Do you read all of the answer choices? Forum

[declsatkiller]

Just wondering:

How often does everyone commit to answer A,B,C, or D and skip reading the remaining answer choices to save time?

Thanks!

[calicocat]

Just wondering:

How often does everyone commit to answer A,B,C, or D and skip reading the remaining answer choices to save time?

Thanks!

I know you're just asking for a statistic but I really really REALLY recommend reading all the answer choices.

[nyyankees]

if you dont have time at the end of a section and the alternative would be blind guessing some on the end, then i would be okay with not reading some answer choices, otherwise, ALWAYS read them, itll only take a few seconds and youre gonna hate yourself later when that one point could have made a difference in your cycle

[Tenth Usher]

Usually you want to read them all. After I had been practicing for about 2 months, I felt that sometimes I didn't have to read all of the answer choices. This would only come up twice at most for any given LR section, but sometimes an answer choice would match what I was looking for so well that I would go with it, circle the question, and check it after I finished the section.

This worked for me for the first 8-10 questions, but beyond that you really have to read everything every time, because as the questions get harder the answer choices that are attractive at first glance are often traps, not CRs.

[kazu]

Always, always read every single one. When test day comes you'll be nervous and excited, and if you're not in the habit of reading every single one there is a big chance you might decide on an answer choice prematurely on faulty logic. A couple of points can count for a lot.

[RPK34]

It depends. With the strengthen/weaken questions type of questions, I always read them all.

However, on the assumption questions or flaw in reasoning, generally, I know the exact answer before I look at the answer choices (ie if it says Chris is a feminist, therefore he is not conservative, you should know before even looking at the answer choices that the assumption is that no one who is a feminist can be a conservative). Once you find that, I generally briefly glance over the remaining word choices, and just make sure nothing else sticks out to me.

This is why understanding the answer choice before you even look at the answer choices helps so much. For instance, the middle/end of the section (questions 15-26) generally have a great deal of assumption questions. It's not rare that I can get through several of the questions in about 20 seconds because I can quickly glance over remaining answers without having to read them carefully.

[NaturalLawyer]

I've been missing, consistently, around 2 questions on each LR section (timed) and often do not read all of the answer choices.

I know many believe that reading every question is like a categorical imperative, but I think that for those who are confident in their analytical abilities but are still under heavy stress from time-pressure, it may be better to move onto the next question once you have determined that you have come to the right answer.

I do not, however, jump to the next question every time after believing that I have come to the right answer. I only jump if I am quite certain that the answer is the right one. (Usually this involves matching up precisely with the answer that I've prephrased in my mind. By the way, I think the ability to prephrase the answer is crucial if you're looking to score a perfect on the LR sections.) I think I've developed an intuitive understanding of which questions are harder than others and so when I think the question that I've come to is very difficult and subtle, then I will read through all of the questions.

But I find many of the questions quite straightforward and easy. For those I just jump to the next question after determining that I have (with high certainty) come to the right answer.

I know many will say that the few extra seconds are not worth it. But I think that reading every answer choice, determining which answer choices must be false, and processing all of the answer choices in one's mind take more than just 2-3 seconds. In fact, reading every answer choice with solid comprehension surely takes at least an extra 15 seconds. But when stretched out for the whole section, those seconds are very important. I need those extra seconds for the questions that I do struggle with.

If, however, you suffer from no time-pressure, then perhaps reading every question may be of benefit. But for me, I try to spend more time on the few difficult questions that I struggle with.

Also, I think at least in the beginning of your stud, reading every answer choice may be of more benefit since there is more chance that you can fall into a "trap-answer". But once you are at the point where you are only getting a few questions wrong (usually the hard ones), then it may be better to save a few extra minutes for those more difficult questions.

I am not claiming that everybody should use the method I suggest, but it is possible that for some, not reading every question can be, on the whole, beneficial. At the least, I don't think that it is a principle that necessarily applies to every single test-taker.

I suggest trying it out and see if it works for you. It may not, especially if you find yourself being trapped often by what looks to be a correct answer.

Good luck declsatkiller! I enjoy seeing your progress on your thread. I'm also aiming for that elusive 180. I hope we can both get there.

[tomwatts]

On Games, you can be absolutely certain that an answer is correct, so I don't read the rest of the answers if I've already proven that an answer is right. On the other two, you're looking for the "best" answer, so it's usually a good idea to check the rest, just in case. On some Inference or Sufficient Assumption questions, it's not strictly necessary, but those are so easy to screw up that I usually do anyway.

[legalease9]

Read all answers. The LSAT (even more so than other standardized tests) is designed to trick you. It throws answers that sound right at the beginning, when the real answer is closer to the end. Also, it is one of the few tests that can have multiple "right" answers to a question, with only one being the "best" answer. This isn't math, where you can know you got the equasion right and move on.

This is part of the reason why its one of the few tests that doesn't deduct when you get a wrong answer. It expects you will be tricked from time to time. Don't be tricked! Read all answers before you commit.

[Anaconda]

For LG I don't, but for most LR it's pretty much essential to do so or you can get fooled by a shell answer pretty easily. You can tell though when a LR question is easy and when you're looking at the right answer - in that case skimming the rest could do.

[Hedwig]

I always read all the answers for LR. I feel honor bound to check all the answers for LG in practice, but I'm aware this is probably a stupid strategy for real exams. To compromise with myself, if I feel the answer is absolutely 100% correct (on LG), I skip reading the other answer choices, put the answer down and move on. However, I star/circle/otherwise flag that question so that if I have time left over, I can go back and check the other answer choices for my own peace of mind.

I don't use that strategy on LR/RC, because I usually have about 10-12 minutes remaining on LR/RC anyways, but if you're very time crunched on LR and feel an answer is exactly correct, you could always skip it/star it so that you have a chance to answer all of the questions, and then go back and read the other answer choices if you have time.

[Precessional]

On Games, you can be absolutely certain that an answer is correct, so I don't read the rest of the answers if I've already proven that an answer is right. On the other two, you're looking for the "best" answer, so it's usually a good idea to check the rest, just in case. On some Inference or Sufficient Assumption questions, it's strictly necessary, but those are so easy to screw up that I usually do anyway.

I second this post.

[Jack Smirks]

Really even for the games even though there is only one right answer, you should be focused on all the answer choices anyway to POE quickly and limit your hypotheticals.

[ArchRoark]

LR + RC: Yes.
LG: No -- if I am sure I have the right answer. *Best section -- aced it consistently on last few PTs + real LSAT.

[nyyankees]

if you are consistenly acing LGs, then you should have plenty of time to read the remaining answer choices. just do it

[almostfamous]

If I didn't at least skim through all the answer choices (even when I thought for sure I had it right) I missed at least an extra 2-3 per section just from picking the "tempting" answer choice instead of the right one. This was especially true on LR with the parallel reasoning questions. My PT scores went up an average of 6 or 7 points just from reading all the answer choices.

[fosterp]

On some of the earlier questions, prephrasing your answer and jumping through all of the choices looking for the keyword you know will be prephrased is a good way to build up a time bank for the harder tougher questions. You really need to know the question types and answer forms with practice though before you can do this accurately. I've been caught a few times jumping the gun on an answer and then going back and wondering wtf I was thinking.

[ArchRoark]

if you are consistenly acing LGs, then you should have plenty of time to read the remaining answer choices. just do it

I disagree. That built up extra time imho is more beneficially used at the end to go back and check hard answers (maximum choice questions are good ex), basically I would always end up with 5-8m left at the end of each LG section. On the real LSAT, because I had that extra time I was able to realize that I had diagrammed my last LG wrong (it mentioned the same field, and I had taken that to mean the same location and not the same profession). I realized my mistake and was able to rework the entire game.

Again, I only moved on and didn't bother with the other questions when I *KNEW* I had the right answer. It is only because of the nature of LG that this is possible. Most of the times when I do this I already know the answer or a good idea what to look for by just reading the question.

[Audio Technica Guy]

I'm not saying that you missing two invalidates your opinion, but you're using consistently missing 2 to justify your opinion, which is kinda crazy. Missing 2 per section isn't super great, definitely not so good that people should be jumping to copy your strategy. It may very well be the case that if you were more careful you'd be missing 0 per section.

To answer the OP, I always read all the AC's on arguments and RC, but I don't always on games. If it's a must be true/false and you know it must be true/false, then pick the answer and move on.

I've been missing, consistently, around 2 questions on each LR section (timed) and often do not read all of the answer choices.

[Audio Technica Guy]

Really even for the games even though there is only one right answer, you should be focused on all the answer choices anyway to POE quickly and limit your hypotheticals.

If it's a must be true/false question, you don't have hypotheticals.

[Audio Technica Guy]

This isn't math, where you can know you got the equasion right and move on.

Games are math.

[NaturalLawyer]

I'm not saying that you missing two invalidates your opinion, but you're using consistently missing 2 to justify your opinion, which is kinda crazy. Missing 2 per section isn't super great, definitely not so good that people should be jumping to copy your strategy. It may very well be the case that if you were more careful you'd be missing 0 per section.

To answer the OP, I always read all the AC's on arguments and RC, but I don't always on games. If it's a must be true/false and you know it must be true/false, then pick the answer and move on.

I've been missing, consistently, around 2 questions on each LR section (timed) and often do not read all of the answer choices.

I didn't mean for the fact that I consistently miss 2 questions to be a sufficient justification for taking on my strategy. I did mean for it to add at least some support that the strategy I use may be good for some people -- particularly for those who miss more than 2 and are under severe time pressure.

But you are right, perhaps at some point I could improve my score by reading every answer choice. But as for now I'm still fighting speed. I know I still need to work on (LR).

I qualified my position quite a bit as well. I never claimed that everybody should jump to my strategy. I still have a lot of work to do.

I was claiming, however, that the strategy that I stated could work better for some than reading every question. I'm not sure if you have refuted that, rather modest, claim.

I'm also not quite sure what is so crazy about what I said.

[Studious]

Declsatkiller,

Natural Lawyer's advice is fine, in my opinion.I do the same for all Must Be True questions.If an answer is C, on average, and you have about 5 questions of that sort, then you have about 10 questions in total.I feel that reading, analyzing and finalizing the answer choice when reading all the choices would mean about 20 seconds/question in total.You are saving yourself about 3:20 by doing the Must Be True questions this way.That is a significant difference, one that allows you to focus more on the harder questions.I sometimes do this for parallel reasoning/parallel flaw/method of reasoning as well.If you master the concepts, going through these questions by answering directly should give you quite an advantage.

At least that is what I have found.I have been getting -2, on average, in LR lately when doing whole sections. (Not boasting, I know it's not perfect, but just giving you an idea of where I stand so that you can evaluate whether or not to use this technique).

[Audio Technica Guy]

I didn't mean for the fact that I consistently miss 2 questions to be a sufficient justification for taking on my strategy.

Well, it was the only real justification you gave at all, so it read that way. You didn't say anything about how big of a difference it made when you started doing things that way. The only other thing about it you said is that it could possibly save time.

I did mean for it to add at least some support that the strategy I use may be good for some people -- particularly for those who miss more than 2 and are under severe time pressure.

The thing about this is that I don't think it's ever a good strategy, though it is a tempting strategy for people who are almost good at arguments. It's definitely not a good strategy for someone who is missing more than 4-5, as they just aren't good enough to actually be sure the answer they have picked is the right one.

The closer case is people like you who are pretty accurate on args, but struggle with time. However, I don't think it's a good idea here either. First, we need to get an idea of how much time this is saving you. On average, taking this approach would mean not reading two answer choices. Reading a single answer choice and processing it shouldn't take more than 7 seconds max, 5 seconds on average. If it takes more than that to read a single answer choice, then you have much larger problems. Now, you also admit that you won't be able to do this on every question. I'd say that most people who do this approach reasonably well only do it on about 12 questions per section, the rest are either too hard or are question types that don't lend themselves to this type of approach (for instance, you can't really do this approach with strengthen questions reliably). So, let's say using this approach you save an average of 10 seconds on 12 questions. This is two minutes in a section. Which is quite obviously not an inconsequential amount of time by any means. It's about 1 difficult question's worth of time.

One difficult question's worth of time is a pretty big deal, however, my main problem with this strategy for students who are almost good at LR is that they can't ever put this crutch down. Students who start using this strategy almost always get stuck at -2 or so and can't get better than that because they stop trying to improve time in the best areas (question type recognition, knowing what to look for in POE, etc) and just try to get better at finding the answer. What's even worse with this strategy is that it doesn't hold up well under pressure. I've seen many students who were using this strategy go into the real test and pick all kinds of wrong answers with it. For whatever reason, students tend to get overzealous with this strategy on the real LSAT and have their worst LR section ever. So I really think if you're at -2 on average, you should drop this strategy and maybe work on Q type recognition to get those two minutes. I know you're not going ot listen to that advice, but I've taught a lot of people, and I've yet to see someone where this strategy was beneficial. The one student I had who it seemed to make a big difference for fell apart on test day with it and went from -1 avg per section to -8 on the two sections combined.

There is ONE single exception I make to my hatred of this strategy and it's formal reasoning and combining conditionals inference questions. But they're relatively rare, you're only going to have a couple of them max. The only reason I make an exception there is because those questions work like mini-games.

But you are right, perhaps at some point I could improve my score by reading every answer choice. But as for now I'm still fighting speed. I know I still need to work on (LR).

I was claiming, however, that the strategy that I stated could work better for some than reading every question. I'm not sure if you have refuted that, rather modest, claim.

I think it is significant that no test prep company, not testmasters, not princeton review, not powerscore, not even kaplan advocates not doing POE on arguments. These companies have poured in a ton of research into the topic and have found basically the same thing: that it just doesn't work in the long run for just about anybody. It's an extremely risky strategy, that doesn't work well when you're under pressure and has relatively small benefits in even it's best case scenario. To me the research and my personal experience with a lot of students shows that the risk just isn't worth the potential reward.

I'm also not quite sure what is so crazy about what I said.

The only thing I said was kind of crazy was using the statement "I usually miss two" to support that this was a good strategy. even there I said "kind of crazy". I also said that fact didn't invalidate your opinion, but was just poor support.

[Bildungsroman]

I recommend reading all of them. Even if you find what seems like the 100% correct answer it's a good idea to cross out the other options anyway, since LSAC likes to throw in answers that are temptresses, appealing at first but oh so deadly, and you don't want to get trapped by one of those because you came across it, thought it was the winner, and moved on to the next question.