Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- 32.6K All Categories
- 27.5K LSAT
- 16.7K 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
- 109 Study Guides/Cheat Sheets
- 2.5K Specific LSAT Dates
- 28 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
- 20 August 2024 LSAT
- 30 Sage Advice
- 4.9K Not LSAT
- 4K Law School Admissions
- 13 Law School Explained
- 10 Forum Rules
- 599 Technical Problems
- 277 Off-topic
Related Discussions
Method of attack for NA questions
TheDeterminedC
Member
I have recently spent a ton of time perfecting flaw questions and I have improved immensely on them. For most questions, I can adequately predict, articulate, and attract out the flaw into an AC. For some odd reason though, all of this work on flaw questions has drastically made my NA accuracy and also my understanding of them, decease. This is a bit alarming, as I have done a tremendous amount of them already.
At the moment, I just feel lost when I am answering a NA question type. I went back through the CC and refreshed my knowledge on blocking and bridging types. But even after this, I almost never can guess the nessesary assumption, regardless of the difficulty.
I can very much see how NA and flaw are related. Because of this, I was wondering if anyone who does well on NAs treats them like a flaw question when it comes to identifying the gap. But then the difference between the two would happen in the answer choices. I.E.- flaw (describe the flaw) and NA (go a bit more concrete and bridge the flaw into the argument or block the cantropositive of it).
I made this post specifically because, although NA questions aren't necessarily new to me, I feel as if there is a tiny wall that is preventing me from this "ah ha" moment and I just don't see it yet.
Any advice on how to view a NA question type would be great. Thanks!
Comments
I would say I treat flaw and NA questions similar in that I look for the gap between the premise and conclusion. if there are term shifts, make note of that and try to connect it to the conclusion or supporting statement. If it's not bridging, then still pay attention to the P --> C structure, as the AC will in fact be something needed for that structure.
Just always pay attention to the P and C structure. It comes with practice I guess, but what I've found is that a lot of NA questions also have right AC's that are weak sounding. This isn't always the case, but I've found that this has helped me on a bunch of NA questions.
What I personally did for improvement on NA was;
1.) buy a notebook
2.) Write out the conclusion
3.) Write out the support
4.) Write out a gap I noticed
5.) Write out each AC and negate it
6.) Explain how Negated AC affected the argument (not at all or destroyed)
7.) White a brief explanation of how the correct answer ripped the argument apart.
This helped me learn what to expect on NA questions. I saw the kind of tricks they would play with AC. I saw how a SA in the answer choice DIDN'T mean it was a necessary assumption. I saw how they tried to make it seem like an AC impacted the argument when it did nothing to it.
All this worked made it so on NA I feel like I know what to expect. I love these questions usually. the only time they get me is if I don't understand the Stimulus. These typically are harder questions and require more work to solve for me.
Hope this helps a bit
@TheMikey I am happy to hear that is the way you go about these questions as well. Question: Have you seen a trend of the 'weak' answer choices being used on the more difficult questions? J.Y. has stressed this structure throughout the whole curriculum and I think my neglect of it has come to haunt me.
Thanks for your help.
@LSATcantwin I absolutely love your method. I am breaking out my notebook as we speak. Possibly breaking this question type down to its bare bones might help me uncover some deep understanding I have not previously seen. I am glad you at a high enough understanding to be able to predict the NA and I appreciate your response. The LSAT can't win!!!
Quick question @LSATcantwin do you use this method in blind review? Maybe for any other question types?
it really really depends. I think there are cases where the weak sounding AC in a hard question is right, but typically I think for harder NA questions you will find them screwing with you with the right AC instead of having something simple like a weak AC that connects the P and C.
That's how I think of it though. NA questions I always look for something weak but keep an open mind.
This sounds like solid approach to eliminate the really wrong answer choices quickly too. Thank you!!
@TheDeterminedC I actually use this method fairly often for most questions I get wrong. It becomes evident fairly quickly that;
1.) You didn't really understand the argument - you answered with a slight variation of the conclusion in mind and this killed you.
2.) You had the conclusion right but you didn't understand the support that was being offered.
3.) You zoned out, the question looks brand new.
It also really helps you identify what the test writers are doing with their trick answers since it forces you to engage with them.
I am going to start using this for BR on hard questions. I'll have an update for you in the next few weeks. Again, thank you so much! @LSATcantwin
Hey -- NA questions are the most difficult for me, but my "ah ha" moments increased when I started thinking about them as MBT questions. If the stimulus is to be true and the argument valid, the correct answer must be true, that's why it's necessary. And that's also why the negation test works. This thinking also helps me rule sufficient assumptions.