Exactly. For example, if A and B are arguing about a topic, and the question asks how B responds to A, and in the stimulus, he clearly uses a counterexample, and counterexample is answer choice A, I choose A and move on. If a parallel flaw question confuses sufficient and necessary in the stimulus, and answer choice B also confuses sufficient and necessary, I choose B and move on. I save a minute by not having to read the other answer choices, which buys me time for later, harder questions that need more thought, and it also prevents me from getting tricked out of a good answer choice.appind wrote:so you sometimes compare choices to pick the best one? and for the categories that you listed you don't compare and pick one without eliminating others?lawpro82 wrote:
I think it works both ways...I agree, in strengthen/weaken you should usually read every answer choice, HOWEVER, in inference questions, method of reasoning, find the flaw, and assumption questions, once you find the correct answer, bubble in and move on. For two reasons. First and most obvious, speed. No explanation necessary. Secondly, I think the test is designed to make people second guess their original (and correct) answer. Often, I see the difference between somebody in the 160s and 170s being that the former get hung up on answer choices and allow the testmakers to confuse and trick them.
To succeed in all question types, but most importantly in LR, one must be PROACTIVE, not REACTIVE. During your untimed practice tests, work through the stimulus and try and answer the question before you even examine the answer choices.
I don't advocate this technique until you're scoring with 90+% accuracy on LR questions
