortable return to PT so that you can build your analytics and then repeat for any other weaknesses revealed.
@"Harrison Pavlasek"
Have you memorized all of the main types of flaws? Your trouble with NA and Flaw questions suggests to me that maybe you're reading WITH the argument as opposed to reading to pick it apart. Let me expound...
When I read the stimulus, I'm looking for anything that I could say to discredit the argument. By the end of the stimulus, I usually have the answer choice in my head for NA questions. This happens a lot with flaws too but a bit less. Flaws are usually just missing an element.
Are there any particular types of flaws that you have trouble finding? Since these two question types are very prevalent, you could probably get into the -5 range if you really mastered them.
As for the time, worry about mastering your identification of premises and conclusions and assessing the arguments as you read them and time will eventually become a non-factor.
@fmihalic2
Usually when I read the stimulus I unfortunately, subconsciously, give the author the benefit of the doubt, which I know cannot be a good thing. I would say the flaws I'm missing the most are the more obscure ones. I can generally pick out the classic ones like circular reasoning, and sufficiency necessity, but again the more obscure ones give me the most trouble. I really do need to sit down for a week or two and just mater them.