Excellent performance in the rest of the lsat, congrats. I'm still inconsistent in RC (-5 to -1) but I don't do any markings whatsoever in RC and take about 4 minutes to read each passage. I usually finish a few seconds before 35 mins. I am amazed that there are people here who score consistently near perfect scores in PTs and who finish RC about 5 minutes early, both of which I consider to be difficult to do things.
Thank you for your response and the advice, I will try this today.
jmjm wrote:Are there any AC elimination approaches to identify the TCR between two competing choices in LR?
PS categories of strengthen, weaken, must be true etc are very obvious and I mentally cast the question into one of these and look at all ACs to find TCR. But, I don't apply any elimination tricks, if any, to go faster or be more precise.
If I drill LR from books then the undesirable side-effect is that I'd be exposed to recent lsat questions before taking PTs.
I would highly, highly recommend the Manhattan LR book after you finish the LRB. It goes significantly in greater depth on how to eliminate very attractive answer choices and how to really delve into the "core" of each stimulus.
They also go into certain tendencies that answer choices have. For weaken questions for example, in a causal conclusion you can show the presumed cause without the presumed effect, the effect without the cause, or something else affecting both and that can weaken the stimulus. You can show that neither are related. If the author is making a claim and says something in the conclusion along the lines of ("must" or "will" or "inevitably will occur", etc. think WHY does it HAVE to happen like that? Couldn't something else occur?)
Be flexible in strengthen weaken questions in bringing in outside information or something that isn't directly supported in the stimulus. Often these answer choices slightly strengthen/weaken by providing some sort of explanation that the author isn't considering. These ACs could also (and often do) rule out alternative considerations. If the author is making a claim that dinosaurs disappeared because of an asteroid landing on earth, a strengthen AC would be "there were not volcano eruptions that could have caused the extinction of dinosaurs" etc.
Almost always red flag answer choices in NA questions that say "any" "only" "must" these answer choices have a tendency to be weak. Master the negation test. Questions like must be true, inference, most strongly supported are also generally weak.
When you see a question about numbers/percentages/proportions, almost always expect the correct response to address this. The author will often use a percentage "30% greater number of teachers expected to be hired this upcoming year" and supporting premise "average numbers of students to teacher unchanged" therefore, you can infer that more students are enrolled. Another example "there is a higher # of car accidents in this country this year than last year" to reach a conclusion that says "therefore, a greater percentage of people are involved in crashes this year". What if there is significantly greater population this year than last year? Play with the numbers.
SA choices tend to be strong, often stronger than you need. Master conditional logic for these question stems. If a new concept is introduced in the conclusion, but nowhere else in the premises, that same concept MUST be in the correct answer choice for SA questions. You can almost always predict or anticipate the AC for this type.
In strengthen weaken questions there can also occasionally be AC's that weaken the premise or something you take as given, like support for a study or something the author is using to make his conclusion. Be flexible on these question types.
I'm sure you know some or most of this but it's little subtleties like what the Manhattan LR book showed that took my LR scores from minus 7+ to minus 2 or less consistently. Sorry for the long post, hope this helps. Again, the Manhattan LR book will be one of the best investments you can make for this exam.