how to improve my LR from -5 to - 0~1 ? Forum

[coffeetable]

Hi guys,

I've been missing 1~3 questions per LR section, missing around 4-6 LR questions in total.

I am pretty weak at 'weaken' questions if I get weaken question wrong, its mostly b/c my approach was wrong in the first place. For the other questions, I get it right as soon as I try again. Its mostly b/c I was rushing myself too much or b/c I didn't have time to read all the answer choices. What can I do more here to get those questions right in the first place? I have time-management issue as well; I always need 1-2 more minutes to finish all the questions. So I dont think reading more slowly than I do now can solve my problem. Any advice is welcomed.

And How do you approach weaken questions? should I just do all the weaken questions from the past preps?

Thanks!

[kpuc]

I was in a similar boat as you, but now, I think I found the solution.

I think you have to realize that when the LSAT refers to an "argument", what they're really referring to is a single phrase or sentence in the stimulus that expresses a view.

I used to have problems sometimes with Strengthen/Weaken questions because I looked at the entire stimulus as a single argument, and therefore, I didn't know the best way to attack it. The worst was when there'd be two A/Cs that both weakened the stimulus in some way, and I had to pretty much do a 50/50 guess.

Now, what I do is I underline the phrase/sentence that forms the argument (aka conclusion) of the stimulus. Then I look for the A/C that most directly addresses the point of view raised in this phrase/sentence. And like magic, the ambiguity is gone.

Identify the argument/conclusion.

Best of luck.

[The Gentleman]

This may sound obvious to some folks, but I noticed a nice bump in my LR performance/confidence when I changed my strategy for reviewing PTs. The day after a PT, I go through each question and construct an explanation in the same way the Superprep did. Not only are you reviewing the questions you missed, but more importantly, you are dissecting the easier questions and thus familiarizing yourself with the LSAT's predictable bag of tricks. There's a tendency to gloss over these easier ones when reviewing a PT, but forcing yourself to break them down will improve your speed on the first 10 q's and buy you some valuable time for the tougher ones.

HTH

[kpuc]

This may sound obvious to some folks, but I noticed a nice bump in my LR performance/confidence when I changed my strategy for reviewing PTs. The day after a PT, I go through each question and construct an explanation in the same way the Superprep did. Not only are you reviewing the questions you missed, but more importantly, you are dissecting the easier questions and thus familiarizing yourself with the LSAT's predictable bag of tricks. There's a tendency to gloss over these easier ones when reviewing a PT, but forcing yourself to break them down will improve your speed on the first 10 q's and buy you some valuable time for the tougher ones.

Yes, definitely look over even questions you got right. Being able to articulate concisely why you chose each A/C will be of great help to you.

Also, always be aware of certain words that will make A/Cs too strong to be reasonable. Words like "always", "invariably" and so forth should immediately get your attention.

[WonkyPanda]

i've noticed that the later my LR section is, the worse i tend to perform on it. I am happy when I get 2 LR sections back to back or within the first 3 sets as opposed to getting one as section 5. I definitely feel the sting of fatigue the most on LR. It's the final thing i need to really hone before test day.

[ChiButterfly]

I was in a similar boat as you, but now, I think I found the solution.

I think you have to realize that when the LSAT refers to an "argument", what they're really referring to is a single phrase or sentence in the stimulus that expresses a view.

I used to have problems sometimes with Strengthen/Weaken questions because I looked at the entire stimulus as a single argument, and therefore, I didn't know the best way to attack it. The worst was when there'd be two A/Cs that both weakened the stimulus in some way, and I had to pretty much do a 50/50 guess.

Now, what I do is I underline the phrase/sentence that forms the argument (aka conclusion) of the stimulus. Then I look for the A/C that most directly addresses the point of view raised in this phrase/sentence. And like magic, the ambiguity is gone.

Identify the argument/conclusion.

Best of luck.

Actually, an argument is a stimulus consisting of the evidence and the conclusion - not just the conclusion. For Flaw questions, one must keep in mind that there are general flaws that keep reappearing throughout the exams. I daresay the most frequent flaw that continues to arise is the "Necessity vs. Sufficiency" flaw (confusing what is sufficient for a conditional with what is necessary or required).

I, too, have some issues with weaken questions; however, I try to keeping in mind that many weaken questions tend to attack the assumption made in the argument. So, once the assumption is identified, I tend to have an easier time with finding the correct answer.

I hope that helps in some capacity.

EDIT: Not exactly sure why I discussed Flaw as opposed to just Weakening questions.