I have been using analytics to try and determine where my weak points are with regards to question types but I have noticed that tricky stimuli seem to trip me up more than the actual question type. Analytics claim that ...
For LR, you've got to focus ... actual LSAT: accepting the stimulus as true based on the ... I wouldn't read the LRstimulus more than twice generally, ... as you read the stimulus. It's a mechanical ...
... use to tackle LG and LR questions are relevant to being ... to approach the section. In LR, we know how to ... RC passage like a large LRstimulus. In the case of RC ... on the argument in an LR question is the exact ... the same way I review LR passages. I pinpoint what ...
... RC... It's more an LR/LG tool. As for the ... that LSAT writers put in LRstimulus to distract you. If conditional ... at work in the stimulus and AC of LR questions.
... comfort in knowing that the LR is very similar to reading ... comp and getting better at LR will automatically improve your RC ... the way in which each LRstimulus is like a terrible RC ...
... missed questions per LR section to "misreading" the stimulus. It seems ... read things incorrectly in the stimulus. Something should happen where ... a mistake in reading an LRstimulus. Skip it fast come ... have this issue on some stimulus. I sometimes still read ...
... difficult the argument in the stimulus feels to you but not ... not all of the stimulus you encounter in LR are cookie cutter ... cutter patterns that occur in LRstimulus. So stay tuned.
I recall in a PT either late 60s or early 70s where a LRstimulus used the word psychic to indicate a strong bond between people, not the common sense definition of being able to read someone's mind.