What would you ask a former LSAT testmaker? Forum

[vracovino]

Sometimes the LSAT just bothers me. "Definetly read the stem first." Well I mean we all do that here, but if that's the attitude the test writers have towards the question than why does the stem come AFTER the stimulus? That does not imply that you should always be reading the stem first.

It would be pretty awkward to have a stem-stimulus-answer choices arrangement. The only other alternative is to have the stem and answer choices above the stimulus, but then that would be even more awkward.

I don't think that would be awkward. That's already how you're reading it. All I'm saying is if the test is written as to where you should read the stem first than it should be first.

[PeanutsNJam]

In regards to reading the stem first, do any other people feel like by reading the stimulus first, you can practically guess the stem?

If the stimulus has flawed reasoning, it's probably a parallel reasoning, necessary assumption, false assumption question, or something of the like.

If the stimulus has a lot of conditionals, then it's probably a "must be" something, or something of the like.

If the stimulus makes a lot of sense, it's probably a principle question or something like "which conforms to the blah blah blah" or "the argument supports which conclusion" etc.

If the stimulus is really fucked up then I know that questions gonna take me more than a minute.

[AOT]

In regards to reading the stem first, do any other people feel like by reading the stimulus first, you can practically guess the stem?

If the stimulus has flawed reasoning, it's probably a parallel reasoning, necessary assumption, false assumption question, or something of the like.

If the stimulus has a lot of conditionals, then it's probably a "must be" something, or something of the like.

If the stimulus makes a lot of sense, it's probably a principle question or something like "which conforms to the blah blah blah" or "the argument supports which conclusion" etc.

If the stimulus is really fucked up then I know that questions gonna take me more than a minute.

Yes, but I've also noticed that I sometimes end up misreading the stem because I feel so sure of what it'll be from the stimulus.

[anon sequitur]

In regards to reading the stem first, do any other people feel like by reading the stimulus first, you can practically guess the stem?

I read the stim first, then question stem, I really don't feel like it makes a big difference either way. I like to read a stimulus with an open mind, try to see if I can see how things are developing. I suppose that means I waste a little bit of effort on an inference question here and there, but I think the benefits of reading the question stem first are pretty minor. A good analysis of any question with a flawed argument (which is the majority of all LR questions) is easily applicable to strengthen, weaken, assumption, flaw or parallel flaw question stems.

[LSAT Blog]

In regards to reading the stem first, do any other people feel like by reading the stimulus first, you can practically guess the stem?

If the stimulus has flawed reasoning, it's probably a parallel reasoning, necessary assumption, false assumption question, or something of the like.

If the stimulus has a lot of conditionals, then it's probably a "must be" something, or something of the like.

If the stimulus makes a lot of sense, it's probably a principle question or something like "which conforms to the blah blah blah" or "the argument supports which conclusion" etc.

If the stimulus is really fucked up then I know that questions gonna take me more than a minute.

Certain stimuli are often associated with certain question types, but the problem is that a stimulus type doesn't necessarily *guarantee* you'll see a particular question stem.

For example, while lots of conditionals will often be associated with an inference question, it could also be a sufficient assumption question.

[LSAT Blog]

The next installment is up!

http://lsatblog.blogspot.com/2014/09/ls ... swers.html