Mastering Logical Reasoning Forum

[piney]

So I'm preparing for the October exam, and I've done 4 real logical reasoning sections from PrepTests over the past week. I get between 4 and 0 questions wrong in each section, and finish within 35 min. or a minute or two over. 4 sections is no way to tell, but I think a perfect score in LR could be within reach. My problem is that I feel like I'm just getting lucky each time, in that I have a lot of questions where I'm only 75% certain I picked the right answer and it always feels like a gamble. I want to get to the point where I'm 100% sure I have the correct answer for each question, but how do I get there? How do I reach a point where I'm really comfortable with each one of my answers?

[cc.celina]

You could read the Powerscore LR Bible or the Manhattan LR guide. Or you could buy Superprep and do the LR questions one at a time, reading the explanation right after finishing each question and really getting inside the testmaker's heads. Or you could just do a giant crapload of PTs. If you continue -0ing or -1ing, that is probably not just "luck." That probably means you are good at LR.

[piney]

The LR Bible didn't help me too much. Maybe I need to do more to memorize their strategies. Is there any place I can get explanations for all the PrepTest LR questions?

[Oscar85]

There is Kaplan's Orange Book, which gives you explanations of all preptests; however, I cannot attest to its adequacy. I, too, would suggest the SuperPrep tests. The explanations are written by the makers of the LSAT, which lets you comprehend what exactly they consider when creating these questions, and how to pick out the correct/incorrect answer choice. Also, why do you think PWS wasn't conducive to you? Is it that you were already familiar with their methods, or you didn't comprehend them?

I second the motion that if you are PTing -0, -1, you are naturally good at LR. Try familiarizing yourself with the question stems and see if you can tell what would be an effective way to attack them. What I mean is, don't simply read the question stem and try to find the right answer. Prephase and tell yourself what the right answer would be. If you are able to do this, then our conclusion that you are naturally good at LR would be slightly fortified, and you should begin to focus on your weaker areas.

[piney]

I guess it was that most of the chapters in the LR Bible didn't help, and in the end, I was left just chosing whatever felt like the best answer, hence the uncertainty. I was reading the LR Bible only two weeks ago, and I've already forgotten most of it, so remembering their methods is also part of the problem. And aren't the Superprep tests really old? I've been limiting myself to preptests from 2000 on.

[Oscar85]

I guess it was that most of the chapters in the LR Bible didn't help, and in the end, I was left just chosing whatever felt like the best answer, hence the uncertainty. I was reading the LR Bible only two weeks ago, and I've already forgotten most of it, so remembering their methods is also part of the problem. And aren't the Superprep tests really old? I've been limiting myself to preptests from 2000 on.

Okay - that is something you probably don't want to do, regardless of where you are prepping in LR. Give the LR bible another shot or purchase the Manhttan LR guide and see how you fare with that. You don't want to just choose the one that "feels" right. There are of course some answers that you will be able to intuitively ansewr. However, the LSAT is also notorious for its abstract language, and the test makers use this to their advantage. Just make a master list for all question types, prep by question type, and eventually you should be able to have a firm grasp on the concepts. Do prep tests 30-40 something for LR/LG/RC review, and then start to attack the most recent tests. At first it's too much information to absorb - but we aren't suggesting that you read the guides only once. You have to familiarize yourself and allow the concepts to solidify in your mind. The more you practice, the better your approach with the varied LR problems. For example, although it's going to be difficult at first to remember that to weaken a causal claim you need to find a cause with no effect, effect without cause, alternate explanation, etc., eventually you will be able to drill this question type without it intimidating you because you've seen it multiple times. The February tests are "old," but they are still part of the modern era of LSATs. The most recent one is 1999, which isn't far from the 2000 LSATs. Also, the February LSATs provide invaluable insight into the mind of the test makers. I don't know if I can stress this enough, but from what I have seen so far, they give you their take on necessary assumption questions, sufficient questions, etc. Essentially, they tell you how they come up with answer choices and how they insert flaws into each incorrect one to trick the test taker.