Geek thread - Manhattan LSAT Q & A

Special forum where professionals are encouraged to help law school applicants, students, and graduates.
roranoa
Posts: 588
Joined: Sat Aug 22, 2009 11:18 am

Re: Geek thread - Manhattan LSAT Q & A

Postby roranoa » Thu Nov 22, 2012 1:56 am

I have trouble with RC but especially with those Analogy questions where they ask you the find the most analogous situation described in the passage.

How do I get better at that? You see, most of the time I would either misunderstand what the analogy would be or I wouldn't be able to find the difference between answer choices.

Help?

User avatar
matt@manhattanlsat
Posts: 36
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2010 6:58 pm

Re: Geek thread - Manhattan LSAT Q & A

Postby matt@manhattanlsat » Sat Nov 24, 2012 8:14 pm

Those are tough, especially if you're still developing your proficiency with abstraction. Abstraction is the skill of being able to talk about the issue at hand without discussing any of the actual content, but rather the purpose of some information or relationship of that information to other information.

Think of Function/Role, Procedure, and ID Flaw questions in LR. All of these questions ask you to abstract from the given content into either the purpose of that information or the relationship between some information and other information.

In RC, start working on this skill with what we call the Passage Map. We're really focused on leaving the passage with a good understanding of two things - the important content and the purpose of that content in the passage. If you haven't checked out our RC Strategy Guide, you can get an in-depth discussion and practice on these skills there. The gist of it is to track the arguments being presented, the proponents of those arguments, and the evidence used to support those arguments - that's the important content. Then describe (without referring to that content) the purpose of that information - that's the passage map.

Over time, you'll get better at describing things in an abstract way. You can check your improvement with questions that ask you to describe the organization of the passage. Once you feel you've got the ability to describe abstractly, you should find it easier to describe the relationship between two pieces of information. Try using your own analogy before comparing it to the answer choices. The one you come up with might be simpler, but that should give you a good starting point. Then if more than one answer choice looks to have a similar relationship, look for any additional level of complexity (added nuance) that might distinguish the two answers from each and compare them to the original analogous relationship.

Hope that helps and good luck!

User avatar
Manhattan LSAT Noah
Posts: 746
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2010 8:43 am

Re: Geek thread - Manhattan LSAT Q & A

Postby Manhattan LSAT Noah » Mon Nov 26, 2012 12:24 pm

Fianna13 wrote:Is there an E-book version of the 3rd edition LG? I only found the 2nd edition e-book version on the website... and where do we put the promotion code to receive the discount :D ?

This should be available by the end of this week. Thanks for your patience.

User avatar
BlaqBella
Posts: 869
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 9:41 am

Re: Geek thread - Manhattan LSAT Q & A

Postby BlaqBella » Wed Nov 28, 2012 11:26 am

Matt, Noah, my question is two-fold.

I've identified two types of principle questions and want to know if I am correct in this approach:

1. Those that apply a principle (you are given a principle and you need to apply it to a scenario). I call this applied principle; and

2. Those where you have a argument and you need to support it with some general application (or principle, if you will). I call this principle support.


And my second question: how does principle support questions differ from justify/paradox questions? Or for that matter a strengthen question?? Are these not overlapping in question type identification?

User avatar
Manhattan LSAT Noah
Posts: 746
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2010 8:43 am

Re: Geek thread - Manhattan LSAT Q & A

Postby Manhattan LSAT Noah » Wed Nov 28, 2012 12:16 pm

BlaqBella wrote:Matt, Noah, my question is two-fold.

I've identified two types of principle questions and want to know if I am correct in this approach:

1. Those that apply a principle (you are given a principle and you need to apply it to a scenario). I call this applied principle; and

2. Those where you have a argument and you need to support it with some general application (or principle, if you will). I call this principle support.


And my second question: how does principle support questions differ from justify/paradox questions? Or for that matter a strengthen question?? Are these not overlapping in question type identification?

Thanks for asking. I think looking for connections between types is a great undertaking. There's a tendency to focus on the differences between question types, but I think there's a lot of strength in figuring out how things are related.

We call what you're talking about "principle example" and "principle support." The first kind is not in the assumption family, and is a type of matching question as you are matching the principle to the phenomenon. The second type of principle questions is a proud member of the assumption family (sort of an LSAT mafia), standing alongside--as you note---strengthen questions (as well as flaw, assumption, and weaken). As with all assumption family questions, there's a gap in the argument, and the answer will address it. It's a bit related to sufficient assumption questions in that the answer can be broader than the argument.

One could argue that there are some similarities between principle support and paradox questions ("explain a result" in our language) since you have to make the stimulus "work." However there's a big difference in how we define "working" in these two question types: in the assumption family, working means to support the idea that the conclusion follows logically (is "concludable") from the given premises. In explain a result questions, we're identifying a way that two phenomena can coexist, even though they seem to be at odds.

That clear it up?

User avatar
BlaqBella
Posts: 869
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 9:41 am

Re: Geek thread - Manhattan LSAT Q & A

Postby BlaqBella » Wed Nov 28, 2012 12:59 pm

Manhattan LSAT Noah wrote:
BlaqBella wrote:Matt, Noah, my question is two-fold.

I've identified two types of principle questions and want to know if I am correct in this approach:

1. Those that apply a principle (you are given a principle and you need to apply it to a scenario). I call this applied principle; and

2. Those where you have a argument and you need to support it with some general application (or principle, if you will). I call this principle support.


And my second question: how does principle support questions differ from justify/paradox questions? Or for that matter a strengthen question?? Are these not overlapping in question type identification?

Thanks for asking. I think looking for connections between types is a great undertaking. There's a tendency to focus on the differences between question types, but I think there's a lot of strength in figuring out how things are related.

We call what you're talking about "principle example" and "principle support." The first kind is not in the assumption family, and is a type of matching question as you are matching the principle to the phenomenon. The second type of principle questions is a proud member of the assumption family (sort of an LSAT mafia), standing alongside--as you note---strengthen questions (as well as flaw, assumption, and weaken). As with all assumption family questions, there's a gap in the argument, and the answer will address it. It's a bit related to sufficient assumption questions in that the answer can be broader than the argument.

One could argue that there are some similarities between principle support and paradox questions ("explain a result" in our language) since you have to make the stimulus "work." However there's a big difference in how we define "working" in these two question types: in the assumption family, working means to support the idea that the conclusion follows logically (is "concludable") from the given premises. In explain a result questions, we're identifying a way that two phenomena can coexist, even though they seem to be at odds.

That clear it up?



10000% clear as day! THANK YOU SOOO MUCH!

User avatar
BlaqBella
Posts: 869
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 9:41 am

Re: Geek thread - Manhattan LSAT Q & A

Postby BlaqBella » Wed Nov 28, 2012 2:16 pm

Noah, sorry for pestering this point, but I just have to ask:

PT63, Section 1, Q11

This question can be considered a justify the phenomena/explain a result/paradox. I do not consider this either a principle support or sufficient assumption because there is NO argument. Just a statement of facts (in this case, a decision).

But what I realize here is that we are approaching the question in the same direction as we would a question that is part of the assumption family - DOWN to UP (answer to stimulus). This is the first question type I have encountered where I take this approach but it is NOT for an argument.

In my attempt to simplify my approach to LR questions, would it be safe to say that justify the phenomena (not to be confused with justify the conclusion/sufficient assumption)/paradox/explain a result questions are in a category of their own (sort of like inference questions where we do not have an argument but we are approaching in the opposite direction (stimulus to answer)?

Thank you in advance!

User avatar
Manhattan LSAT Noah
Posts: 746
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2010 8:43 am

Re: Geek thread - Manhattan LSAT Q & A

Postby Manhattan LSAT Noah » Wed Nov 28, 2012 4:39 pm

BlaqBella wrote:Noah, sorry for pestering this point, but I just have to ask:

PT63, Section 1, Q11

This question can be considered a justify the phenomena/explain a result/paradox. I do not consider this either a principle support or sufficient assumption because there is NO argument. Just a statement of facts (in this case, a decision).

But what I realize here is that we are approaching the question in the same direction as we would a question that is part of the assumption family - DOWN to UP (answer to stimulus). This is the first question type I have encountered where I take this approach but it is NOT for an argument.

In my attempt to simplify my approach to LR questions, would it be safe to say that justify the phenomena (not to be confused with justify the conclusion/sufficient assumption)/paradox/explain a result questions are in a category of their own (sort of like inference questions where we do not have an argument but we are approaching in the opposite direction (stimulus to answer)?

Thank you in advance!

Nice catch! That is a bit of a category-bender. Let's dig into that a bit, but more importantly for you is that an LR question that doesn't fit into one category or another is rare, and, on balance are pretty easy (or, the difficulty is not because of the question format, but because of the usual reasons any LSAT question is tough). Your natural logic skills are stronger after X months of LSAT prep, so even when the test throws in a minor curve, I'm sure you'll be able to adjust. So, don't spend too much worry on things like this; it's moving fast and accurately through the standard questions and giving up (with an educated guess) on the "impossible" ones that will give you the space you need to battle it out with the tough-but-doable questions which tip your score toward the higher end of your range.

Anywho, back to that question--the stem is for an assumption family question, but it's really a principle example question. Which principle matches the scenario. As for whether we can say we'll always approach these stimulus to answer or vice versa, I see what you mean in that the answer to this question makes the stimulus "work." So, fire away!

And Meyer, you suck.

_crystal_m
Posts: 22
Joined: Wed Nov 28, 2012 6:39 pm

Re: Geek thread - Manhattan LSAT Q & A

Postby _crystal_m » Wed Nov 28, 2012 11:59 pm

I just ordered the 3rd Edition Trilogy off Amazon. Is there a way someone can send me the self study guide for mlsat? Im trying to get everything prepped before my books get here on Monday!

Thanks

User avatar
Manhattan LSAT Noah
Posts: 746
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2010 8:43 am

Re: Geek thread - Manhattan LSAT Q & A

Postby Manhattan LSAT Noah » Thu Nov 29, 2012 11:33 am

_crystal_m wrote:I just ordered the 3rd Edition Trilogy off Amazon. Is there a way someone can send me the self study guide for mlsat? Im trying to get everything prepped before my books get here on Monday!

Thanks

Sure. I just pm'ed you details

User avatar
arcanecircle
Posts: 128
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2012 12:33 am

Re: Geek thread - Manhattan LSAT Q & A

Postby arcanecircle » Sat Dec 08, 2012 5:15 pm

I was wondering where you'd stick Evaluate questions into the layout on your LR book. I might have missed it in the book since they're a very infrequent question type. Doing them I felt they were similar to the assumption-type questions and so I did them after finishing up flaws, NA/SAs, weakens/strengthens. It seems kind of similar to anticipating/identifying discrepancies in an argument, except you're looking for the AC in the form of a question.

User avatar
matt@manhattanlsat
Posts: 36
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2010 6:58 pm

Re: Geek thread - Manhattan LSAT Q & A

Postby matt@manhattanlsat » Sun Dec 09, 2012 1:57 pm

arcanecircle wrote:I was wondering where you'd stick Evaluate questions into the layout on your LR book. I might have missed it in the book since they're a very infrequent question type. Doing them I felt they were similar to the assumption-type questions and so I did them after finishing up flaws, NA/SAs, weakens/strengthens. It seems kind of similar to anticipating/identifying discrepancies in an argument, except you're looking for the AC in the form of a question.

These questions are extremely rare and we haven't seen one of them on the LSAT in 15 years - the most recent one I can remember is from December 1997.

That said we would place this task in the Assumption Family. The right answer asks a question directly related to an assumption of the argument. The answer to the question asked in the correct answer would either suggest that the assumption of the argument is true (would Strengthen the argument) or not true (would Weaken the argument). It's best on these questions to evaluate the Argument and find the assumption - the question will address whether the assumption is true.

User avatar
Fianna13
Posts: 297
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2011 1:05 am

Re: Geek thread - Manhattan LSAT Q & A

Postby Fianna13 » Thu Dec 27, 2012 5:04 pm

Geeks, I just bought the 2nd edition of the RC book and this one part is tripping me up. ON page 60, you said if a piece of text says most people prefer brand x over brand y, then you can infer

1 .most people do not prefer brand y
2. at least some people prefer brand y to brand x


my question is can you really infer those 2. for the 1st one, what if everyone still prefer brand y, its just relative to x, they prefer brand x more, but that doesn't mean they do not prefer y. and for the 2nd one, what if besides those who prefer x over y, then rest of them have no preferences between these two brands, so how can we infer the 2nd statement? Any help?

User avatar
matt@manhattanlsat
Posts: 36
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2010 6:58 pm

Re: Geek thread - Manhattan LSAT Q & A

Postby matt@manhattanlsat » Thu Dec 27, 2012 7:38 pm

Fianna13 wrote:my question is can you really infer those 2. for the 1st one, what if everyone still prefer brand y, its just relative to x, they prefer brand x more, but that doesn't mean they do not prefer y. and for the 2nd one, what if besides those who prefer x over y, then rest of them have no preferences between these two brands, so how can we infer the 2nd statement? Any help?

Great questions!

The first one is easier to address. The word "prefer" is by definition relative. So saying that "most people prefer brand Y" must be relative to brand X, given the context. And with the statement that "most people prefer brand X to brand Y," we can infer that "most people do not prefer brand Y to brand X."

To your second question. Reading Comprehension is typically a bit "fuzzier" than Logical Reasoning. We often see this in the language of the question stem. We're more likely to see questions that say, "which one of the following inferences is most supported in the passage?" As opposed to questions saying, "which one of the following can be inferred from the passage?" That gives the answer choice a little wiggle room. If the passage stated "most people prefer brand X to brand Y," while it need not be absolutely true, there is support for the claim that some people prefer brand Y to brand X. Otherwise, why wouldn't the author just say all people prefer brand X to brand Y?

But for the most part, you are absolutely right. If most X's are Y's, that does not mean that some X's are not Y's. I think you'll need to hold the LSAT to this strict logic much more so in LR than in RC. Hope that helps!

User avatar
crazyrobin
Posts: 442
Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2012 2:52 am

Re: Geek thread - Manhattan LSAT Q & A

Postby crazyrobin » Fri Dec 28, 2012 5:10 am

Hi Matt and Noah,

I have order both PS & Manhattan LR books, currently I have completed LRB with chapter 2,3,4 17, which are must be true/most strongly supported/CANNOT be true type of questions.

I was just wondering do you guys recommend some specific order on both books? Like do LRB first then Manhattan or vice versa. I intend to go with Manhattan after I complete LRB. Any suggestions?

BTW, I love your RC book :lol:

User avatar
matt@manhattanlsat
Posts: 36
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2010 6:58 pm

Re: Geek thread - Manhattan LSAT Q & A

Postby matt@manhattanlsat » Fri Dec 28, 2012 2:50 pm

Hi crazyrobin!

So glad to hear that you're finding the RC Strategy Guide helpful. I think you'll find the LR Strategy Guide just the same. We believe that the Manhattan Strategy Guides are great independent of other learning tools, so no, we do not recommend any particular order.

One thing that strikes me from your chapter descriptions is that the topics of the LR section are presented in a different order between the two books. If you intend to go through both, take them both on as collective wholes. Don't try to find the various topics in each book and work on them simultaneously.

Good luck and keep us posted on your progress!

Malapropism
Posts: 23
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2012 8:41 pm

Re: Geek thread - Manhattan LSAT Q & A

Postby Malapropism » Fri Dec 28, 2012 3:18 pm

crazyrobin wrote:Hi Matt and Noah,

I have order both PS & Manhattan LR books, currently I have completed LRB with chapter 2,3,4 17, which are must be true/most strongly supported/CANNOT be true type of questions.

I was just wondering do you guys recommend some specific order on both books? Like do LRB first then Manhattan or vice versa. I intend to go with Manhattan after I complete LRB. Any suggestions?

BTW, I love your RC book :lol:


I started with the PS books for LR and LG. After a number of PTs, I had my LG and RC sections down, but my LR would range from -0 to -5 (which is an uncomfortably large range, in my opinion). I've recently started working through the Manhattan LR book, and I absolutely find it useful. I think the PS books do a good job breaking down all the question types very specifically, while Manhattan kind of jumps more into it (question type by question type), so I do think the PS-then-Manhattan works well.

Personally, I think PS provides a good introduction to all the question types and would be really annoying to read through after Manhattan, but some of the approaches Manhattan provides have already helped me (and I am but a few chapters in).

User avatar
crazyrobin
Posts: 442
Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2012 2:52 am

Re: Geek thread - Manhattan LSAT Q & A

Postby crazyrobin » Sat Dec 29, 2012 6:41 am

matt@manhattanlsat wrote:Hi crazyrobin!

So glad to hear that you're finding the RC Strategy Guide helpful. I think you'll find the LR Strategy Guide just the same. We believe that the Manhattan Strategy Guides are great independent of other learning tools, so no, we do not recommend any particular order.

One thing that strikes me from your chapter descriptions is that the topics of the LR section are presented in a different order between the two books. If you intend to go through both, take them both on as collective wholes. Don't try to find the various topics in each book and work on them simultaneously.

Good luck and keep us posted on your progress!


Matt, thank you for the advice!!!! I almost fall prey on the trap of working on the two books simultaneously.

Malapropism wrote:I started with the PS books for LR and LG. After a number of PTs, I had my LG and RC sections down, but my LR would range from -0 to -5 (which is an uncomfortably large range, in my opinion). I've recently started working through the Manhattan LR book, and I absolutely find it useful. I think the PS books do a good job breaking down all the question types very specifically, while Manhattan kind of jumps more into it (question type by question type), so I do think the PS-then-Manhattan works well.

Personally, I think PS provides a good introduction to all the question types and would be really annoying to read through after Manhattan, but some of the approaches Manhattan provides have already helped me (and I am but a few chapters in).


Malapropism, thank you for the info. I will definitely go with PS-then-Manhattan approach.

Bravo!!!

lawschoolplease1
Posts: 149
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2012 1:56 pm

Re: Geek thread - Manhattan LSAT Q & A

Postby lawschoolplease1 » Tue Jan 01, 2013 9:24 pm

Hey Noah-
If I may ask a specific question...
PT 61 OCT 2010
sec4
#5

I'm still not satisfied after having read the Manhattan explanation.
I have it narrowed down to C and D. C is right and D is wrong.
The flaw with D is that one can't expect a spectator to have memorized lines of the performance. This is an assumption you'd have to make. But my problem with C is that you would have to assume the actor didn't possess a copy of the text. I guess I'm having trouble distinguishing how the assumption is bad in choice D and warranted in choice C.

Thanks so much!

User avatar
Cobretti
Posts: 2560
Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2012 12:45 am

Re: Geek thread - Manhattan LSAT Q & A

Postby Cobretti » Tue Jan 01, 2013 9:35 pm

lawschoolplease1 wrote:Hey Noah-
If I may ask a specific question...
PT 61 OCT 2010
sec4
#5

I'm still not satisfied after having read the Manhattan explanation.
I have it narrowed down to C and D. C is right and D is wrong.
The flaw with D is that one can't expect a spectator to have memorized lines of the performance. This is an assumption you'd have to make. But my problem with C is that you would have to assume the actor didn't possess a copy of the text. I guess I'm having trouble distinguishing how the assumption is bad in choice D and warranted in choice C.

Thanks so much!

I think the problem with D is that the spectator would be unlikely to only remember one person's lines perfectly, they would likely look at the play as a whole. You could possibly assume the spectator was that actor's mom though, I suppose :D. But the point is that it doesn't address why only one character's lines were memorized.

I see what you're saying with C, but you aren't making that assumption, its given to you. It doesn't say "An actor that doesn't own a copy...", but you're already under the assumption that he doesn't have a copy because that's given to you by the stem.

lawschoolplease1
Posts: 149
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2012 1:56 pm

Re: Geek thread - Manhattan LSAT Q & A

Postby lawschoolplease1 » Tue Jan 01, 2013 10:00 pm

mrizza wrote:I think the problem with D is that the spectator would be unlikely to only remember one person's lines perfectly, they would likely look at the play as a whole. You could possibly assume the spectator was that actor's mom though, I suppose . But the point is that it doesn't address why only one character's lines were memorized.

I see what you're saying with C, but you aren't making that assumption, its given to you. It doesn't say "An actor that doesn't own a copy...", but you're already under the assumption that he doesn't have a copy because that's given to you by the stem.


wow- thanks for the quick response!
but i'm still on the fence.
With D- yea, i completely agree that it's unlikely, but with the LSATs, can you just eliminate an answer because it's unlikely? (I feel as though some questions and answers get me to say, "are you kidding me right now?!") what if the spectator had a sick memory?
with C- if you choose C, aren't you assuming that this actor didn't possess a copy? the stimulus doesn't say "an actor that doesn own a copy," but in selecting it, aren't you making that assumption?

User avatar
Cobretti
Posts: 2560
Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2012 12:45 am

Re: Geek thread - Manhattan LSAT Q & A

Postby Cobretti » Tue Jan 01, 2013 10:32 pm

lawschoolplease1 wrote:
mrizza wrote:I think the problem with D is that the spectator would be unlikely to only remember one person's lines perfectly, they would likely look at the play as a whole. You could possibly assume the spectator was that actor's mom though, I suppose . But the point is that it doesn't address why only one character's lines were memorized.

I see what you're saying with C, but you aren't making that assumption, its given to you. It doesn't say "An actor that doesn't own a copy...", but you're already under the assumption that he doesn't have a copy because that's given to you by the stem.


wow- thanks for the quick response!
but i'm still on the fence.
With D- yea, i completely agree that it's unlikely, but with the LSATs, can you just eliminate an answer because it's unlikely? (I feel as though some questions and answers get me to say, "are you kidding me right now?!") what if the spectator had a sick memory?
with C- if you choose C, aren't you assuming that this actor didn't possess a copy? the stimulus doesn't say "an actor that doesn own a copy," but in selecting it, aren't you making that assumption?


I think your problem with this Q is that it didn't match exactly what you had preformed as your answer. Its true that it would be more supported if it said explicitly an actor that doesn't own a copy. However, an actor that doesn't own a copy is a type of actor. So it is still absolutely supported that it was produced by an actor.

lawschoolplease1
Posts: 149
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2012 1:56 pm

Re: Geek thread - Manhattan LSAT Q & A

Postby lawschoolplease1 » Wed Jan 02, 2013 9:28 am

mrizza wrote:
lawschoolplease1 wrote:
mrizza wrote:I think the problem with D is that the spectator would be unlikely to only remember one person's lines perfectly, they would likely look at the play as a whole. You could possibly assume the spectator was that actor's mom though, I suppose . But the point is that it doesn't address why only one character's lines were memorized.

I see what you're saying with C, but you aren't making that assumption, its given to you. It doesn't say "An actor that doesn't own a copy...", but you're already under the assumption that he doesn't have a copy because that's given to you by the stem.


wow- thanks for the quick response!
but i'm still on the fence.
With D- yea, i completely agree that it's unlikely, but with the LSATs, can you just eliminate an answer because it's unlikely? (I feel as though some questions and answers get me to say, "are you kidding me right now?!") what if the spectator had a sick memory?
with C- if you choose C, aren't you assuming that this actor didn't possess a copy? the stimulus doesn't say "an actor that doesn own a copy," but in selecting it, aren't you making that assumption?


I think your problem with this Q is that it didn't match exactly what you had preformed as your answer. Its true that it would be more supported if it said explicitly an actor that doesn't own a copy. However, an actor that doesn't own a copy is a type of actor. So it is still absolutely supported that it was produced by an actor.


I see it now!
an actor with or without a copy is still an actor!
in my opinion, this question is one of those fishy ones as opposes to straightforward yes/no ah-ha! questions, but i see how C is the better supported answer. thanks so much!

User avatar
Typhoon24
Posts: 649
Joined: Tue Oct 30, 2012 2:09 pm

Re: Geek thread - Manhattan LSAT Q & A

Postby Typhoon24 » Wed Jan 02, 2013 10:49 am

Hey Matt and Noah,

First I want to say that your MLSAT guides probably have had a vital role in my improvement on the LSAT (If there's anything the test taught me, it's to never use language that is too strong when there could be other possibilities :P)! I used to PT around -7 a section and now it's down to -2 or -3. I have two questions:

1. Do you have any tips on how to improve speed on Matching questions? I usually don't have trouble getting these questions right, it is just that when I'm done analyzing the argument structure of the stimulus and the 5 answer choices, I'm usually already at the 2-minute mark even before I've chosen an answer.

2. Whenever I'm reading an Identify the flaw question, I always manage to pre-phrase what the flaw is before reading the answer choices. I have a good idea of the argument core and then try and word the gap in my head. My problem is this: sometimes, the correct answer mentions a different flaw then the one I had in mind or words it in a convoluted way that often confuses me and gets me to waste time. Do you have any ideas as to how to help with this situation? I know the question is vague, but it boils down to "how much and to what extent should one pre-phrase answers on identify a flaw questions to be successful on them?"

Thanks in advance.

User avatar
matt@manhattanlsat
Posts: 36
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2010 6:58 pm

Re: Geek thread - Manhattan LSAT Q & A

Postby matt@manhattanlsat » Wed Jan 02, 2013 2:23 pm

Typhoon24 wrote:Hey Matt and Noah,

First I want to say that your MLSAT guides probably have had a vital role in my improvement on the LSAT (If there's anything the test taught me, it's to never use language that is too strong when there could be other possibilities :P)! I used to PT around -7 a section and now it's down to -2 or -3. I have two questions:

1. Do you have any tips on how to improve speed on Matching questions? I usually don't have trouble getting these questions right, it is just that when I'm done analyzing the argument structure of the stimulus and the 5 answer choices, I'm usually already at the 2-minute mark even before I've chosen an answer.

2. Whenever I'm reading an Identify the flaw question, I always manage to pre-phrase what the flaw is before reading the answer choices. I have a good idea of the argument core and then try and word the gap in my head. My problem is this: sometimes, the correct answer mentions a different flaw then the one I had in mind or words it in a convoluted way that often confuses me and gets me to waste time. Do you have any ideas as to how to help with this situation? I know the question is vague, but it boils down to "how much and to what extent should one pre-phrase answers on identify a flaw questions to be successful on them?"

Thanks in advance.


Hey Typhoon 24! Glad that you're getting a lot out of the strategy guides!

To your first question: To improve your timing on Matching questions check the structure the argument first. If you see something rather distinct (like a conclusion that consists of a conditional statement with an "or" in the necessary condition), you could probably use that to make some faster eliminations. Just as likely though, you'll need to get faster at the easy questions. It's a time issue. Why not pull time from easier questions and spend it on the lengthier questions (like Matching questions toward the end of the section)?

To your second question: it's always good to prephrase answers in your head. You should still remain flexible though. There's usually more than one flaw in an argument anyway - so even if you correctly describe a flaw in the argument, it may still not match the flaw described in the correct answer. What makes Flaw questions tough is reading through some very abstract way of describing something very specific in the stimulus. (ex: moral socialization is described in answer choice (D) as a "behavior" and in answer choice (E) as a "phenomenon").

Sounds like you're on the right track Typhoon24!


Return to “Free Help and Advice from Professionals”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest