Background in logic/philosophy necessary

cause8191
Posts: 29
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2012 8:38 pm

Background in logic/philosophy necessary

Postby cause8191 » Fri Jan 04, 2013 9:35 pm

I have no background in either, although last year I did read some of Walton's books and recently skimmed through some logic books from the library. I have been having terrible times in my short three weeks of prepping trying to sort through information, sub-analyze it, and intuitively find holes in the arguments. Like most everything I do, I am overthinking this and I just realized this. My strategy now is to find patterns in the stimuli and answer choices, without reading them three times through with no solid understanding. Is it possible to have success in LR (I am talking no more than -5 on both sections) without any prior knowledge of logic/philosophy?

User avatar
boblawlob
Posts: 524
Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2010 7:29 pm

Re: Background in logic/philosophy necessary

Postby boblawlob » Fri Jan 04, 2013 9:36 pm

Yes.

User avatar
rinkrat19
Posts: 13914
Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2010 5:35 am

Re: Background in logic/philosophy necessary

Postby rinkrat19 » Fri Jan 04, 2013 9:37 pm

Yep. Never took a logic or philosophy class in my life (or even read any books).

09042014
Posts: 18282
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 10:47 pm

Re: Background in logic/philosophy necessary

Postby 09042014 » Fri Jan 04, 2013 9:38 pm

cause8191 wrote:I have no background in either, although last year I did read some of Walton's books and recently skimmed through some logic books from the library. I have been having terrible times in my short three weeks of prepping trying to sort through information, sub-analyze it, and intuitively find holes in the arguments. Like most everything I do, I am overthinking this and I just realized this. My strategy now is to find patterns in the stimuli and answer choices, without reading them three times through with no solid understanding. Is it possible to have success in LR (I am talking no more than -5 on both sections) without any prior knowledge of logic/philosophy?


Philosophy is totally unnecessary. You have to understand logic though, but you gotta be pretty stupid to not understand basic logic.

My strategy now is to find patterns in the stimuli and answer choices, without reading them three times through with no solid understanding.


What the fuck are you talking about? Just read the fucking question, it asks a straight forward question, then you answer it.

User avatar
hichvichwoh
Posts: 442
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2012 11:21 am

Re: Background in logic/philosophy necessary

Postby hichvichwoh » Fri Jan 04, 2013 10:56 pm

Desert Fox wrote:What the fuck are you talking about? Just read the fucking question, it asks a straight forward question, then you answer it.

User avatar
suralin
better than you
Posts: 15029
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2012 1:52 am

Re: Background in logic/philosophy necessary

Postby suralin » Fri Jan 04, 2013 11:00 pm

cause8191 wrote:I have no background in either, although last year I did read some of Walton's books and recently skimmed through some logic books from the library. I have been having terrible times in my short three weeks of prepping trying to sort through information, sub-analyze it, and intuitively find holes in the arguments. Like most everything I do, I am overthinking this and I just realized this. My strategy now is to find patterns in the stimuli and answer choices, without reading them three times through with no solid understanding. Is it possible to have success in LR (I am talking no more than -5 on both sections) without any prior knowledge of logic/philosophy?


They can and often do help, but by no means are they necessary.

User avatar
jselson
Posts: 6337
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2013 3:51 am

Re: Background in logic/philosophy necessary

Postby jselson » Sat Jan 05, 2013 4:28 am

Knowing the major logical fallacies seems to be the best thing - look for charts online, there are a ton of them available, and most you've probably already heard of. Identifying term shifts as you read a passage helps, too, just takes some practice.

And I only have to use formal logic abstractions (ie., A is B if not C, like in the cat/dog/fish question) on 1-2 questions on average per test, so the logical fallacies are really what matters for LR.




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 2 guests