Does anybody just genuinely suck at Logical Reasoning?

tomjennings
Posts: 12
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 7:54 pm

Does anybody just genuinely suck at Logical Reasoning?

Postby tomjennings » Mon Nov 14, 2011 12:05 am

I started prepping with the Manhattan LR book a couple weeks ago, and I have hit a dead end. I continually miss almost every flaw question. Does anybody have any suggestions for an LSAT novice? I also cannot stayed focused when I do practice questions. How do I increase my attention span when reading crap that I cannot understand or would never read about? I seem to have a problem with intuitively grasping a LR passage. How do build up my mental process when dealing with this stupid logic stuff?

ExcelBaller
Posts: 91
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2011 9:10 pm

Re: Does anybody just genuinely suck at Logical Reasoning?

Postby ExcelBaller » Mon Nov 14, 2011 12:20 am

If you have money for an lsat course/tutor you should try it. Maybe having someone that can hold you accountable for doing work will help you stay focused. Go to velocitylsat.com and check out all videos, Dave Hall seems to truly be the "master" of the lsat.

Here is a good start from his website:
--LinkRemoved--

User avatar
MachineLemon
Posts: 375
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2011 9:47 am

Re: Does anybody just genuinely suck at Logical Reasoning?

Postby MachineLemon » Mon Nov 14, 2011 12:25 am

Check this out. See if you can identify each flaw by name. Also, if you're still in school, take a logic course.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

bhan87
Posts: 850
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2007 8:08 pm

Re: Does anybody just genuinely suck at Logical Reasoning?

Postby bhan87 » Mon Nov 14, 2011 12:28 am

First, stop taking more practice questions and go back to the ones you've done. Flaws are, imo, THE most important question type to study for the LR section. Not only do they appear frequently, many other question types begin with you identifying a flaw (strengthen / assumption questions are fix the flaw questions, weaken questions are exploit the flaw questions, parallel flaw questions are find the same flaw questions). The only question types that don't require you to identify flaws are "must be true", "soft must be true", "main point", and "parallel questions". This translates to nearly 70% of the LR section testing flaws, which makes sense, because it's much easier to test whether you have good logic by asking you to explain why arguments are bad.

There are two challenges to flaw questions: identifying the flaw and finding the answer choice that corresponds to the type you identified.

You definitely should pick up the Powerscore Logical Reasoning Bible and go through each of the "flaw types" they list in the Flawed Reasoning section. Try to get a grasp of how an argument is structured when they commit that flaw. Ask yourself, what types of leaps in logic make the flaw obvious? This will help your ability to identify flaws in stimuli.

After you've gone through the flaw types very carefully, go back to the flaw questions you've done so far. DON'T read the answers, but instead write down the flaw type next to the stimulus. Now, try to figure out which one of the answer choices matches up with the flaw you identified. This will get you acquainted with how the LSAT phrases their descriptions of flaw. For instance, "assumes that what is true overall for group X must be true for each member of group X individually" is the LSAT way of saying "whole-to-part fallacy".

In terms of focus, it helps to have a "next step" in the process. By keeping your mind occupied with getting one objective done at a time, you can get through the question efficiently. The steps are generally: 1. Find the conclusion 2. Find the premises to support that conclusion 3. Identify the gap from the premises to the conclusion 4. Categorize what type of flaw that gap is 5a. Find a corresponding answer for Flaw questions. 5b. Fix the gap for assumption and strengthen questions. 5c. Exploit the gap for weaken questions 5d. Find a similar flaw for parallel flaw questions.

xChiTowNx
Posts: 200
Joined: Sat Jan 08, 2011 8:16 am

Re: Does anybody just genuinely suck at Logical Reasoning?

Postby xChiTowNx » Mon Nov 14, 2011 3:12 am

Sorry to jack OP's thread but your post was very helpful. I'm really good at spotting the flaws but I've always had trouble with the Assumption/Strengthen/Weaken family. Thinking of those arguments as flaws that must be fixed or exploited is something I'm going to try.

bhan87 wrote:First, stop taking more practice questions and go back to the ones you've done. Flaws are, imo, THE most important question type to study for the LR section. Not only do they appear frequently, many other question types begin with you identifying a flaw (strengthen / assumption questions are fix the flaw questions, weaken questions are exploit the flaw questions, parallel flaw questions are find the same flaw questions). The only question types that don't require you to identify flaws are "must be true", "soft must be true", "main point", and "parallel questions". This translates to nearly 70% of the LR section testing flaws, which makes sense, because it's much easier to test whether you have good logic by asking you to explain why arguments are bad.

There are two challenges to flaw questions: identifying the flaw and finding the answer choice that corresponds to the type you identified.

You definitely should pick up the Powerscore Logical Reasoning Bible and go through each of the "flaw types" they list in the Flawed Reasoning section. Try to get a grasp of how an argument is structured when they commit that flaw. Ask yourself, what types of leaps in logic make the flaw obvious? This will help your ability to identify flaws in stimuli.

After you've gone through the flaw types very carefully, go back to the flaw questions you've done so far. DON'T read the answers, but instead write down the flaw type next to the stimulus. Now, try to figure out which one of the answer choices matches up with the flaw you identified. This will get you acquainted with how the LSAT phrases their descriptions of flaw. For instance, "assumes that what is true overall for group X must be true for each member of group X individually" is the LSAT way of saying "whole-to-part fallacy".

In terms of focus, it helps to have a "next step" in the process. By keeping your mind occupied with getting one objective done at a time, you can get through the question efficiently. The steps are generally: 1. Find the conclusion 2. Find the premises to support that conclusion 3. Identify the gap from the premises to the conclusion 4. Categorize what type of flaw that gap is 5a. Find a corresponding answer for Flaw questions. 5b. Fix the gap for assumption and strengthen questions. 5c. Exploit the gap for weaken questions 5d. Find a similar flaw for parallel flaw questions.

User avatar
Sloth Hero
Posts: 233
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2011 2:32 pm

Re: Does anybody just genuinely suck at Logical Reasoning?

Postby Sloth Hero » Mon Nov 14, 2011 10:13 pm

Yes, they are called Derridieans and Hegelians.




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 9 guests