Top Law Schools

So I'm not concerned with the fact that I am reading the LRB and then going back and taking notes on what it says, that seems normal enough.

What is of concern for me is whether or not I am investing to much time in the following process:

I read the stimulus and then answer the question after having noted some of the modifiers in the stimulus and then going about choosing the "losers" and "contenders" and then making the decision. Then I read the question to distill what I think the form of the question is (This could be something like- a study presents a quality that exists whether or not participation in the activity that is associated with that quality is high or low. This quality does not appear to be prevalent amongst those who participate in this activity but also has some other quality). After this I look at the all of the answer choices and try to answer the question "What about this answer choice could trick me into thinking it is correct?" This requires me to evaluate in several ways, if need be, and often takes a good amount of time. As a point of reference, it took me 45 minutes to review 4 basic inference questions in this fashion.

I feel like it has some value, especially if I find that these stimulus' distill in a consistent manner, and this could potentially make me more aware of what makes an answer choice right or wrong (reinforcing what was laid out in the LRB...potentially). My time to study during the week is relatively scarce, I have a full time job and am planning on taking the test in October, so I don't know if this is the best use of my time. It seems like this process could have benefits, but I suppose I need to know if the questions do distill in a consistent manner and whether my approach has value in a generalized manner (whether or not has individual benefits for me in relation to other studying methods that I could be undertaking during the same amount of time).


All comments and suggestions greatly appreciated.

Picking questions apart is training you to do the opposite of what you have to do on game day. When you get into the exam, you need to get through the question, get an answer and get over it. Speed matters. You're spending 10+ minutes per question doing this, when the actual time gives you a minute and a half each if you're lucky.

But whether this is even vaguely useful depends a great deal on what your timed PTs look like. If you're running out of time on LR sections, this is a terrible idea. If you have plenty of time but are routinely misreading things and getting led astray into wrong answers, this might be a good plan. Sort of. I would still in that case only do this sort of breakdown on the specific types of questions that are usually tripping you up. This should definitely not be an "introductory" level studying technique to be used on basic questions. Basic questions, once you understand the fundamentals of logic and rhetoric, should never be more than, "Read, mark correct answer, move on."

quishiclocus wrote:Picking questions apart is training you to do the opposite of what you have to do on game day. When you get into the exam, you need to get through the question, get an answer and get over it. Speed matters. You're spending 10+ minutes per question doing this, when the actual time gives you a minute and a half each if you're lucky.

But whether this is even vaguely useful depends a great deal on what your timed PTs look like. If you're running out of time on LR sections, this is a terrible idea. If you have plenty of time but are routinely misreading things and getting led astray into wrong answers, this might be a good plan. Sort of. I would still in that case only do this sort of breakdown on the specific types of questions that are usually tripping you up. This should definitely not be an "introductory" level studying technique to be used on basic questions. Basic questions, once you understand the fundamentals of logic and rhetoric, should never be more than, "Read, mark correct answer, move on."

This is all bullshit. I'm sorry but it may work for a very few people, but in general you want to rip questions apart as much as possible so you learn the underlying logic of them. This is what will make you faster.

bump for big time personal importance.

How smart are you? LR is really easy. For some people it isn't even worth studying.

Desert Fox wrote:How smart are you? LR is really easy. For some people it isn't even worth studying.

Not particularly certain. During my two previous (and concentrated preparation) attempts I didn't do well so I'm trying to understand the questions. I know that they aren't necessarily complex, they only seem to require keeping in your head a couple of modifiers while sorting out extraneous material and focusing on a statement or two. Thus my concern about my preparation style...

brickman wrote:

Desert Fox wrote:How smart are you? LR is really easy. For some people it isn't even worth studying.

Not particularly certain. During my two previous (and concentrated preparation) attempts I didn't do well so I'm trying to understand the questions. I know that they aren't necessarily complex, they only seem to require keeping in your head a couple of modifiers while sorting out extraneous material and focusing on a statement or two. Thus my concern about my preparation style...

You're thinking about it way too much man.