logical reasoning question Forum

[itstime]

hey guys, I am confused. sorry for the simple question but are we supposed to only focus on the conclusion on these kinds of questions?

I feel like when I get them wrong they answer the question but maybe the correct one works with the conclusion a little more?

Thanks in advance for the clarification

[paulshortys10]

no not always.

[logicalprep]

hey guys, I am confused. sorry for the simple question but are we supposed to only focus on the conclusion on these kinds of questions?

I feel like when I get them wrong they answer the question but maybe the correct one works with the conclusion a little more?

Thanks in advance for the clarification

are you asking about logical reasoning as an entire section? because, if so, then you should know that not all logical reasoning 'paragraphs' (or 'stimuli') are arguments. In other words, there are some logical reasoning questions that do not have conclusions.

For the ones that do, however, I personally think, yeah, zooming in on the conclusion is a good way to go. My preference is to zoom in on the argument (the premises and conclusion) and sorta throw away, as mental garbage, the extraneous background stuff.

I just think it's a lot easier to juggle a couple sentences in my head (there are plenty of single premise and a single conclusion arguments, for example) than to complicate those arguments with the background gibberish, which tend to lead people to be attracted to tricky wrong answers anyhow.

[DieAntwoord]

depends on the question.
Get the LR bible.

As a general rule I would focus on the leap between the premises and the conclusion.

[JazzOne]

hey guys, I am confused. sorry for the simple question but are we supposed to only focus on the conclusion on these kinds of questions?

I feel like when I get them wrong they answer the question but maybe the correct one works with the conclusion a little more?

Thanks in advance for the clarification

are you asking about logical reasoning as an entire section? because, if so, then you should know that not all logical reasoning 'paragraphs' (or 'stimuli') are arguments. In other words, there are some logical reasoning questions that do not have conclusions.

For the ones that do, however, I personally think, yeah, zooming in on the conclusion is a good way to go. My preference is to zoom in on the argument (the premises and conclusion) and sorta throw away, as mental garbage, the extraneous background stuff.

I just think it's a lot easier to juggle a couple sentences in my head (there are plenty of single premise and a single conclusion arguments, for example) than to complicate those arguments with the background gibberish, which tend to lead people to be attracted to tricky wrong answers anyhow.

+1

[tomwatts]

It is certainly true that relevance to the conclusion is a big Process of Elimination tool. If something isn't even related to the conclusion, it's usually wrong. The thing you're actually trying to strengthen or weaken or whatever is the conclusion; you want the conclusion to follow from the premises and the answer choice (or not follow, or whatever, depending on question type), so the conclusion is a pretty big deal. It's not the only thing that matters, but it's big.

[kkklick]

I have an LR question myself, did PT 55 today with a -3 on LR overall, and took an experimental LR from PT 39 and got -8 ? I would like to think that since the test is from 2002 and I haven't ever done any pre-43 tests, that LR was perhaps different? It sure felt different while I was writing the section, wasn't confident in a lot of my answers. On top of that when I was going back through them, instead of the usual AHA! moment, I was left dazed and confused when I checked what the answers were.

Either way, I'm glad the LSAT has changed the way it has, otherwise I would be screwed.