Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Sign In Apply for Membership

Categories

PSA strategy

FiestaNextDoorFiestaNextDoor Alum Member
in Logical Reasoning 127 karma

Hey guys! Fiesta here again.

So I have come across some points of confusion with PSA question types on my last PT runs. Usually, I found success with PSA questions by thinking about them like SA questions. Find the conditional that triggers P and concludes C. However, there have been a couple PSA questions that I have had trouble with because they do not fit this mold (68.2.5/68.2.13/68.2.16). I can't remember the specific video, but J.Y mentioned that PSA questions can be treated like STRENGTHEN questions under certain circumstances. I can see how that is helpful, but I was wondering what tactics yall have for attacking these PSA types that do not conform to the usual SA structure?

Show Related Discussions

Comments

  • jurisprudentjurisprudent Alum Member
    edited October 2017 326 karma

    I try to focus on these questions through a more intuitive approach. Especially for the newer tests, the LSAT seems to punish mechanical thinking such as blindly applying P --> C formulas and the like.

    That said, I conceptually approach them as I would an SA but with a little bit more leeway, or a strengthening question with a bigger burden. What I mean by that is that PSA falls between strengthening and SA on the spectrum. So it needs to do more than simply strengthen, push it towards validity, but not entirely so that it bridges the gap completely like an SA.

    As for tactic, I try and look for what is missing in the premise/conclusion relationship. Is there an unstated assumption? Is there a gap in between the premises? (Note: some SAs are a bridge between premise 1 and premise 2 and not necessarily from premise to conclusion) What is the flaw and how can I fix it? Usually the correct answer answers one of these three questions.

Sign In or Register to comment.