How do I improve on LR? Forum

[lsatnewb]

I cancelled my LSAT score for this Oct because I just didn't feel confident in my LR abilities. I was able to improve upon LG and RC, but barely made a lot of progress in LR.

I have the most trouble on necessary/sufficient assumption, justify, and some principle questions. I am not sure how to quickly comprehend the logic. Is it best to write it out? In some of the questions on Oct LSAT, the stimulus was really long and I spent almost 2.5 min on a sufficient assumption question towards the end of the section.

THanks

[JWP1022]

First six chapters of Manhattan LR.

[wtrc]

First six chapters of Manhattan LR.

And then drill drill drill. While people usually say LG is easiest to improve on, I think LR is easiest to improve to an extremely consistent level.

Also, the LSAT Trainer is a solid resource as well.

[jk148706]

And then drill drill drill.

[JWP1022]

If you want to have that "seeing numbers in the Matrix" moment with LR, I almost guarantee Manhattan will get you there. I was so inconsistent in LR before doing it, and afterwards it felt automatic.

[altoid99]

Drill baby, drill.

[okaygo]

Like has been stated..manhattan lr. drill by type. then drill some more. when going over your answers, make sure that you write out why each answer choice is wrong or right. That's how you enter the matrix

[JustHawkin]

What is the SOP while going through Manhatten LR?
Used manhatten for the Oct. test but may not have drilled well enough to absorb.

[jk148706]

Drill baby, drill.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=seXMIHgMFj8&t=1m42s

[nooooo]

First six chapters of Manhattan LR.

And then drill drill drill. While people usually say LG is easiest to improve on, I think LR is easiest to improve to an extremely consistent

Been doing this for a week and I'm already on another level in terms of LR. I've done PT 35-69 and just this week I've felt more progress doing the aforementioned advice.

Read MLSAT chapter, drill it, repeat.

[drawstring]

For me it was mostly about drilling tons of questions and reviewing them in detail after. Heading into the June exam (I moved it back to October) I was getting around -6 overall. I wasn't satisfied with this, so I re-drilled 21-40 with the Cambridge packets and drilled 1-20, which was all new and still highly relevant to recent tests. I found that with repeated exposure to the questions and detailed review, it was much easier for me to spot patterns and 'hot' points in the questions and answers. By the time the Oct test rolled around I was consistently hitting -1 to -3 overall (two sections) on new material, with -2 being my modal score.

I was also a Power Score guy to start and I found their stuff generally helpful, but adding in Manhattan helped take me to the next level, especially on assumption family questions. After reading their book I was better able to link premises and conclusions, find gaps between those points, and I focused more on eliminating wrong answers than finding the right answer, which was quite helpful to someone who often cannot articulate precisely why the correct answer is correct.

First six chapters of Manhattan LR.

Absolutely. Those chapters helped me greatly.

[SecondWind]

Drill baby, drill.

Yep. Crush the Cambridge packets. I spend a lot more time reviewing than I do actually working the problems.

[jordan15]

Read through each one slowly, circle buzzwords, and always read the explanation in your prep book. Unlike RC, LR questions are based on precise rules, so if you read through the explanation slowly and understand why the rule is what it is (and why the answer you chose could not possibly be correct), you are likely to remember that rule and hopefully will be able to spot similar questions (and trick answers) later.

In other words, drill a lot. I'd recommend not timing yourself for awhile till you improve.

[bp shinners]

I cancelled my LSAT score for this Oct because I just didn't feel confident in my LR abilities. I was able to improve upon LG and RC, but barely made a lot of progress in LR.

I have the most trouble on necessary/sufficient assumption, justify, and some principle questions. I am not sure how to quickly comprehend the logic. Is it best to write it out? In some of the questions on Oct LSAT, the stimulus was really long and I spent almost 2.5 min on a sufficient assumption question towards the end of the section.

THanks

As others have said, drill. But I have specific advice for Justify and Sufficient assumption questions, since you should be able to get through almost any of them in less than a minute because of the way they construct them on the LSAT.

Sufficient
A solid 80+% of the time, the flaw is equivocation, and the argument introduces a new term in the conclusion. If that's the case (and it is a large majority of the time), the answer choice has to include that term. Otherwise, you can't validate the conclusion. This will eliminate 3-4 answer choices on most sufficient assumption questions.

Justify the Conclusion Principle questions (Strengthen Principle in the BP curriculum)
The answer to these is ALWAYS a principle that reads:
If the premise is true, then the conclusion is true.
So find the conclusion, then sum up the relevant premises into 1 sentence, and find the answer that says, "If premise, then conclusion."

For instance, I might have an argument that reads:
Matt was justified in purchasing a PS4 instead of an Xbone. The Xbone includes a camera that is always watching you, invading your privacy. The PS4 is the only other next-gen console, and Matt is definitely going to buy a next-gen console.
Conclusion? I was justified in purchasing a PS4 instead of an Xbone. Why? Because the Xbone invades privacy, and I'm buying either the Xbone or PS4.
So the reason is because the Xbone invades privacy, and the conclusion is I buy the PS4. All I need is an answer that connects those - If one option invades your privacy, then you're justified in going with the only other option.

These questions are conceptually difficult, but they're mechanically trivial as they appear on the LSAT. As soon as you accept the fact that you're simply looking for an answer choice that say, "If premise, then conclusion." Seriously, go back and check out any of these questions - they all boil down to the same thing.

[theycallmefoes]

I was also a Power Score guy to start and I found their stuff generally helpful, but adding in Manhattan helped take me to the next level, especially on assumption family questions. After reading their book I was better able to link premises and conclusions, find gaps between those points, and I focused more on eliminating wrong answers than finding the right answer, which was quite helpful to someone who often cannot articulate precisely why the correct answer is correct.

This. The LRB is great for when you first start studying, but it won't cover all the bases thoroughly enough. In my opinion, it's best to use both Powerscore and Manhattan, because they each have their strong points, and it's always helpful to view the questions from even slightly different perspectives. The LRB tends to focus more on formulas and tricks, whereas MLR is really solid conceptually. Like others have said, MLR gives a very clear, complete picture of necessary vs. sufficient assumptions, whereas the LRB, in my opinion, does not (in fact, I don't think I even fully grasped the differences in the question stems until I read MLR, but I may just be a bit slow). That being said, I think the LRB truly destroys formal logic (in a good way), so, like I said, I found both useful. Also, you may want to consider taking a look at The LSAT Trainer. The book's very thorough and has plenty of helpful exercises/drills.

Echoing all the support for drilling. I know a lot of people did pure drilling with level 1 and 2 questions and saved the level 3 and 4 questions for the experimental sections when they moved on to timed PTs, so that's something to consider.

Also, blind review: --LinkRemoved--

[boosane]

Do you guys diagram while doing the LRs? My blueprint instructor makes us diagram for every diagrammable question.

[bp shinners]

Do you guys diagram while doing the LRs? My blueprint instructor makes us diagram for every diagrammable question.

Glad to hear it - we yell at them if they don't

I always diagram, mainly because it guarantees I won't mix something up in my head AND it's usually faster than trying to juggle everything in your brain while doing the question (it doesn't feel like it, but if you actually time it, diagramming it out is usually faster). It also makes it a lot easier to spot those answer choices that give you intermediate steps in a conditional chain - if I have A->B->C->D, and the answer is A->C, it's usually easier to see with it drawn out because if you just thought it out, you're probably locked into searching for A->D.

There are some exceptions to this - stuff like the Keyboard Skills question. But, for the most part, I can get through a question more quickly and accurately by actually writing it out. It's only going to come up in 1/6 questions, anyway.