Luke81 wrote:Hey everyone, while you work through your Bible (of choice...I'm using MLSAT, not PS), how detailed are your notes? At this point I'm wondering if my notes are too detailed and if I should be going through the books a bit faster. I suppose part of this is just personal preference, but do you find that notes are things you refer back to throughout your prep, or is it more important to just get to taking full sections and PTs?
I'm studying from the kindle versions of the books, and I think that I may be over-note taking a bit since ebooks can't be flipped through the way paper books can.
Honestly, I don't think notes are all that helpful. Most of the trouble in LR comes from the specific details in each stimulus and the corresponding details in the answer choices. For example, the identification of term shifts, flaws/gaps, the role of a sentence, etc. and how they impact the argument can only be mastered through repetition. That being said, it is very
important to pay attention to the methods of identifying the argument core, the gap of the argument, and understanding the examples in that book. So if you need detailed notes to understand the concepts presented in MLAST, then by all means, summarize the entire thing. The most important part about MLAST is learning the concepts, being able to see a question, mentally identifying what question type it is, and knowing the corresponding things to look for.
For example, if weaken containing causation then the stated effect might in fact be the cause, the stated cause might not always produce the stated effect, or an alternative cause may have played a role in the development of both the stated cause and the stated effect.
In another example, for inference, most strongly supported, main point, etc., look for answer choices which are out of scope and eliminate them, narrow to two, skim the stimulus, and evaluate the two again. Again, in order to develop an idea of what is out of scope, you gotta drill.
And further, if necessary assumption, you must first identify the gap, then recognize the element which the authors reasoning hinges on, eliminate answers which don't relate to the argument core, then apply the negation test to determine which one collapses the argument.