LR Type Drilling

mx23250
Posts: 638
Joined: Mon May 20, 2013 3:44 pm

LR Type Drilling

Postby mx23250 » Wed Jun 19, 2013 3:19 pm

Quick question. After completing a given type of LR question from the Cambridge 1-38 type packet and going over all the questions you got wrong and/or struggled with, what's your next step on studying that "type"? Do you re-do all the problems again? Just those you struggled with? Do you wait until the questions are no longer fresh (a couple weeks?) or soon after? Any other tips for using the "type" drilling to learn/ace LR? I appreciate all input! Thanks!!

magickware
Posts: 359
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2012 1:27 pm

Re: LR Type Drilling

Postby magickware » Thu Jun 20, 2013 12:26 am

I'd just keep doing the questions that gave you trouble on a weekly basis or something until there are no more such questions.

Most people tend not to get what they got right the first time wrong. Of course, this does rely on you being honest and differentiating clearly between "This shit was easy!" and "Oh, this is interesting". Anything that has you go "this is interesting" should be reviewed.

But it's not really necessary to drill a section to death. The point of studying questions by type, in my understanding at least, is for you to develop a sense of the common traps and similarities within it. LSAC likes to reuse the same couple of strategies over and over within each question type, and studying by type lets you focus on them. If you just did mixed stuff, then it's difficult to develop the above understanding.

Anyways, you're going to continue studying the questions when you do PTs, so I wouldn't spend too much time caught up on reviewing the Cambridge packets over and over. There are better things to spend time on.

mx23250
Posts: 638
Joined: Mon May 20, 2013 3:44 pm

Re: LR Type Drilling

Postby mx23250 » Thu Jun 20, 2013 9:52 am

magickware wrote:I'd just keep doing the questions that gave you trouble on a weekly basis or something until there are no more such questions.

Most people tend not to get what they got right the first time wrong. Of course, this does rely on you being honest and differentiating clearly between "This shit was easy!" and "Oh, this is interesting". Anything that has you go "this is interesting" should be reviewed.

But it's not really necessary to drill a section to death. The point of studying questions by type, in my understanding at least, is for you to develop a sense of the common traps and similarities within it. LSAC likes to reuse the same couple of strategies over and over within each question type, and studying by type lets you focus on them. If you just did mixed stuff, then it's difficult to develop the above understanding.

Anyways, you're going to continue studying the questions when you do PTs, so I wouldn't spend too much time caught up on reviewing the Cambridge packets over and over. There are better things to spend time on.


Thanks for the input!

User avatar
Otunga
Posts: 1317
Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2013 7:56 pm

Re: LR Type Drilling

Postby Otunga » Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:44 am

Magickware:

Would you say that drilling LG by type ad nauseam is, generally speaking, more beneficial than drilling LR by type? If nothing else, it seems one can get increasingly faster by repeatedly drilling LG, while one can get diminishing returns time-wise on LR. After all, how fast can one properly synthesize an argument?

magickware
Posts: 359
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2012 1:27 pm

Re: LR Type Drilling

Postby magickware » Thu Jun 20, 2013 1:25 pm

I'd say yes.

I mean, all LG games have you do the same process-

1) Read the rules.
2) Diagram the rules.
3) Create inferences.
4) Solve questions.

And the questions are all of very similar design as well. You almost always have the first question that is basically a rule check. Then a bunch of questions that ask you for must be true/variants and what happens if this specific X or Y occurs.

The faster you get at each step, the faster you get at the games overall. If you get really fast at grouping games, then you should be really fast at linear games, etc.

But LR requires you to actually think on what you read. While there are several set patterns that LSAC uses, the details are always different enough that you need to take the time to digest what you read and what the argument is. It just takes longer because you need to pay attention to the little details, esp. for the harder LR questions.

I don't think you'll see much benefit in drilling LR by type once you get the patterns and the idea behind each question type. The difficulty in LR is in being able to constantly switch between the question types and the mental drain that causes, not the questions themselves.




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: SunDevil14, Yahoo [Bot] and 5 guests