I'm trying to get the last bit of slack out of my LR performance and have noticed that the questions I struggle with most--where I'm not just making a careless reading error that's obvious after the fact, but really don't understand why the given answer is correct even after checking--are Weaken/Strengthen (or Assumption) questions where the correct answer centers on terms or considerations not explicitly mentioned in the stimulus.
Some examples of this are on June 2009 PT 57, 2.22 (Clovis points) and 3.6 (raising the minimum wage). In both questions, the correct answer brings in a consideration (age of the points, and the profits of the company, respectively) that isn't talked about in the stimulus, and doesn't directly impact the reasoning in my mind.
Does anyone have strategies for approaching these questions/answer choices, recognizing when one of these answers is likely to be correct, and how to rule out the incorrect answer when it gets down to two choices? I've read discussions for these particular questions but end up still not entirely convinced of the right answer (or that the wrong answers are in fact wrong) so I'm wondering if my approach is off somehow.
1 post • Page 1 of 1
- Posts: 11
- Joined: Tue May 30, 2017 9:13 am
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests