LR: What can be Inferred and Main Conclusion Forum

[ZDS]

Do you guys have any tips on these types of questions? I've noticed these seem to be the only ones I get wrong on the LR, especially What can be Inferred questions. The main conclusion usually end up getting narrowed down to 2 and missing.


Any overall tips or things I should be on a look out for to help make them easier?

[minnbills]

Do you guys have any tips on these types of questions? I've noticed these seem to be the only ones I get wrong on the LR, especially What can be Inferred questions. The main conclusion usually end up getting narrowed down to 2 and missing.


Any overall tips or things I should be on a look out for to help make them easier?

With the main conclusion it's all about being as specific as possible. Ask yourself, is this what the argument is actually arguing for?

For inference questions, you're generally going to have to diagram. These, I'm not quite as strong on. But suffice to say you have to get the diagram right, do the contrapositives, and see what follows.

[Sandro]

Do you guys have any tips on these types of questions? I've noticed these seem to be the only ones I get wrong on the LR, especially What can be Inferred questions. The main conclusion usually end up getting narrowed down to 2 and missing.


Any overall tips or things I should be on a look out for to help make them easier?

With the main conclusion it's all about being as specific as possible. Ask yourself, is this what the argument is actually arguing for?

For inference questions, you're generally going to have to diagram. These, I'm not quite as strong on. But suffice to say you have to get the diagram right, do the contrapositives, and see what follows.

I rarely diagram on inference questions - eventually once you've seen enough you will learn that the correct answer will be specific/general enough to cover something in the stimulus. usually 3 answers can be eliminated like this, and remember inferences MUST BE TRUE. So anything that COULD or is up in the air is wrong.

[minnbills]

Do you guys have any tips on these types of questions? I've noticed these seem to be the only ones I get wrong on the LR, especially What can be Inferred questions. The main conclusion usually end up getting narrowed down to 2 and missing.


Any overall tips or things I should be on a look out for to help make them easier?

With the main conclusion it's all about being as specific as possible. Ask yourself, is this what the argument is actually arguing for?

For inference questions, you're generally going to have to diagram. These, I'm not quite as strong on. But suffice to say you have to get the diagram right, do the contrapositives, and see what follows.

I rarely diagram on inference questions - eventually once you've seen enough you will learn that the correct answer will be specific/general enough to cover something in the stimulus. usually 3 answers can be eliminated like this, and remember inferences MUST BE TRUE. So anything that COULD or is up in the air is wrong.

Yeah you can usually eliminate 2-3 answers just on account of them not actually dealing with the right subject matter. But I usually end up having to diagram to get the right one.


How do you usually determine the right answer?

[Sandro]

On stimuluses that are heavy in the some, most, all , nones, a quick little diagram could be useful. and conditional reasoning if its a little complex, but once you've read the indictors a million times you know how a sentence translates and can just create the logic chain in your head.

Like I said, up until a month ago I never really looked at inferences as things that MUST BE TRUE. Just ask yourself, must it be true that some dogs are black? If the stim says all dogs are black... then yes, it must be true.

If the AC states - some black dogs are smart - you better make sure there is a clear connection between dogs - black - smart so that they have to share both of those qualities.

Usually inference questions are rather short. The clues to what the right answer will be have to be in the stimulus (or its contrapositive etc). Just take the AC and see if it fits into the stimulus as must be true.