Is the PowerScore LR Bible overrated? Forum

[MarkyMarkChez]

I read through it and while LR is still my weakest section, I find that the questions I get wrong on my PTs aren't do to lack of diagramming but more because I was rushed because of the clock and couldn't spend much tme thinking about questions late in the section.

Do you think the methods in there are overrated? Especially the diagramming of sufficient and necessary conditions. The LR Bible spent a lot of time talking about that, yet in my PTs those kinds of questions don't come up often and when they do I think it's quite easy to read the stimulus and discern the correct answer using common sense.


What do you think? Am I just not developing good habits for LR or is the Powerscore Bible a little overrated?

[Clearly]

I think it might rely a bit heavily on diagramming, but the book reaches a wide audience, some of whom may have no knowledge at all of formal logic. I personally think the only way to do really well on LR is practice and review. LR is all about patterns, once their second nature, there's not a whole lot of active thinking for an average LR section. I only diagram a question every two sections or so... Usually a parallel reasoning/flaw that has several connected conditions.

[d0rklord]

I read through it and while LR is still my weakest section, I find that the questions I get wrong on my PTs aren't do to lack of diagramming but more because I was rushed because of the clock and couldn't spend much tme thinking about questions late in the section.

Do you think the methods in there are overrated? Especially the diagramming of sufficient and necessary conditions. The LR Bible spent a lot of time talking about that, yet in my PTs those kinds of questions don't come up often and when they do I think it's quite easy to read the stimulus and discern the correct answer using common sense.


What do you think? Am I just not developing good habits for LR or is the Powerscore Bible a little overrated?

If you have the time/resources, try a different guide... Manhattan, Blueprint, Test Masters, etc...

You might find something that caters to YOUR needs, better.

[Angrygeopolitically]

You won't find all the information from one source. synthesize different material.

I used the bible for the basics and then Hardest Logical Reasoning for the nuance. I missed two logical reasoning questions total on the test. Just don't be dogmatic about anything.

[glucose101]

You won't find all the information from one source. synthesize different material.

TCR

[MarkyMarkChez]

I think it might rely a bit heavily on diagramming, but the book reaches a wide audience, some of whom may have no knowledge at all of formal logic. I personally think the only way to do really well on LR is practice and review. LR is all about patterns, once their second nature, there's not a whole lot of active thinking for an average LR section. I only diagram a question every two sections or so... Usually a parallel reasoning/flaw that has several connected conditions.

Yeah. I've gone through all the LR questions I got wrong in my first 5 PTs and now I feel a whole lot better. I think I'm starting to catch on to the patterns. Great advice. Thanks.

[Zelda]

I think the PS LR guide is good, but I preferred Manhattan LSAT's LR guide. The way they grouped the question types made a lot more sense to me.

No matter what guide you are using, I think the key with LR is to drill while you read the chapters. This was the perfect book for me: http://www.amazon.com/LSAT-Logical-Reas ... 771&sr=1-2

[MarkyMarkChez]

OK just purchased the Manhattan LR guide. I hope it supplements my LR knowledge instead of interfering with what I've become accustomed to from Powerscore.

[MarkyMarkChez]

No matter what guide you are using, I think the key with LR is to drill while you read the chapters. This was the perfect book for me: http://www.amazon.com/LSAT-Logical-Reas ... 771&sr=1-2

Do you think it'd be a good idea, if I use the PS LR Bible, for example, if I reread the Must be True chapter and then pick out the Must be True questions from the two LR sections of an unused PT and answer them?
And then continue to do that for every question type?

I don't want to waste too many PTs.

[Zelda]

OK just purchased the Manhattan LR guide. I hope it supplements my LR knowledge instead of interfering with what I've become accustomed to from Powerscore.

I did PowerScore first, and then Manhattan after. The only big differences I noticed were:
+ How they organize LR question types. Powerscore has a bunch of different #'d families if I remember correctly, while Manhattan just has Assumption Family vs. Non-Assumption Family. I found Manhattan's way of grouping question types much more useful and intuitive.

+ Relative Ordering/Sequencing Games (Manhattan's Tree is MUCH better than the PS method)

+ Binary Grouping/In-and-Out Games (Manhattan and PS are just very different. Some people LOVE Manhattan's Logic Chain, but I just stuck with writing conditionals like PS recommends)

+ Open Board Games (Manhattan's method is MUCH better)

Overall, I didn't find that it interfered with what I had become accustomed to at all.

As for your other question, if I were you I would buy the Cambridge book since it organizes them by type and difficulty. That way you can warm up with the easier questions and get to the more difficult ones once you are ready. I actually used a stop watch so that drilling helped my timing on LR as well. I didn't cut myself off after 1:20, but I kept track of how long it took me to answer the questions.

Using this book will only eliminate the questions from PT 21-40. You'll still have 41-64 to take as full length tests which is PLENTY.