Q for anyone who is consistently LR -4 or better, combined

steven21
Posts: 75
Joined: Wed Mar 06, 2013 5:06 pm

Re: Q for anyone who is consistently LR -4 or better, combined

Postby steven21 » Sat Jul 20, 2013 12:10 pm

.
Last edited by steven21 on Sat Apr 26, 2014 12:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
vuthy
Posts: 379
Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2013 8:55 am

Re: Q for anyone who is consistently LR -4 or better, combined

Postby vuthy » Sat Jul 20, 2013 12:15 pm

steven21 wrote:
I wish it did work. But I am able to thoroughly explain each answer choice to each question I got wrong. In fact, my reasons for why I got an answer wrong always match up with the reasons that Kaplan and Manhattan give



I think what everyone is going to say to you is (a) just because it isn't working yet doesn't mean it doesn't work, and (b) just because it doesn't work for you doesn't mean it doesn't work. Not to downplay your point of view or your frustration with that blind review method -- I get it, believe me -- but there is no doubt that for many (or perhaps even most) of the elite scorers on this board at least, it has worked when they use it.

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

Re: Q for anyone who is consistently LR -4 or better, combined

Postby magickware » Sat Jul 20, 2013 12:25 pm

vuthy wrote:I think I see it now. "Most small companies" (B) =/= "most small companies that have never advertised on the internet"?


Yes.

vuthy wrote:See this is what gets me stuck sometimes. I know we're supposed to look for detail creep and term shifts. And in this one, the stim absolutely does not say that nature is "philosophically indisputable," as answer E does. The stim says "undeniable" but nothing about philosophically undeniable or indisputable. So this is a situation where looking for term shifts and finding them actually made me eliminate the right answer straight away. Just have to find that sweet spot, I guess, between not looking for details enough and looking for them too much. (That said, my choice, B, clearly sucked.)


I understand. Keep in mind though that the big no no is using outside information to explain what is going on in the stimulus. Term shifts and change in wording are concerns only on assumption family questions. Only a couple of question types allow this, such as (iirc) the assumption family questions. Inference questions shouldn't have outside information.

But I believe that going by it like this just adds more crap to your brain. As you keep solving questions and figuring out why certain answers are wrong and others are right, you start to subconsciously see whether that outside information is fine, etc. It just takes a while.

Techsan23
Posts: 35
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2011 10:21 pm

Re: Q for anyone who is consistently LR -4 or better, combined

Postby Techsan23 » Sat Jul 20, 2013 4:08 pm

I'm not sure how much this will help you. I switched from reading the stem first to stimulus first and it made the difference for me. Anticipating things gave me tunnel vision and I was missing the main point when I was reading the stimulus looking for specific things. I went from missing -6 to -8 to missing -3 to -5. It may not be useful but I just wanted to throw it out there.

User avatar
vuthy
Posts: 379
Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2013 8:55 am

Re: Q for anyone who is consistently LR -4 or better, combined

Postby vuthy » Sat Jul 20, 2013 4:23 pm

Techsan23 wrote:I'm not sure how much this will help you. I switched from reading the stem first to stimulus first and it made the difference for me. Anticipating things gave me tunnel vision and I was missing the main point when I was reading the stimulus looking for specific things. I went from missing -6 to -8 to missing -3 to -5. It may not be useful but I just wanted to throw it out there.


Interesting. I may give it a try, but I had the opposite experience (got better and faster when I switched from stim to stem). Worth a shot though.

User avatar
mosessta
Posts: 10
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2013 10:31 am

Re: Q for anyone who is consistently LR -4 or better, combined

Postby mosessta » Sat Jul 20, 2013 4:50 pm

I had the same problem. After doing the PowerScore bibles I did about 10 PTs and, while I was averaging about 10 points above my diag, I was still missing anywhere from 6 to 10 on LR. Started doing the Manhattan LR guide and didn't see any changes in my results. Then I decided to scan all the LR questions I'd ever gotten wrong, praying that a pattern would emerge with respect to what question types I was missing. No luck.

I now get pissed when I miss 4 questions (combined). What's more, I finally approach a LR section with confidence and a desire for a challenge. I used the Cambridge book that organizes all 997 LR questions from tests 1-20 by type and by difficulty. I then would pick a question type (started out with Flaw and Must Be True because they're fairly numerous), re-read the PowerScore section on that type, and just drill. Just expose yourself to that question type repeatedly. Anytime you get one wrong, write an explanation for why, but also scan the message boards on Manhattan LSAT — they have some really bright people writing out explanations for the problems. Be strict with yourself about timing. Start with easier questions and if you're doing 12 give yourself 13 minutes. Eventually even the hard ones take you only a minute. After doing 110 flaw questions over the course of 4 days, if I'm going to get a flaw question wrong, it'll have to be a reaaaalllly tough one. Most likely though, it'll just be a quick point. You've literally seen just about all of the different principles that they re-brand and re-package and test you on. For people who haven't had repeated exposure, there's uncertainty around every corner eating away at your confidence and your time. For those who've had the repeated exposure, wrong answers just seem to raise their hands to you. Once you've done that for each question type (I'm not even done with all of them yet! And already seeing significant increases in my score), you'll be on your way to reaching your ceiling LR score.

User avatar
vuthy
Posts: 379
Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2013 8:55 am

Re: Q for anyone who is consistently LR -4 or better, combined

Postby vuthy » Sat Jul 20, 2013 5:16 pm

mosessta wrote:I had the same problem. After doing the PowerScore bibles I did about 10 PTs and, while I was averaging about 10 points above my diag, I was still missing anywhere from 6 to 10 on LR. Started doing the Manhattan LR guide and didn't see any changes in my results. Then I decided to scan all the LR questions I'd ever gotten wrong, praying that a pattern would emerge with respect to what question types I was missing. No luck.

I now get pissed when I miss 4 questions (combined). What's more, I finally approach a LR section with confidence and a desire for a challenge. I used the Cambridge book that organizes all 997 LR questions from tests 1-20 by type and by difficulty. I then would pick a question type (started out with Flaw and Must Be True because they're fairly numerous), re-read the PowerScore section on that type, and just drill. Just expose yourself to that question type repeatedly. Anytime you get one wrong, write an explanation for why, but also scan the message boards on Manhattan LSAT — they have some really bright people writing out explanations for the problems. Be strict with yourself about timing. Start with easier questions and if you're doing 12 give yourself 13 minutes. Eventually even the hard ones take you only a minute. After doing 110 flaw questions over the course of 4 days, if I'm going to get a flaw question wrong, it'll have to be a reaaaalllly tough one. Most likely though, it'll just be a quick point. You've literally seen just about all of the different principles that they re-brand and re-package and test you on. For people who haven't had repeated exposure, there's uncertainty around every corner eating away at your confidence and your time. For those who've had the repeated exposure, wrong answers just seem to raise their hands to you. Once you've done that for each question type (I'm not even done with all of them yet! And already seeing significant increases in my score), you'll be on your way to reaching your ceiling LR score.


Good to hear. I have been drilling Cambridge for several weeks, and doing explanations, but I guess I need to do even more. I generally do about 30 a day, and do really well with levels 1, 2, and 3 (rarely get any wrong, all under 1 minute) and pretty well on level 4 (a few more wrong, closer to 2 minutes each). Part of my trouble is that when I shift to PT mode, it doesn't all hold together as well. But I do think that really taking the drilling up to the next level of intensity may be the right play. Thanks.

kiyoku
Posts: 136
Joined: Sat May 11, 2013 2:25 am

Re: Q for anyone who is consistently LR -4 or better, combined

Postby kiyoku » Sun Jul 21, 2013 10:13 am

steven21 wrote:been doing it consistently and thoroughly for a little over a year


i'm saying this because I want to be of help.

Time doesn't guarantee that you get better. It might actually guarantee that your habits become more difficult to fix.

When we approach the LR questions, we are given information from the Question and Stimulus stem. We are given 1 correct answer and 4 wrong answers from the 5 options below.

Once we're finished getting all the information needed from the question stem and the stimulus, we're left with the 5 Options.

When we approach option (A), we need to make one of two final decisions.

1) it is wrong.
2) it is right.

The faster and more firm we are about knowing that it is either 1 or 2, the quicker and more accurate we become on individual questions.

This is why it's imperative to know EXACTLY why an option is wrong and right. It's so important that it's useless to know it while being slow. You need to know it while being fast. And you can become faster by doing proper reviews with every single question. Sometimes I sit there for a long time trying to re-read the stimulus and question and play through the Answer options, wonder what I was supposed to do to get this question finished within a minute. How was I supposed to go about thinking that option A is wrong within 3 seconds of reading it instead of 10 seconds?

This leaves no room for useless thoughts and only room for precise reasoning. Unfortunately, identifying which options are right and wrong (and the only way we can do this correctly is by knowing exactly why something is right or wrong) is the only way to get better at both:

1)eliminating a wrong answer option with certainty and speed.
2)choosing a right answer with certainty and speed.




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider] and 1 guest