Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- 32.5K All Categories
- 27.4K LSAT
- 16.6K General
- 5.1K Logical Reasoning
- 1.3K Reading Comprehension
- 1.7K Logic Games
- 73 Podcasts
- 193 Webinars
- 9 Scholarships
- 193 Test Center Reviews
- 2K Study Groups
- 108 Study Guides/Cheat Sheets
- 2.5K Specific LSAT Dates
- 26 June 2024 LSAT
- 3 April 2024 LSAT
- 11 February 2024 LSAT
- 23 January 2024 LSAT
- 37 November 2023 LSAT
- 42 October 2023 LSAT
- 12 September 2023 LSAT
- 38 August 2023 LSAT
- 27 June 2023 LSAT
- 13 August 2024 LSAT
- 30 Sage Advice
- 4.9K Not LSAT
- 4K Law School Admissions
- 13 Law School Explained
- 10 Forum Rules
- 594 Technical Problems
- 282 Off-topic
Related Discussions
Method for tackling LR
dhnh1234
Core Member
So I've compiled a very thorough list of all of the LR problems that I've missed or struggled mightily with on previous PTs, and have gone over them again by doing them as if they were real LR sections - doing 26-27 problems at a time in 35 minutes. I'm still missing anywhere from 2-5 of them each "section." These are the problems I now see that I truly struggle with. I was wondering what's the best way to tackle these problems going forward?
I currently approach problems first by identifying the structure and conclusion of the argument if there is one, looking for key words and phrases (e.g. "some people"; "minimal risk"), and tricky/subtle changes in subject (e.g. premise discusses mammals but conclusion mentions marine reptiles).
When I compiled the list, I made sure to look for trends in the types of questions I was missing (necessary assumption, weaken, etc.) But how can I hone this strategy to the few problems I missed again? I feel like there are specific and various tricks employed within each question type.
Tips & advice welcome, thanks in advance.
Comments
I feel like I need a little more detail on your end so I can help you a bit better. What issues are you running into with necessary assumption and weaken questions?
These questions types -- like many of the different Q types on the LSAT -- share many commonalities that may account for your trouble with each. How are you at finding gaps/assumptions in the reasoning of arguments?
These lessons/articles written by JY Ping (instructor/founder of 7Sage) will be more helpful than anything I can write. But feel free to ask if you have any other specific questions with regard to NA and Weaken questions.
How to approach NA questions:
https://7sage.com/approach-necessary-assumption-questions/
How to approach Weaken Questions:
https://7sage.com/weaken-lsat-arguments/
If you're having issues with certain questions types feel free to do some untimed drilling as well. If you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how to successfully solve these questions, then adding on timed pressure won't help at all. I always recommend timing yourself, so use a stopwatch to keep track of time, push the pace, but don't be so beholden to time that you're sacrificing accuracy for the sake of it.
For the question types that you are missing, are they typically the more difficult level ones or is it because of the actual Q type?
In my opinion there are two main reasons we tend to miss a question. One, we might not have seen the logical structure/flaw of the argument. Two, we might be so into the logic that we miss the grammar and the subtleties of that stimulus.
First, its really helpful to determine why you missed a certain question. If it was the underlying logic you didn't recognize that just means you havn't been exposed to that certain argument. The good news is that now you are exposed. To get yourself better at seeing the argument in the future try to draw parallel argument and make sure you understand how that argument works. That means what is the flaw of the argument, how you can strengthen and weaken that argument, what are possible necessary assumptions for that argument and if possible what an answer choice will need to have to sufficiently guarantee that conclusion. In other words, even though the question you missed was only asking you a certain question, make sure you know the logical side of the argument so well that you can perform different operations on that question. Also, doing this on your own parallel argument puts you in the mindset of the LSAT writers and this will give you speed in similar future arguments.
For issue number two, where you were so into logic that you missed the subtleties, one of the solution is actually pretty similar. When you are not reading an argument for all its subtleties because you are so focused on the logical side it could be because you were not comfortable with the logical structure of the argument. So drawing parallel arguments could be immensely helpful. The other solution is doing drills where you force yourself to just read and not worry or be focused on the logical side of the argument. This can get you away from always trying to read for logic and missing out on the subtleties.
The third reason you could be missing could be based on how you distribute your time. But I didn't see that as an issue you raised in your post. So hopefully what I wrote above is helpful to you.
@Sami Thanks! That's really helpful. You're right that time hasn't been an issue for me, but I think I definitely have been making more of the second type of error - whereas when I first started studying, most of my errors were because I didn't understand the underlying logic. I appreciate yours suggestions and will give them a try.
@TheMikey I believe it's a little bit of both. To be specific, I'm currently missing the most difficult NA and weaken questions, sometimes flaw questions as well. Those are pretty much the only types of problems I still struggle with - but even then, only the most difficult ones throw me.
I'm have repeatedly reviewed the strategy to tackle these kinds of questions from PowerScore and 7Sage, so I feel like there must be something I'm missing in practice.
@"Alex Divine" Thanks for your reply. I'm still struggling with the most difficult NA and weaken questions. I would say I'm pretty good at bridging the gap but...to give an example, in an NA question I recently did, the answer I picked was the wrong one because it failed to address both parts of the conclusion and only really addressed one. The correct was obviously the one that addressed both parts of the conclusion. For a lot of these most difficult questions, I'm getting "tricked" into picking the wrong answer between the last two choices, one of which is correct.
That being said, I am getting a lot of my previously incorrect problems correct now and truly understand the reasoning. I just feel that time pressure and reading quickly reduces my accuracy - I find that missing one or two important key words can throw off your entire answer.
No problem
. I have been there. After a certain point in prep, when I wanted to switch from 160's to 170's, it was essential to make a change in how I read LSAT stimulus. At the beginning of my prep I needed to focus on the logical side because I was so unfamiliar with it. But after that in order to score higher I needed to start focusing on grammar. For me that meant I had to start reading LSAT stimulus differently than I had been before.