LR stem/stim order Forum

[WestOfTheRest]

Personally, I don't know anyone who used this technique who had success with it.

This is the method I used and it has been successful for me. In fact, everyone I know who has scored in the upper 170s used this method. It makes more sense from a understanding and from a timing perspective.

[Hedwig]

The book I was using (not LRB) recommended reading the stem first, so that's what I was doing in my untimed, leisurely practices with LR. However, my first "simulated" test where I was using LSAT Cacophony and what not and feeling a little more like I was doing an actual test, I found it not helpful at all to read the question stem first. Mostly because I have the unfortunate tendency to race through these suckers like nobody's business, I think, and I don't take in the question stem when I read it first. I found I was reading the question stem first, then the stimulus, and then the stem again. Not useful. I'd rather read the stimulus, then the stem, then refer back to the stimulus as needed.

Maybe no reference should be needed but I have no timing problems, so that's what's working for me right now.

[WestOfTheRest]

The book I was using (not LRB) recommended reading the stem first, so that's what I was doing in my untimed, leisurely practices with LR. However, my first "simulated" test where I was using LSAT Cacophony and what not and feeling a little more like I was doing an actual test, I found it not helpful at all to read the question stem first. Mostly because I have the unfortunate tendency to race through these suckers like nobody's business, I think, and I don't take in the question stem when I read it first. I found I was reading the question stem first, then the stimulus, and then the stem again. Not useful. I'd rather read the stimulus, then the stem, then refer back to the stimulus as needed.

Maybe no reference should be needed but I have no timing problems, so that's what's working for me right now.

Yep, that makes sense. Having to read the stem again because you don't internalize it. How do you get around the problem of not taking in the stim in the first reading? I'd much rather have to read the stem again than have to read the stim again. Anyways, this just suggests that you don't use the stem the right way anyways, if you did, reading the stem would show tell you what you were looking for in the stim and you would have no reason to re-read the stem.

[Hedwig]

The book I was using (not LRB) recommended reading the stem first, so that's what I was doing in my untimed, leisurely practices with LR. However, my first "simulated" test where I was using LSAT Cacophony and what not and feeling a little more like I was doing an actual test, I found it not helpful at all to read the question stem first. Mostly because I have the unfortunate tendency to race through these suckers like nobody's business, I think, and I don't take in the question stem when I read it first. I found I was reading the question stem first, then the stimulus, and then the stem again. Not useful. I'd rather read the stimulus, then the stem, then refer back to the stimulus as needed.

Maybe no reference should be needed but I have no timing problems, so that's what's working for me right now.

Yep, that makes sense. Having to read the stem again because you don't internalize it. How do you get around the problem of not taking in the stim in the first reading? I'd much rather have to read the stem again than have to read the stim again. Anyways, this just suggests that you don't use the stem the right way anyways, if you did, reading the stem would show tell you what you were looking for in the stim and you would have no reason to re-read the stem.

I have a hard time reading for specific things (flaw, structure, method, etc for LR, main point, structure, etc, for RC). I do fairly well in spite of this - and I am capable of reading for structure, flaw, etc, on questions I find difficult and go back to. Mostly, though, I work better just reading the damn thing instead of trying to read for specific things... if that makes sense.

I agree that it does suggest I'm not using the stem the right way, but I found using the stem like that just doesn't seem to work well for me. It takes a lot of effort for me to slow down my reading pace, and it's harder to do that on the single one sentence stem rather than the full stimulus.

Long story short, I guess I'm just really set in my ways in regards to how I read this stuff. I'm doing fairly well on LR and RC so far (still in the early stages of studying, though), LG is more my problem area. But I just read so much and have always read so much that I just am really stuck to the way I read. And it seems to be working, even if it's not as easily described as a "method," you know?

I think whether or not you read the stem or stimulus first depends on how you read and how you answer the questions. If you like to just READ the stimulus, then go for the stimulus first. If you like to know what you're looking for and try to look for specific things while you read, maybe read the stem first.

Oh - and I tend not to avoid the problem of reading the stimulus again, so I have no helpful tips there. I'm sure I'll be much slower on game day, but I can do an LR section in 25-30 minutes right now with re-reads. I'm hoping to fine tune my techniques of course throughout studying, but I'm content with my methods as they are right now.

[hax123]

From my own experience, I earn the same scores using either method. However, reading the stimulus first comes more naturally to me, so I'll probably stick with that method. Still, I can definitely see why some people may benefit from reading the stem first, especially people who tend to run out of time.

[tomwatts]

Things that I usually bring up in these threads:

I've always, always been a stem-first advocate. If you have familiarity with the question types, reading the stem first tells you what to look for, not in the sense that you think, "Okay, it's a Weaken question, so I'm going to try to find something that weakens the argument," but in the sense that you think, "Okay, it's a Weaken question, so I'm going to try to find the main conclusion, the main premise(s) and any subsidiary conclusions, and I'll read critically, looking for flaws," as opposed to, "Okay, it's a Main Point question, so all I need to do is separate the conclusion from the premises and I don't need to bother with flaws," or, "Okay, it's an Inference question, so there probably isn't a conclusion anyway, so all I need to do is read for information." Broadly speaking, the question stems boil down to CPA, CP, or I questions (where CPA is Conclusion, Premises, Assumption — Weaken, Strengthen, etc. are this type — CP is Conclusion and Premises — Main Point is this type — and I is Information — Inference is this type), and knowing which one you're doing before you look at the argument itself is useful because you know how to approach it.

Furthermore, each question type has its own set of patterns. Sufficient Assumption questions ("Which of the following, if assumed, would allow the conclusion to be properly drawn?") tend to do one of two things: give a bunch of evidence and a conclusion and then have a right answer of the form, "If [something in the premises], then [the conclusion]," or give a bunch of conditional statements and then have a conditional conclusion that would follow from chaining those conditional statements together, but one piece is missing and the right answer comes from supplying that missing piece. As soon as I know that I'm doing an SA, I know to look for one of these two structures. There are times when this doesn't quite align to the argument, but noticing differences from the norm also helps, and the majority of the time, it does actually work this way.

People say that they'll forget the question stem and have to re-read it. I underline the key words in the question stem ("assumption... depends on") that tell me the question type, so if I forget the stem, I re-read two or three words and have it again. If you do it the other way around, you run the risk of forgetting the argument (stimulus) after you've read the question stem, and there are FAR more words in the argument (stimulus) than in the stem, so you have to re-read much, much more.

This isn't a gimmick. Few people teach gimmicks for the LSAT, because the test doesn't lend itself to gimmicks, but they're much more common in, say, SAT. It's not even a technique, like the Negation Test (or whatever name you learned it under — checking whether an assumption is necessary to the argument by asking what would happen to the argument if the assumption weren't true). It's a method, like reading a game setup and then drawing a diagram. There's nothing for LSAC to take advantage of.

[jwaters]

I first started out reading the question stem first and then going to the stimulus. In my experience when you read the question stem first, by the time you have read the stimulus (with the amount of detail that you should) many times you forget the details of the question in the first place. You then have to go back and re-read the question stem again. While this takes at most a few seconds, those seconds do add up over 24+ questions.

I never found reading the question first to be significantly more beneficial than reading the stimulus first. And personally I look for the exact same things and analyze the premises/conclusions exactly the same regardless of what the question is asking, so reading the question first doesn't really help me.
Both methods have their benefits and drawbacks. Like everything on the LSAT it is most important to find out what works best for you. If it helps you then by all means use that method.

[smc44]

Generally, I am in the camp of reading the stem first. I try to quickly scan the question to determine the type of questions. This tends to keep me focused on the task at hand. Sometimes I'll notice there are two questions following the stimulus. In these cases, I tend to read the stimulus first. Obviously there are arguments for both strategies. I've tried both and this is the strategy that works best for me.

[quasi-stellar]

It's obvious that doing LR is all about understanding the arguments and if someone fails to see any shortcomings then it doesn't even matter which you do first. From a lot of practice I developed some pretty good strategies. When I read the questions I can see what is wrong with it and could think of so many ways the LSAC can manipulate it. The thing is, you dont know which one it is when reading in the order given...

[Nulli Secundus]

If you have some amount of processing power above your neck and below your hair, you can start reading from answer choice (E) and still find the correct answer.

[Prime321]

Kaplan advocates reading the question stem first.

[dominkay]

Kaplan advocates reading the question stem first.

This information alone is enough to condemn the practice.

[brickman]

dominkay address my point, please! I know Audio Technica Guy isn't making a strong case, but I feel that I am offering a somewhat reasonable explanation.

Prime321, don't mention kaplan, they are the WUHRST

[WestOfTheRest]

Kaplan advocates reading the question stem first.

This information alone is enough to condemn the practice.

Good reasoning... Kaplan also advocates studying for the LSAT, maybe we should condemn that practice as well.

[ArchRoark]

I just read them in order... my powerscore instructor gave a reason why this is the best method... I don't really remember what he said.

[Audio Technica Guy]

If you forget the Q type frequently (but really, you forget the question type?! Really?!) it's quite easy to quickly jot down a 2-3 letter abbreviation for the Q type, there are only 13-16 Q types, depending on how you count. This argument doesn't even make sense to me.

[Audio Technica Guy]

Kaplan advocates reading the question stem first.

This information alone is enough to condemn the practice.

Good reasoning... Kaplan also advocates studying for the LSAT, maybe we should condemn that practice as well.

LOL, yeah. It's hard to tell what the jokes are and when people actually believe stuff like that. Kaplan also advocates doing process of elimination, are we going to condemn that practice too?

[Jack Smirks]

I don't understand what a disadvantage would be to reading the question stem first. It is what I did and even if I had to reread it after the stim, I still don't think I was burning up that much time, it probably saved time as I was focused on exactly what I was reading for in the stim.

[polyester]

I am currently taking a Powerscore course and they recommend reading the stimulus first, but their 'benefits' don't seem to be all that convincing, and I agree with the OP.

When I first started studying for the LSAT, I read the stimulus first, but then I realized that this was a horrible waste of time since I was constantly going back to parts of the stimulus to 'confirm' my answer, and it also made it harder the pre-phrase the answer.

Powerscore says that it will only confuse you if you read the stem first since it's hard to keep the information of the stem & stimulus in your mind at the same time. I disagree. Most stems just asks 'what is assumed', 'what is the main point', 'what is inferred', 'how do you strengthen'...etc. So, all you have to remember is, for example, 'main point' and look for the conclusion in the stimulus, ignoring the flaws and other distractions in the stimulus that you would've spent time paying attention to if you read the stimulus first. Same thing with 'assume'. You can go directly to the stimulus and look for the missing link in the argument. Also for a 'resolve the paradox' kind of question, I feel that knowing that the stimulus has a paradox prepares me better for reading it. A parallel question obviously has its advantages as well, since it allows you to focus on the structure of the stimulus and what kind of a flaw it has if it has flawed reasoning.

They also say that a lot of stems don't make sense if you read it first, and I agree. So generally I'll just skim a question stem, and if it's not one of those common types like 'strengthen' etc., and is referring to a specific part of the stimulus, I forget about the stem entirely and read the stimulus first, then the question stem. The skimming pretty much takes a second or two, and it's an easy sacrifice since I'm saving so much time by doing stem->stimulus in the other questions.

I think that the order is something people should figure out for themselves. If reading the stem first genuinely just confuses you, then read the stimulus first. For me, reading the stem does not confuse me because, it's not hard to internalize one or two words--the name of the question type. (I also jot down the type next to it, or circle the key word in the stem to help me to internalize it, and just in case I do fail to internalize, but this hasn't happened yet)

Anyway, since LSAT is a timed test, I suggest that people find a method that will save them the most time, and reading the stem first saves me more time.

[Anaconda]

Wouldn't it make sense to read the stem first, so you know what you're looking for, especially in longer questions? For example, If it's a main point question, wouldn't it be much easier and less time-consuming to read the stem first, and simply looks for the conclusion, rather than trying to understand the stimulus, see if there's a paradox, analyze conditionals, etc.?

Does reading the question first really confuse people or enable them to be fooled by shell answers?

[tomwatts]

Powerscore says that it will only confuse you if you read the stem first since it's hard to keep the information of the stem & stimulus in your mind at the same time.

Even if it were hard to keep both in your head at the same time (arguable), that still would have no bearing on which you should look at first, since, after all, you're looking at both before you're looking at the answer choices, and in evaluating the answer choices you need both in your head (so to speak).

They also say that a lot of stems don't make sense if you read it first, and I agree.

That seems nuts. Typically, no more than one question per pair of LR sections (that is, one question per test) is not totally formulaic in the stem, these days. That means actually reading and processing maybe one question per test, and the rest you just recognize Strengthen, Weaken, whatever, and move on.

[Anaconda]

I think a poll on this debate would be helpful.

[brickman]

I think a poll on this debate would be helpful.

Have you learned nothing from the LSAT?

[Anaconda]

I think a poll on this debate would be helpful.

Have you learned nothing from the LSAT?

Just to see people's preferences.