Cant improve logical reasoning Forum

[Landau]

I'm having trouble raising my score on the logical reasoning section. I've been consistently getting between -6 and -7 on the section. This is despite the fact that I've worked through the Logical Reasoning Bible. Does anyone have any advice on how to answer 20+ questions correctly on this section? It seems that I'm often tripped up by questions dealing with science topics and flaw in the reasoning questions.

[yesofcourse]

I'm having trouble raising my score on the logical reasoning section. I've been consistently getting between -6 and -7 on the section. This is despite the fact that I've worked through the Logical Reasoning Bible. Does anyone have any advice on how to answer 20+ questions correctly on this section? It seems that I'm often tripped up by questions dealing with science topics and flaw in the reasoning questions.

go very very SLOWLY through the questions that you missed and work out the logic. Do this for even some questions you got correct but gave you a little trouble (and especially for questions you narrowed down to two choices and then just guessed the correct response). You should WRITE out a justification for each response adducing why it is correct or incorrect. Reviewing problems is much more important than doing timed sections up until the point that you can only miss one or two on each section (timed). good louck

[Landau]

I'm having trouble raising my score on the logical reasoning section. I've been consistently getting between -6 and -7 on the section. This is despite the fact that I've worked through the Logical Reasoning Bible. Does anyone have any advice on how to answer 20+ questions correctly on this section? It seems that I'm often tripped up by questions dealing with science topics and flaw in the reasoning questions.

go very very SLOWLY through the questions that you missed and work out the logic. Do this for even some questions you got correct but gave you a little trouble (and especially for questions you narrowed down to two choices and then just guessed the correct response). You should WRITE out a justification for each response adducing why it is correct or incorrect. Reviewing problems is much more important than doing timed sections up until the point that you can only miss one or two on each section (timed). good louck

Thanks for your advice. Can you give me an example of how you would write out such an explanation?

[Bikeflip]

In addition to the advice above:

Science topics: Don't get intimidated by the nerdy-ness of the topic.

Science in Must be True: These annoy me to no end. You have to go slow. If there is conditional reasoning involved, though, it will help you eliminate some incorrect answer choices.

Science in strengthen/weaken: It seems a lot of these questions, if memory serves me right, have causal reasoning. Review weaken/strengthen and causality.

Science in resolve the paradox: I really can't elaborate anymore than the LR bible. Sorry.

Flaw: Look at how the argument is formed/ what method of argumentation is used. Is the argument using causal reasoning? conditional reasoning? numbers and percentages? appeal to another authority? attack on an authority? The correct answer usually (like 9/10) is going to mention the method of argumentation. Be careful though; just trying to match a method of argumentation to an answer choice can lead to wrong answers. LSAC will, often, place two answer choices that have the same underlying methods. Nothing beats a full understanding of the argument.

Flaw EXCEPT questions make me sad, though.


Personally, I found it helped tremendously when I started to take notes on the LR bible. Granted, there are reviews at the end of most of the chapters, but when I put concepts in my own words, I force myself to conceptualize these concepts in ways I better understand.

I'm having trouble raising my score on the logical reasoning section. I've been consistently getting between -6 and -7 on the section. This is despite the fact that I've worked through the Logical Reasoning Bible. Does anyone have any advice on how to answer 20+ questions correctly on this section? It seems that I'm often tripped up by questions dealing with science topics and flaw in the reasoning questions.

go very very SLOWLY through the questions that you missed and work out the logic. Do this for even some questions you got correct but gave you a little trouble (and especially for questions you narrowed down to two choices and then just guessed the correct response). You should WRITE out a justification for each response adducing why it is correct or incorrect. Reviewing problems is much more important than doing timed sections up until the point that you can only miss one or two on each section (timed). good louck

Thanks for your advice. Can you give me an example of how you would write out such an explanation?

There's a method for everyone when it comes to writing explanations. Here's mine:
I write directly on the test book; I'm not going to retake the test. I'll first reread the question stem. I want to know what I'm supposed to do with this question.
I'll then reread the stimulus, and diagram any conditional reasoning, causal reasoning or any numbers & percentages. That crystallizes the argument for me, and I have a better idea of what to look for in the answer choices.
Next, I'll focus on the answer choices I eliminated rather quickly. I'll write 3-5 word explanations such as "incorrect conditional reasoning," "not mentioned in argument," "could be true (alternate explanation)," "does not weaken," etc. That knocks out 2-3 answer choices.
So now I'm down to the final 2-3. So far, I know what I'm supposed to do (weaken, must be true, parallel, etc). I have a pretty good idea what the stimulus states. And I know what does not work for the argument. Now I need remove any remaining uncertainty, and narrowing it down to one answer choice is enough to drive you nuts at times.
Pretty much here, I'm looking at the question as a whole, and I am comparing answer choices not only against each other, but against the whole question. That means, I'm once again rereading the stimulus and going directly back to one of my remaining answer choices. Does Answer choice X fully encapsulate what I am supposed to do, yes or no? Why or why not? Write out my explanation is as many words as a I need. I do that until I have one remaining answer choice left, and I write out why that answer choice best encapsulates the question stem, as it relates back to the stimulus.
You'll notice that I haven't tried to look up the answer choice yet. That's intentional. If I already know what the correct answer choice is, I'm cheating myself out of analysis. So many times, the correct answer choice encompasses specific wording (must, some, not always, omitting a key term from a conditional statement, using numbers and percentages in a certain way, etc) that I need to train myself to spot, and I cannot spot such wording if I know what the correct choice is before I begin my analysis. Only after I am confident in my final choice and all my analysis will I look up the correct answer choice. Hopefully it's correct. If it's not, I swear and take the correct answer choice into consideration and try to reanalyze everything.

[Landau]

In addition to the advice above:

Science topics: Don't get intimidated by the nerdy-ness of the topic.

Science in Must be True: These annoy me to no end. You have to go slow. If there is conditional reasoning involved, though, it will help you eliminate some incorrect answer choices.

Science in strengthen/weaken: It seems a lot of these questions, if memory serves me right, have causal reasoning. Review weaken/strengthen and causality.

Science in resolve the paradox: I really can't elaborate anymore than the LR bible. Sorry.

Flaw: Look at how the argument is formed/ what method of argumentation is used. Is the argument using causal reasoning? conditional reasoning? numbers and percentages? appeal to another authority? attack on an authority? The correct answer usually (like 9/10) is going to mention the method of argumentation. Be careful though; just trying to match a method of argumentation to an answer choice can lead to wrong answers. LSAC will, often, place two answer choices that have the same underlying methods. Nothing beats a full understanding of the argument.

Flaw EXCEPT questions make me sad, though.


Personally, I found it helped tremendously when I started to take notes on the LR bible. Granted, there are reviews at the end of most of the chapters, but when I put concepts in my own words, I force myself to conceptualize these concepts in ways I better understand.

I'm with you on the Must be true science topics. There's nothing worse than seeing a confusing stimulus about nucleosomes and then being asked about what can be properly inferred...

[Mr. Matlock]

In addition to the advice above:

Science topics: Don't get intimidated by the nerdy-ness of the topic.

Science in Must be True: These annoy me to no end. You have to go slow. If there is conditional reasoning involved, though, it will help you eliminate some incorrect answer choices.

Science in strengthen/weaken: It seems a lot of these questions, if memory serves me right, have causal reasoning. Review weaken/strengthen and causality.

Science in resolve the paradox: I really can't elaborate anymore than the LR bible. Sorry.

Flaw: Look at how the argument is formed/ what method of argumentation is used. Is the argument using causal reasoning? conditional reasoning? numbers and percentages? appeal to another authority? attack on an authority? The correct answer usually (like 9/10) is going to mention the method of argumentation. Be careful though; just trying to match a method of argumentation to an answer choice can lead to wrong answers. LSAC will, often, place two answer choices that have the same underlying methods. Nothing beats a full understanding of the argument.

Flaw EXCEPT questions make me sad, though.


Personally, I found it helped tremendously when I started to take notes on the LR bible. Granted, there are reviews at the end of most of the chapters, but when I put concepts in my own words, I force myself to conceptualize these concepts in ways I better understand.

I'm having trouble raising my score on the logical reasoning section. I've been consistently getting between -6 and -7 on the section. This is despite the fact that I've worked through the Logical Reasoning Bible. Does anyone have any advice on how to answer 20+ questions correctly on this section? It seems that I'm often tripped up by questions dealing with science topics and flaw in the reasoning questions.

go very very SLOWLY through the questions that you missed and work out the logic. Do this for even some questions you got correct but gave you a little trouble (and especially for questions you narrowed down to two choices and then just guessed the correct response). You should WRITE out a justification for each response adducing why it is correct or incorrect. Reviewing problems is much more important than doing timed sections up until the point that you can only miss one or two on each section (timed). good louck

Thanks for your advice. Can you give me an example of how you would write out such an explanation?

There's a method for everyone when it comes to writing explanations. Here's mine:
I write directly on the test book; I'm not going to retake the test. I'll first reread the question stem. I want to know what I'm supposed to do with this question.
I'll then reread the stimulus, and diagram any conditional reasoning, causal reasoning or any numbers & percentages. That crystallizes the argument for me, and I have a better idea of what to look for in the answer choices.
Next, I'll focus on the answer choices I eliminated rather quickly. I'll write 3-5 word explanations such as "incorrect conditional reasoning," "not mentioned in argument," "could be true (alternate explanation)," "does not weaken," etc. That knocks out 2-3 answer choices.
So now I'm down to the final 2-3. So far, I know what I'm supposed to do (weaken, must be true, parallel, etc). I have a pretty good idea what the stimulus states. And I know what does not work for the argument. Now I need remove any remaining uncertainty, and narrowing it down to one answer choice is enough to drive you nuts at times.
Pretty much here, I'm looking at the question as a whole, and I am comparing answer choices not only against each other, but against the whole question. That means, I'm once again rereading the stimulus and going directly back to one of my remaining answer choices. Does Answer choice X fully encapsulate what I am supposed to do, yes or no? Why or why not? Write out my explanation is as many words as a I need. I do that until I have one remaining answer choice left, and I write out why that answer choice best encapsulates the question stem, as it relates back to the stimulus.
You'll notice that I haven't tried to look up the answer choice yet. That's intentional. If I already know what the correct answer choice is, I'm cheating myself out of analysis. So many times, the correct answer choice encompasses specific wording (must, some, not always, omitting a key term from a conditional statement, using numbers and percentages in a certain way, etc) that I need to train myself to spot, and I cannot spot such wording if I know what the correct choice is before I begin my analysis. Only after I am confident in my final choice and all my analysis will I look up the correct answer choice. Hopefully it's correct. If it's not, I swear and take the correct answer choice into consideration and try to reanalyze everything.

HOLY S..% Bikeflip! From *Edits* in our countdown thread to this???? Well done sir... very well done indeed.

Seriously, that's one of the best written out responses I have yet to see. Thank you.

[MirandaHottie]

In addition to the advice above:

Science topics: Don't get intimidated by the nerdy-ness of the topic.

Science in Must be True: These annoy me to no end. You have to go slow. If there is conditional reasoning involved, though, it will help you eliminate some incorrect answer choices.

Science in strengthen/weaken: It seems a lot of these questions, if memory serves me right, have causal reasoning. Review weaken/strengthen and causality.

Science in resolve the paradox: I really can't elaborate anymore than the LR bible. Sorry.

Flaw: Look at how the argument is formed/ what method of argumentation is used. Is the argument using causal reasoning? conditional reasoning? numbers and percentages? appeal to another authority? attack on an authority? The correct answer usually (like 9/10) is going to mention the method of argumentation. Be careful though; just trying to match a method of argumentation to an answer choice can lead to wrong answers. LSAC will, often, place two answer choices that have the same underlying methods. Nothing beats a full understanding of the argument.

Flaw EXCEPT questions make me sad, though.


Personally, I found it helped tremendously when I started to take notes on the LR bible. Granted, there are reviews at the end of most of the chapters, but when I put concepts in my own words, I force myself to conceptualize these concepts in ways I better understand.

I'm having trouble raising my score on the logical reasoning section. I've been consistently getting between -6 and -7 on the section. This is despite the fact that I've worked through the Logical Reasoning Bible. Does anyone have any advice on how to answer 20+ questions correctly on this section? It seems that I'm often tripped up by questions dealing with science topics and flaw in the reasoning questions.

go very very SLOWLY through the questions that you missed and work out the logic. Do this for even some questions you got correct but gave you a little trouble (and especially for questions you narrowed down to two choices and then just guessed the correct response). You should WRITE out a justification for each response adducing why it is correct or incorrect. Reviewing problems is much more important than doing timed sections up until the point that you can only miss one or two on each section (timed). good louck

Thanks for your advice. Can you give me an example of how you would write out such an explanation?

There's a method for everyone when it comes to writing explanations. Here's mine:
I write directly on the test book; I'm not going to retake the test. I'll first reread the question stem. I want to know what I'm supposed to do with this question.
I'll then reread the stimulus, and diagram any conditional reasoning, causal reasoning or any numbers & percentages. That crystallizes the argument for me, and I have a better idea of what to look for in the answer choices.
Next, I'll focus on the answer choices I eliminated rather quickly. I'll write 3-5 word explanations such as "incorrect conditional reasoning," "not mentioned in argument," "could be true (alternate explanation)," "does not weaken," etc. That knocks out 2-3 answer choices.
So now I'm down to the final 2-3. So far, I know what I'm supposed to do (weaken, must be true, parallel, etc). I have a pretty good idea what the stimulus states. And I know what does not work for the argument. Now I need remove any remaining uncertainty, and narrowing it down to one answer choice is enough to drive you nuts at times.
Pretty much here, I'm looking at the question as a whole, and I am comparing answer choices not only against each other, but against the whole question. That means, I'm once again rereading the stimulus and going directly back to one of my remaining answer choices. Does Answer choice X fully encapsulate what I am supposed to do, yes or no? Why or why not? Write out my explanation is as many words as a I need. I do that until I have one remaining answer choice left, and I write out why that answer choice best encapsulates the question stem, as it relates back to the stimulus.
You'll notice that I haven't tried to look up the answer choice yet. That's intentional. If I already know what the correct answer choice is, I'm cheating myself out of analysis. So many times, the correct answer choice encompasses specific wording (must, some, not always, omitting a key term from a conditional statement, using numbers and percentages in a certain way, etc) that I need to train myself to spot, and I cannot spot such wording if I know what the correct choice is before I begin my analysis. Only after I am confident in my final choice and all my analysis will I look up the correct answer choice. Hopefully it's correct. If it's not, I swear and take the correct answer choice into consideration and try to reanalyze everything.

Ick

[capitalacq]

try doing a test or 2 without the methods from the powerscore LR bible and see how you do

[youpiiz]

.

[Bikeflip]

Ick

Since I bumped that thread a while back, I get to take credit for this alt

[BlondeTheory]

Personally, I found it helped tremendously when I started to take notes on the LR bible. Granted, there are reviews at the end of most of the chapters, but when I put concepts in my own words, I force myself to conceptualize these concepts in ways I better understand.

+1000. Doing this and then completing as many of the specific problem type immediately after helped me not only improve, but really understand the methods I was employing.

Good luck!

[DAC]

Let the record show that I, personally, love LR and become slightly aroused at the mere mentioning of the section.
I love breezing through the first 10 questions and finishing the section with 5 minutes remaining.
I really love it when I know the answer in my head even before reading the answer choices.
I really, really love it when I get perfect scores in the LR sections.

The RC section serves as my counterweight.

I hate spending 10 minutes on the easy passages.
I really hate it when I don't know how the answer choices are differentiated from each other.
I really, really hate when I got a -9 in RC on the real deal and it ruined my LSAT score.