Should I read Question Stem or Stimulus first? Forum

[risa1600]

Powerscore suggests reading everything in order. Do any of you find it more helpful to read the question stem first so you know what information you need to be looking for?

[LifeGoals]

I read everything in order. A piece of information you might seem to be irrelevant can often be the difference between two answer choices that seem good, so I think it's better to get a sense of the entire question before digging. It might make you a little faster, but I think you'd pay in accuracy, and there are other ways to get fast.

[jetsfan1]

I disagree with the above. The premise is right, that you can't afford to miss any detail, but to me that means reading stem first. Then you know exactly what you are looking for when reading the argument. This makes you quicker as well.

This will take practice though. I switched from straight through to stem about a third of the way through my studying and initially I was slower. This is because I had yet to plan a definitive attack for each Q type. By game day, after reading the stem I had a plan of attack going into every stim, and for different q types that could often be very different.

Want to qualify this though: many people have been successful both ways, so ultimately go with what's more comfortable. But I think it's worth giving both a try for at least a couple of weeks before deciding.

[PoopNpants]

I went through the powerscore bible first so I started with stimulus first. After I read the LSAT trainer I suggested trying their approach of reading the stem first but I still preferred stimulus first. I found that reading the question stem would just be another thing in my mind when I should just focus on the argument and the support. I also found myself reading the stem, then the stimulus, and then the stem again. I'd say if stimulus first is working for you then stick with it, if not try out stem first and do which ever one you feel most comfortable with

[Manhattan Prep Matt]

I went through the powerscore bible first so I started with stimulus first. After I read the LSAT trainer I suggested trying their approach of reading the stem first but I still preferred stimulus first. I found that reading the question stem would just be another thing in my mind when I should just focus on the argument and the support. I also found myself reading the stem, then the stimulus, and then the stem again. I'd say if stimulus first is working for you then stick with it, if not try out stem first and do which ever one you feel most comfortable with

To me, reading the stem first lets me know whether or not I even have an argument, and whether I should care if it's flawed. I might spend a ton of time looking for an argument, and then end up in an inference question. Or trying to find a flaw, but ending up in a main point question. Any time considering the extra information is wasted.

As to re-reading the stem, I have shorthand I use for each question type, so it's a matter of just checking a letter instead of re-reading the entire question. Even if I did re-read the question, though, I personally find that faster than going in blind. I wouldn't try to find Waldo without knowing what he looks like.

That said, the important word in the last paragraph is "personally". While a large majority of people I've worked with do better with a stem-first approach, it's not universal. I would suggest that you give both methods a fair shake, but go with the one that you prefer. At the end of the day, they both work, and it's better to use the one that works for you than the one that works for most people.

[risa1600]

Thanks everyone. That was really helpful! I guess I can try both approaches in two different prep tests and see which one I do better on. To me, it seems like reading the stem would be better since for things like Parallel or Method of Reasoning, I'll know the structure while I'm reading the stimulus, whereas after reading the stimulus, I might have to pause and think about it longer. My main problem was that I would read the stem again. Also, maybe powerscore is right and reading the stem ahead of time is just another piece of information to process and may create confusion. I'm having trouble outweighing the pros and cons of each. However, denoting the type of question on the side is a great tip!

[jetsfan1]

Thanks everyone. That was really helpful! I guess I can try both approaches in two different prep tests and see which one I do better on. To me, it seems like reading the stem would be better since for things like Parallel or Method of Reasoning, I'll know the structure while I'm reading the stimulus, whereas after reading the stimulus, I might have to pause and think about it longer. My main problem was that I would read the stem again. Also, maybe powerscore is right and reading the stem ahead of time is just another piece of information to process and may create confusion. I'm having trouble outweighing the pros and cons of each. However, denoting the type of question on the side is a great tip!

Honestly, there are arguments to be made for both. I disagree with Powerscore here, but if I were you I would just experiment with both (and for a couple weeks, not just a couple of days and give up) and then go with whichever is more comfortable/successful. Best of luck!

[risa1600]

Thanks everyone. That was really helpful! I guess I can try both approaches in two different prep tests and see which one I do better on. To me, it seems like reading the stem would be better since for things like Parallel or Method of Reasoning, I'll know the structure while I'm reading the stimulus, whereas after reading the stimulus, I might have to pause and think about it longer. My main problem was that I would read the stem again. Also, maybe powerscore is right and reading the stem ahead of time is just another piece of information to process and may create confusion. I'm having trouble outweighing the pros and cons of each. However, denoting the type of question on the side is a great tip!

Honestly, there are arguments to be made for both. I disagree with Powerscore here, but if I were you I would just experiment with both (and for a couple weeks, not just a couple of days and give up) and then go with whichever is more comfortable/successful. Best of luck!

Thanks for the tip! Yeah, I somewhat disagreed with powerscore, too, on this one, but most of the other powerscore strategies are incredibly solid.

[BlueprintJason]

This is an oft debated question, and there are good arguments for both sides here. At Blueprint, we teach question first, and I think on balance it is the best approach for most (if not almost all) students.

The main pro is that reading the question stem first tells what your job is, and knowing this helps with focus on the right things. You go into the stimulus knowing what you are trying to do, what you are looking for, and most importantly what NOT to worry about. When you are trying to get faster, it's good to know, for example, that in a must be true question you shouldn't be worried reading the argument looking for flaws or trying to figure out the main conclusion--you know your job is just to extract the facts and anticipate combining facts together into inferences or using your diagramming skills to chain together conditional statements and have the contrapositives ready.

Also, I would be cautious about extrapolating which strategy is best based on just one PT--the results could be specific to the difficulty or idiosyncrasies of that particular PT. I think it's best to practice with the q-stem approach first as you are learning the question types no matter where you end up at the end.

HTH, good luck!

[Clearly]

Use the search function please. This has come up about 3500 times already.

[Rigo]

I do stem first but definitely test with both methods and see which you prefer.

[mornincounselor]

Post removed.

[risa1600]

This is an oft debated question, and there are good arguments for both sides here. At Blueprint, we teach question first, and I think on balance it is the best approach for most (if not almost all) students.

The main pro is that reading the question stem first tells what your job is, and knowing this helps with focus on the right things. You go into the stimulus knowing what you are trying to do, what you are looking for, and most importantly what NOT to worry about. When you are trying to get faster, it's good to know, for example, that in a must be true question you shouldn't be worried reading the argument looking for flaws or trying to figure out the main conclusion--you know your job is just to extract the facts and anticipate combining facts together into inferences or using your diagramming skills to chain together conditional statements and have the contrapositives ready.

Also, I would be cautious about extrapolating which strategy is best based on just one PT--the results could be specific to the difficulty or idiosyncrasies of that particular PT. I think it's best to practice with the q-stem approach first as you are learning the question types no matter where you end up at the end.

HTH, good luck!

+1

And the main pro of stimulus first, I think, is once you read the stimulus you should (after lots of practice) be able to predict what the question will ask, then when you get to the question it can serve either as reinforcement of your initial read or (if the question isn't what you expected) it can prompt you to return to the stimulus for a second read.

Knowing before you read vs reinforcement of your read. I think it comes down to speed vs accuracy.

That's true! Whenever I'd read the stimulus and then read the question stem, I would sometimes have to go back to see what I was looking for. For example, with Necessary Assumption, I would have to go back and see what the missing link was because beforehand I didn't know I was looking for the missing link. With parallel, as well, I would have to go back and find out the structure because I wouldn't know that's what I was reading for. There are so many tasks such as looking for chain reasoning, reading for structure, finding the missing link, that it feels weird going in not knowing what my task is. So I guess I'll read the question stem first. It narrows my approach in the best way possible. Thanks for all the tips everyone!

[BlueprintJason]

This is an oft debated question, and there are good arguments for both sides here. At Blueprint, we teach question first, and I think on balance it is the best approach for most (if not almost all) students.

The main pro is that reading the question stem first tells what your job is, and knowing this helps with focus on the right things. You go into the stimulus knowing what you are trying to do, what you are looking for, and most importantly what NOT to worry about. When you are trying to get faster, it's good to know, for example, that in a must be true question you shouldn't be worried reading the argument looking for flaws or trying to figure out the main conclusion--you know your job is just to extract the facts and anticipate combining facts together into inferences or using your diagramming skills to chain together conditional statements and have the contrapositives ready.

Also, I would be cautious about extrapolating which strategy is best based on just one PT--the results could be specific to the difficulty or idiosyncrasies of that particular PT. I think it's best to practice with the q-stem approach first as you are learning the question types no matter where you end up at the end.

HTH, good luck!

+1

And the main pro of stimulus first, I think, is once you read the stimulus you should (after lots of practice) be able to predict what the question will ask, then when you get to the question it can serve either as reinforcement of your initial read or (if the question isn't what you expected) it can prompt you to return to the stimulus for a second read.

Knowing before you read vs reinforcement of your read. I think it comes down to speed vs accuracy.

That's true! Whenever I'd read the stimulus and then read the question stem, I would sometimes have to go back to see what I was looking for. For example, with Necessary Assumption, I would have to go back and see what the missing link was because beforehand I didn't know I was looking for the missing link. With parallel, as well, I would have to go back and find out the structure because I wouldn't know that's what I was reading for. There are so many tasks such as looking for chain reasoning, reading for structure, finding the missing link, that it feels weird going in not knowing what my task is. So I guess I'll read the question stem first. It narrows my approach in the best way possible. Thanks for all the tips everyone!

Yep. There are definitely pros and cons, and mornincounselor pointed out the best pro for the stem-first-approach.

I think ultimately it comes down to efficiency. As you pointed out, when you read stimulus first you often have to go back and re-read. Your goal should really be to know your job going in to reading the stimulus so that you only have to read it one time. A lot of time is wasted having to go back into the stimulus a second time--as you aptly mentioned.

Good luck, and if you have any questions you want explained, please feel free to come post over in the Blueprint Extravaganza thread and I'll get back to you ASAP!!!

J

[BlueprintJason]

This is an oft debated question, and there are good arguments for both sides here. At Blueprint, we teach question first, and I think on balance it is the best approach for most (if not almost all) students.

The main pro is that reading the question stem first tells what your job is, and knowing this helps with focus on the right things. You go into the stimulus knowing what you are trying to do, what you are looking for, and most importantly what NOT to worry about. When you are trying to get faster, it's good to know, for example, that in a must be true question you shouldn't be worried reading the argument looking for flaws or trying to figure out the main conclusion--you know your job is just to extract the facts and anticipate combining facts together into inferences or using your diagramming skills to chain together conditional statements and have the contrapositives ready.

Also, I would be cautious about extrapolating which strategy is best based on just one PT--the results could be specific to the difficulty or idiosyncrasies of that particular PT. I think it's best to practice with the q-stem approach first as you are learning the question types no matter where you end up at the end.

HTH, good luck!

+1

And the main pro of stimulus first, I think, is once you read the stimulus you should (after lots of practice) be able to predict what the question will ask, then when you get to the question it can serve either as reinforcement of your initial read or (if the question isn't what you expected) it can prompt you to return to the stimulus for a second read.

Knowing before you read vs reinforcement of your read. I think it comes down to speed vs accuracy.

That's true! Whenever I'd read the stimulus and then read the question stem, I would sometimes have to go back to see what I was looking for. For example, with Necessary Assumption, I would have to go back and see what the missing link was because beforehand I didn't know I was looking for the missing link. With parallel, as well, I would have to go back and find out the structure because I wouldn't know that's what I was reading for. There are so many tasks such as looking for chain reasoning, reading for structure, finding the missing link, that it feels weird going in not knowing what my task is. So I guess I'll read the question stem first. It narrows my approach in the best way possible. Thanks for all the tips everyone!

Yep. There are definitely pros and cons, and mornincounselor pointed out the best pro for the stimulus-first-approach.

I think ultimately it comes down to efficiency. As you pointed out, when you read stimulus first you often have to go back and re-read. Your goal should really be to know your job going in to reading the stimulus so that you only have to read it one time. A lot of time is wasted having to go back into the stimulus a second time--as you aptly mentioned.

Good luck, and if you have any questions you want explained, please feel free to come post over in the Blueprint Extravaganza thread and I'll get back to you ASAP!!!

J