Top Law Schools

So I've been studying for over a month, and I'm reliably becoming mistake-free in LG and RC.

However, I'm still making 5-10 mistakes in the LR. After a few practice tests, I think I've realized that Pattern of Reasoning questions are giving me a hard time. They require a lot of reading, and don't seem to offer any shortcut diagramming methods (like how Formal Logic does).

I'm going to go over the LR Bible again to concentrate of PoR questions. Anybody else have a similar experience with this type of question? If not, which type of LR question gave you the most trouble, and how did you overcome it?

Parallel Reasoning was my personal worst (and the only type I consistently missed). I read the chapter on the LR Bible specific to this (I didn't use the LR Bible otherwise) and never missed such a question again With time and several practice tests later, the time it took me to answer them became much shorter as well.

Do you mean Method of Reasoning questions? If so, definitely go over the Logical Reasoning bible. I went over that section very carefully and I did very well in the Method of Reasoning section in Kaplan Mastery.

My advice if youre having trouble with these questions is to remember that, like Must Be True questions, the correct answer in Method of Reasoning questiosn must be supported by the stimulus. Any answer choices that bring up "new" elements that arent found anywhere in the stimulus are wrong. Also, make sure your answer addresses all sides of the reasoning. Some answers look good because they are proven by what's in the stimulus, but upon further inspection it doesnt completely describe the method or reasoning.

Good luck!

I just posted on this, ha.

I find that Strengthen questions give me the most trouble, and have not been able to overcome it. For some reason, I've never had problems with parallel reasoning, although I understand it's one that many dislike.

I'd like to hear strategies on how others have overcome LR question types as well.

ShuckingNotJiving wrote:I just posted on this, ha.

I find that Strengthen questions give me the most trouble, and have not been able to overcome it. For some reason, I've never had problems with parallel reasoning, although I understand it's one that many dislike.

I'd like to hear strategies on how others have overcome LR question types as well.

Our minds must work alike. I get crushed by type 2 but parallel reasoning is cake. What is wrong with us?

My hardest ones are usually Flaw, Method, and Parallel. Abstract MBT questions always seem to trip me up too.

I also struggle with justify questions, and assumption questions can mess me up when I forget to do the negation test on the answer choice.

McNulty wrote:

ShuckingNotJiving wrote:I just posted on this, ha.

I find that Strengthen questions give me the most trouble, and have not been able to overcome it. For some reason, I've never had problems with parallel reasoning, although I understand it's one that many dislike.

I'd like to hear strategies on how others have overcome LR question types as well.

Our minds must work alike. I get crushed by type 2 but parallel reasoning is cake. What is wrong with us?

Type 2! Gotta love Robin Singh-created terminology. Yeah, I've never understood this, 2N's are the worst for me. I've tried to analyze what I'm doing wrong with each question, (I usually pick the wrong of the two I didn't eliminate) but still can't figure it out.

Maybe we're just misanthropic pessimists who are more used to (and therefore better at) proving arguments wrong than supporting them. Anyone willing to research a possible relationship between Strengthen question competency and world peace? Or just wiling to offer help on Strengthen questions?

I've been at the lsat for a little over a month, too, now.

That's really interesting because I've never missed a single parallel reasoning question. I tend to miss the "which of the following is supported/could be true" questions.

aliceydu wrote:I've been at the lsat for a little over a month, too, now.

That's really interesting because I've never missed a single parallel reasoning question. I tend to miss the "which of the following is supported/could be true" questions.

In theory Parallel reasoning questions are very easy. It essentially boils down to "which answer matches what the stimulus says/looks like?", but what makes it so difficult is that they are almost always formal logic and very complex.

Flaw is by far the worst for me. It's not that I can't identify the flaw, it's just the oddly worded answer choices that trip me up. I usually end up disagreeing with every choice... I found the LRB to be helpful in identifying the common flaws but they can't give examples of the wide variety of confusing correct answer choices that could describe that flaw.

StrictlyLiable wrote:Flaw is by far the worst for me. It's not that I can't identify the flaw, it's just the oddly worded answer choices that trip me up. I usually end up disagreeing with every choice... I found the LRB to be helpful in identifying the common flaws but they can't give examples of the wide variety of confusing correct answer choices that could describe that flaw.

I overanalyze flaw questions all the time. It's like I used to be crappy at assumption (and the hardest ones I still need to work on)...so I work a lot on the assumption. Now I can breeze through most assumption questions, but my identify the flaw has been off.

Agreed. Assumptions used to be my downfall, but I worked really hard on them. Flaws have not been as easy to overcome.

Have you noticed that some flaw questions are assumption questions. I got two questions today in Kaplan mastery that were in the flaw section but said "What does the author incorrectly assume..." I was like, what? Do i use assumption negation? Some of them are tricky. I got it right once I realized that since I was doing flaw I should focus on finding the flaw in his assumption, not just finding the assumption.

gdane5 wrote:Have you noticed that some flaw questions are assumption questions. I got two questions today in Kaplan mastery that were in the flaw section but said "What does the author incorrectly assume..." I was like, what? Do i use assumption negation? Some of them are tricky. I got it right once I realized that since I was doing flaw I should focus on finding the flaw in his assumption, not just finding the assumption.

So if you negate the answer choice it strengthens the conclusion?

Anaconda wrote:

gdane5 wrote:Have you noticed that some flaw questions are assumption questions. I got two questions today in Kaplan mastery that were in the flaw section but said "What does the author incorrectly assume..." I was like, what? Do i use assumption negation? Some of them are tricky. I got it right once I realized that since I was doing flaw I should focus on finding the flaw in his assumption, not just finding the assumption.

So if you negate the answer choice it strengthens the conclusion?

Uhh dont worry about it. I was just giving an example of how a certain type of question (flaw) has characteristics of other questions (assumption) and how I had to use 2 thinking methods to come to the answer. Getting the assumption and finding the flaw in how that assumption was used to make the authors argument.

gdane5 wrote:

aliceydu wrote:I've been at the lsat for a little over a month, too, now.

That's really interesting because I've never missed a single parallel reasoning question. I tend to miss the "which of the following is supported/could be true" questions.

In theory Parallel reasoning questions are very easy. It essentially boils down to "which answer matches what the stimulus says/looks like?", but what makes it so difficult is that they are almost always formal logic and very complex.

That could explain why I find them easy. I took an Intro to Logic course this year before I started studying for the lsat. The course went over the different types of formal logic. Perhaps getting your hands on a logic book could help you identify the various types? (For the OP, I meant.)

Parallel reasoning. Not necessarily the hardest, but definitely the most time consuming...

kpuc wrote:So I've been studying for over a month, and I'm reliably becoming mistake-free in LG and RC.

However, I'm still making 5-10 mistakes in the LR. After a few practice tests, I think I've realized that Pattern of Reasoning questions are giving me a hard time. They require a lot of reading, and don't seem to offer any shortcut diagramming methods (like how Formal Logic does).

I'm going to go over the LR Bible again to concentrate of PoR questions. Anybody else have a similar experience with this type of question? If not, which type of LR question gave you the most trouble, and how did you overcome it?

The hardest type is that which you miss the most often. That will differ. I am not as good at weaken questions as I am at paradox questions. While I am better at weaken questions than I am at evaluate questions. So for me evaluate questions are the hardest. At the same time a lot of people say formal logic is difficult, but for me they are easy points. I am sure other would say parallel reasoning or sufficient assumption or principle. It depends upon you.

Sh@keNb@ke wrote:Parallel reasoning. Not necessarily the hardest, but definitely the most time consuming...

Agreed. I ran into a prep test recently that has a principle, parallel, flaw EXCEPT question. Needless to say that sucked up more time than any other 2 other combined questions on the test by a long shot.

ShuckingNotJiving wrote:I just posted on this, ha.

I find that Strengthen questions give me the most trouble, and have not been able to overcome it. For some reason, I've never had problems with parallel reasoning, although I understand it's one that many dislike.

I'd like to hear strategies on how others have overcome LR question types as well.

Funny, I kill strengthen questions- I literally do not recall missing one after I did the first few to get a grip on what they are. Weaken OTOH is a lot harder for me. One would think that the same skills are used and if one is mastered then the other would be.

Sh@keNb@ke wrote:Parallel reasoning. Not necessarily the hardest, but definitely the most time consuming...

I agree. I'm so glad there's only a few of them though in each section.

Inference idk why.
Next hardest for me are the weakens.

I actually think I have Parallels down. I reviewed the LRB, and I noticed that the best way to solve Parallels is to look for similar characteristics: key words such as "most" or "usually", for example. The mistake I was making before was trying to dissect the structure of the question too thoroughly, thus confusing myself and wasting time.

I did a bunch of LR sections today and didn't have much problems with Parallels anymore.

I'm realizing now that Strengthen/Weaken/Assumptions tend to get me, and are my most consistent mistakes in the LR. Sigh, hopefully I can improve.

Parallel flaw.