LR stem/stim order Forum

[brickman]

I know this is not a new point of discussion, but after reading and reviewing the LRB, it seems like the rule of reading the stimulus first has a pitfall-feel free to disagree.

Must be true questions and their relatives all ask, more or less, what is true based on the structure of this information, i.e. what is implicit, not what are the flaws or short comings in the arguments, these are just accepted.

When reading for questions that are assumptions or weaken or whatever else is in that family, you are looking to identify and modify the logical flaw.

It seems that you are looking for two very different things, and reading the question stem can help prompt your mind to limit what you are looking for.

It's late, so this could be horribly dumb, but please let me know your thoughts.

[Unshake]

This sort of relates to a thread I started earlier (although have received no response). When I'm drilling one question type it seems easier because I am reading in certain ways depending on what the question is and that this will hurt me later in prep. once I start doing more full sections.

[Audio Technica Guy]

well that's kind of the point. You only look for things that answer that particular question. This isn't a flaw or weakness, it's the very strength of the question first method.

In a must be true (what I call an inference question), if you're trying to break down the logical structure of the argument, lots of times you'll totally confuse yourself, because lots of times there is no logical structure to the argument. Lots of times on must be true questions, the "argument" is just a laundry list of facts.

[quasi-stellar]

I am kind of used to reading the stimulus first, but occasionally it becomes problematic. Given the fact that the majority of arguments have some flaws in them, I got used to reading them and question the logical structure to a point where it costed me some wrong answers on the inference questions. After the fact I realized that I just should have taken facts for what they were. I am going to try to relearn to do the LR with at least glimpsing on the stem first.

[Unshake]

Why does the LR bible strongly recommend NOT reading the stem first? What are the advantages to not reading it first?

[Audio Technica Guy]

Why does the LR bible strongly recommend NOT reading the stem first? What are the advantages to not reading it first?

Unless I'm dramatically mistaken, the LRB is all about reading the Q stem first. (side note, isn't it question stim, which is short for stimulus?)

[brickman]

Why does the LR bible strongly recommend NOT reading the stem first? What are the advantages to not reading it first?

It provides some cursory explanation at the beginning of a chapter, but I can't remember if it was necessarily persuasive. I think it says it conditions you to look for the wrong think, which I disagree with.

[dominkay]

Read it in the order it is presented. Gimmicks are for losers.

[Audio Technica Guy]

Read it in the order it is presented. Gimmicks are for losers.

as are diagrams on games, real pimps do games in their head.

[jaydizzle]

I am pretty sure that stimulus means the actual prompt/passage part. Stem is the question i.e. question stem. From what I have seen, most prep such as Blueprint and Powerscore recommend doing it in the order given which means reading the stimulus first. I am struggling to find my way and pick the way that will work better for me. It seems a lot of times reading the question helps, but other times it is suicide for me. argh

[Audio Technica Guy]

I am pretty sure that stimulus means the actual prompt/passage part. Stem is the question i.e. question stem. From what I have seen, most prep such as Blueprint and Powerscore recommend doing it in the order given which means reading the stimulus first. I am struggling to find my way and pick the way that will work better for me. It seems a lot of times reading the question helps, but other times it is suicide for me. argh

I'm all about Q first. The way you read an inference question, for example, is totally different than the way you read a strengthen question. You're looking for ENTIRELY different things. I don't really see how reading the Q first can hurt you. At worst its just not useful, but harmless.

[jaydizzle]

I guess I'll give it a try to see how it goes.

[dominkay]

Read it in the order it is presented. Gimmicks are for losers.

as are diagrams on games, real pimps do games in their head.

Diagrams are not gimmicks. Try again.

[dominkay]

I don't really see how reading the Q first can hurt you.

If you're specifically hunting for something from the question stem, you might miss an important detail in the stim itself. Do you think the people who write the LSAT don't know about these kinds of gimmicks? Do you think they don't try to mess with the people who use them?

[zanda]

Read it in the order it is presented. Gimmicks are for losers.

as are diagrams on games, real pimps do games in their head.

Diagrams are not gimmicks. Try again.

Word. I would say there's quite a difference between taking notes on what one is reading (diagram) and reading backwards.

FWIW, I remember being at ASDs last year and fellow admits discussing whether they did stimuli or stems first. I had no idea what either even was. I still don't really know which is which.

[brickman]

I understand that some test preparation companies say to read it first, and I understand the criticism that LRB raises, both are fair. Yet, when a question stem asks what is an assumption of the argument, all this means is that I can mentally relax in part because I know that I am not trying to prepare my mind to think of things that must be true on the basis of that argument/ fact set.

What I can instead focus on is more deeply the detail of the question, the relationship of the premises to the conclusion and how there may or may not be significant distance between the two. If there isn't then I'll be better prepared to defend it by being on the track of prephrasing defender assumptions.

If I know a question is a must be true question, I wont have to worry as much necessarily about what is wrong with the logic of these questions. I can instead focus on making deductions based on the information presented.

That is at least what I am thinking in determining whether or not to do stem first. Again, I have taken the LRB until now and found it to be fine, usually I don't think I am stressing about not knowing it before hand, but for the benefit of these elements, I am at least trying to consider it on a rational, though potential flawed, basis.

[Audio Technica Guy]

I don't really see how reading the Q first can hurt you.

If you're specifically hunting for something from the question stem, you might miss an important detail in the stim itself. Do you think the people who write the LSAT don't know about these kinds of gimmicks? Do you think they don't try to mess with the people who use them?

Well, it doesn't seem to work that way on things like real, actual LSAT's. As best as anybody can tell, LSAC doesn't try to take advantage of these "gimmicks" that people use. You could, quite easily, make a game that's essentially undiagrammable (in fact, LSAC has in the past, with a few of their oddball type games) but instead they keep on throwing putting things in order out there, over and over again. There is no evidence whatsoever that LSAC takes advantage of the fact that some people read the Q's first and comes up with questions that punish this (in fact, I'm not even sure how this is possible anyway).

To me, fundamentally, you at least want to know if you're doing an informational question, where you just need to know the basic info of what the "stim" says v. a reasoning based question, where you need to know what the conclusion is and waht the premises are.

How you read the stim on a question that asks "if the above is true, which of the following are most strongly supported?" is fundamentally different from how you would read the stim on a question that asks "which of the following, if true, most strongly supports the above?"

For the first question you just need to know the basic facts, you don't question anything. For the second question, you have to know the conclusion, you have to know how it supports that conclusion, you have to be able to see some sort of way their reasoning is flawed, so you know what to address to help support that conclusion.

[dominkay]

I don't really see how reading the Q first can hurt you.

If you're specifically hunting for something from the question stem, you might miss an important detail in the stim itself. Do you think the people who write the LSAT don't know about these kinds of gimmicks? Do you think they don't try to mess with the people who use them?

Well, it doesn't seem to work that way on things like real, actual LSAT's. As best as anybody can tell, LSAC doesn't try to take advantage of these "gimmicks" that people use. You could, quite easily, make a game that's essentially undiagrammable (in fact, LSAC has in the past, with a few of their oddball type games) but instead they keep on throwing putting things in order out there, over and over again. There is no evidence whatsoever that LSAC takes advantage of the fact that some people read the Q's first and comes up with questions that punish this (in fact, I'm not even sure how this is possible anyway).

To me, fundamentally, you at least want to know if you're doing an informational question, where you just need to know the basic info of what the "stim" says v. a reasoning based question, where you need to know what the conclusion is and waht the premises are.

How you read the stim on a question that asks "if the above is true, which of the following are most strongly supported?" is fundamentally different from how you would read the stim on a question that asks "which of the following, if true, most strongly supports the above?"

For the first question you just need to know the basic facts, you don't question anything. For the second question, you have to know the conclusion, you have to know how it supports that conclusion, you have to be able to see some sort of way their reasoning is flawed, so you know what to address to help support that conclusion.

Like I said, I don't consider diagramming to be a gimmick. Also, I'm pretty sure that I've done every released single game, and I've never had one I didn't diagram. LSAC definitely does write games that are TRICKY to diagram.

During my LSAT prep, it seemed obvious to me that there were sucker choices put there by LSAC for the people who weren't paying quite enough attention. I think if you do the question backwards, you risk becoming a sucker. Personally, I don't know anyone who used this technique who had success with it.

[Audio Technica Guy]

Like I said, I don't consider diagramming to be a gimmick. Also, I'm pretty sure that I've done every released single game, and I've never had one I didn't diagram. LSAC definitely does write games that are TRICKY to diagram.

During my LSAT prep, it seemed obvious to me that there were sucker choices put there by LSAC for the people who weren't paying quite enough attention. I think if you do the question backwards, you risk becoming a sucker. Personally, I don't know anyone who used this technique who had success with it.

Like I said, I don't consider doing Q first to be a gimmick.

But you've never actually seen this hurt somebody? Can you give an example of how reading the q first would hurt someone? Not like a "I think it's possible that it could cause you to ignore things." There's been a lot of talk about these potential pitfalls, but I've yet to see a single case where this actually happened. A case where knowing the question you were being asked about the argument actually caused you to misread the argument. I've given two concrete examples of question types where I think it is demonstrably beneficial to read the Q first, all I'm asking is for you to even give me one where that's not the case.

Personally I know hundreds of people who successfully use Q first all the time. I'm not claiming that as proof that Q first is the way to go, just saying it's certainly not completely unsuccessful, like you seem to imply.

[dominkay]

Like I said, I don't consider diagramming to be a gimmick. Also, I'm pretty sure that I've done every released single game, and I've never had one I didn't diagram. LSAC definitely does write games that are TRICKY to diagram.

During my LSAT prep, it seemed obvious to me that there were sucker choices put there by LSAC for the people who weren't paying quite enough attention. I think if you do the question backwards, you risk becoming a sucker. Personally, I don't know anyone who used this technique who had success with it.

Like I said, I don't consider doing Q first to be a gimmick.

But you've never actually seen this hurt somebody? Can you give an example of how reading the q first would hurt someone? Not like a "I think it's possible that it could cause you to ignore things." There's been a lot of talk about these potential pitfalls, but I've yet to see a single case where this actually happened. A case where knowing the question you were being asked about the argument actually caused you to misread the argument. I've given two concrete examples of question types where I think it is demonstrably beneficial to read the Q first, all I'm asking is for you to even give me one where that's not the case.

Personally I know hundreds of people who successfully use Q first all the time. I'm not claiming that as proof that Q first is the way to go, just saying it's certainly not completely unsuccessful, like you seem to imply.

All I can tell you is that I took a prep class and the kids who used that method were frequently confused. But I know that's just correlation. I could crack open the books and look for a specific example where it might be confusing, but I'm lazy. So, you win! I think it helps to internalize the information given in the stimulus before you attack the question, but maybe that's just my own quirk.

[Audio Technica Guy]

All I can tell you is that I took a prep class and the kids who used that method were frequently confused. But I know that's just correlation. I could crack open the books and look for a specific example where it might be confusing, but I'm lazy. So, you win! I think it helps to internalize the information given in the stimulus before you attack the question, but maybe that's just my own quirk.

Well, that's actually worse than just correlation, its correlation paired with a small sample size. I don't so much care about winning the argument, I'm genuinely wanting to know how reading the Q first could confuse someone. If somebody gave me an example, I'd certainly re-evaluate the way I taught things. At the very least it would be useful to know these questions where reading the Q first was harmful.

[brickman]

dominkay address my point, please! I know Audio Technica Guy isn't making a strong case, but I feel that I am offering a somewhat reasonable explanation.

[Unshake]

Why does the LR bible strongly recommend NOT reading the stem first? What are the advantages to not reading it first?

Unless I'm dramatically mistaken, the LRB is all about reading the Q stem first. (side note, isn't it question stim, which is short for stimulus?)

It recommends reading the STIMULUS first, the STEM is the actual question portion whereas the stimulus contains the information used to answer the question.

For reference, the reasons why (six listed) are on pages 9-10 in logical reasoning bible (at least the version I have). After reviewing their reasons, I've decided that they have probably studied this more than me and that reading the STIMULUS then STEM (the order it is presented) is the way to go. l

[Sandro]

I am going to try reading STEM first for my next LR section. I don't see how it could hurt.

[Unshake]

I am going to try reading STEM first for my next LR section. I don't see how it could hurt.

If you look on pages 9 and 10 of the logic reasoning bible, it explains why doing this is detrimental (or worse, as compared to reading the stimulus first). I didn't see why it could hurt either, but I think the points they brought up were at least somewhat valid and were convincing enough to me. Unless that was meant to mean that you don't so how doing it for one section could hurt, in which case yes, it probably wouldn't hurt to try it out and see how you it goes.

Note: Pages in the LRB might be slightly different for some people since I do not have the newest version of the book.