Top Law Schools

I believe it's true, however are the "author suggested" questions for example an exception to this? Or do you believe every question can be found somewhere in the passage in writing?

Br3v wrote:I believe it's true, however are the "author suggested" questions for example an exception to this? Or do you believe every question can be found somewhere in the passage in writing?

I believe it's true as well.

I am in a BP class and my prof has said they're all in writing to some extent. Most are directly in writing (gotta love the questions about which one of the following the author cites as an example for x), others are at least mentioned i.e. "the author would most likely agree with which of the following statements regarding x" the author will have at least mentioned it in part even if it's just by using a particular adjective. If the author doesn't mention it in some way, it's going to be the wrong answer.

And at least in my experience, even just believing it's true sure makes RC a lot less of a pain.

nmop_apisdn wrote:Wait, so do you guys read the passage, then read the questions, and then search for the answer if you cannot spot it immediately? I think my problem with RC is that I try to do everything based on memory.

Thinking about my method now, sounds like a terrible idea.

I read the passage and underline sporadically because it helps me focus. If there's anything I think is really important I put a star or an arrow next to that line with the first few letters of why it's important (haha). Then I go to the questions and I'll usually have 1 or 2 that I have to go back and reference in the passage. In my experience, my random underlining/markings helps me locate that section really quickly.

So in short, yes I do.

I should also note that I read the passage once and then skim it really quickly (about 10 seconds). Skimming it helps me remember which paragraph talked about x which talked about y, etc. Once I started doing that I got a LOT faster at RC.

Your question is very philosophical.

In a sense, the proposition is false, because many of the answers are strings of words that are nowhere, in their particular succession, to be found in the passage. But that seems trivial, as often they are direct paraphrases, or phrases that are essentially the same in meaning. So I wouldn't agree that they're good examples of answers that cannot be found in the reading.

On the other hand, if you take a question which asks what someone suggests, for example, it is often the case that the meaning of the answer choice cannot be traced to any particular string of words in the passage, or even the passage as a whole. In other words, if a machine were to be programmed with the meaning of each sentence in the passage, and asked a question about something that was suggested by the passage, it seems, intuitively, that the machine would fail to be able to answer many, if not all, of such questions.

It seems that, further, the word 'suggest' may imply something that is by definition nowhere to be found in the passage, something that is found only by extrapolating from the presented information. If the machine were able to combine meanings, then perhaps it could then arrive at a suggestion.

The answer to another type of question, one which asks you to weaken or strengthen the reasoning of someone in the passage, for example, is likewise nowhere to be found; 'twould simply be a fact that, when added to the argument (when it does not already contain it), or an assumption that, when laid bare, has the above effect. But assumptions are unstated; and such facts were clearly not in the passage the begin with either.

I don't think I agree, then, that all answers are to be found there. I do agree, however, that those who create the test, with few exceptions, do an excellent job of seeing to it that four answers choices are, beyond argument, demonstrably worse than one other.

nmop_apisdn wrote:Wait, so do you guys read the passage, then read the questions, and then search for the answer if you cannot spot it immediately? I think my problem with RC is that I try to do everything based on memory.

Thinking about my method now, sounds like a terrible idea.

You serious? What do you do if you don't remember? I generally do memory, search when necessary, but I'm trying to search more hinge the Q

Br3v wrote:

nmop_apisdn wrote:Wait, so do you guys read the passage, then read the questions, and then search for the answer if you cannot spot it immediately? I think my problem with RC is that I try to do everything based on memory.

Thinking about my method now, sounds like a terrible idea.

You serious? What do you do if you don't remember? I generally do memory, search when necessary, but I'm trying to search more hinge the Q

I'm dead serious homie. I don't know why I've been doing this. I wonder if its the main reason for why I get a -12 on that section sometimes. I literally read it one time through, then move to the questions, rarely looking back at the passage. I always feel like I understood what happened in the passage, but I'm still missing like 3-4 per passage.

Whats your strategy? How stupid does mine sound? lol

There are some questions that simply resemble LR, like analogous situations, or "Taking the suggestion of *this group of people*, how would NATO respond to *this*?"

Though all the information necessary to answer the question is in the passage, nowhere does the passage even get close to literally stating anything like the answer. You have to understand the logic of it and apply it to a separate case.

nmop_apisdn wrote:I'm dead serious homie. I don't know why I've been doing this. I wonder if its the main reason for why I get a -12 on that section sometimes. I literally read it one time through, then move to the questions, rarely looking back at the passage. I always feel like I understood what happened in the passage, but I'm still missing like 3-4 per passage.

Whats your strategy? How stupid does mine sound? lol

This is actually a teachable moment for all the LSAT tutors/instructors out there: make sure your students are doing the obvious things.

If you're even slightly unsure about an AC, find direct textual support for it in the passage. Put your finger on it. You should be looking back at the text 3-4 times per passage.

banjo wrote:

nmop_apisdn wrote:I'm dead serious homie. I don't know why I've been doing this. I wonder if its the main reason for why I get a -12 on that section sometimes. I literally read it one time through, then move to the questions, rarely looking back at the passage. I always feel like I understood what happened in the passage, but I'm still missing like 3-4 per passage.

Whats your strategy? How stupid does mine sound? lol

This is actually a teachable moment for all the LSAT tutors/instructors out there: make sure your students are doing the obvious things.

If you're even slightly unsure about an AC, find direct textual support for it in the passage. Put your finger on it. You should be looking back at the text 3-4 times per passage.

I bet this is going to cut my missed questions down a bit - thanks! I can't believe I forgot one of the fundafuckingmentals when it comes to RC. Shame on me. And to think that I postponed June mainly because of RC. Hell, a -6 to a -12 is pretty good relying straight on memory.

LexLeon wrote:Your question is very philosophical.

In a sense, the proposition is false, because many of the answers are strings of words that are nowhere, in their particular succession, to be found in the passage. But that seems trivial, as often they are direct paraphrases, or phrases that are essentially the same in meaning. So I wouldn't agree that they're good examples of answers that cannot be found in the reading.

On the other hand, if you take a question which asks what someone suggests, for example, it is often the case that the meaning of the answer choice cannot be traced to any particular string of words in the passage, or even the passage as a whole. In other words, if a machine were to be programmed with the meaning of each sentence in the passage, and asked a question about something that was suggested by the passage, it seems, intuitively, that the machine would fail to be able to answer many, if not all, of such questions.

It seems that, further, the word 'suggest' may imply something that is by definition nowhere to be found in the passage, something that is found only by extrapolating from the presented information. If the machine were able to combine meanings, then perhaps it could then arrive at a suggestion.

The answer to another type of question, one which asks you to weaken or strengthen the reasoning of someone in the passage, for example, is likewise nowhere to be found; 'twould simply be a fact that, when added to the argument (when it does not already contain it), or an assumption that, when laid bare, has the above effect. But assumptions are unstated; and such facts were clearly not in the passage the begin with either.

I don't think I agree, then, that all answers are to be found there. I do agree, however, that those who create the test, with few exceptions, do an excellent job of seeing to it that four answers choices are, beyond argument, demonstrably worse than one other.

This was awesome. I don't know if i'm sure all the answers are there anymore lol.

marlo45 wrote:

LexLeon wrote:Your question is very philosophical.

In a sense, the proposition is false, because many of the answers are strings of words that are nowhere, in their particular succession, to be found in the passage. But that seems trivial, as often they are direct paraphrases, or phrases that are essentially the same in meaning. So I wouldn't agree that they're good examples of answers that cannot be found in the reading.

On the other hand, if you take a question which asks what someone suggests, for example, it is often the case that the meaning of the answer choice cannot be traced to any particular string of words in the passage, or even the passage as a whole. In other words, if a machine were to be programmed with the meaning of each sentence in the passage, and asked a question about something that was suggested by the passage, it seems, intuitively, that the machine would fail to be able to answer many, if not all, of such questions.

It seems that, further, the word 'suggest' may imply something that is by definition nowhere to be found in the passage, something that is found only by extrapolating from the presented information. If the machine were able to combine meanings, then perhaps it could then arrive at a suggestion.

The answer to another type of question, one which asks you to weaken or strengthen the reasoning of someone in the passage, for example, is likewise nowhere to be found; 'twould simply be a fact that, when added to the argument (when it does not already contain it), or an assumption that, when laid bare, has the above effect. But assumptions are unstated; and such facts were clearly not in the passage the begin with either.

I don't think I agree, then, that all answers are to be found there. I do agree, however, that those who create the test, with few exceptions, do an excellent job of seeing to it that four answers choices are, beyond argument, demonstrably worse than one other.

This was awesome. I don't know if i'm sure all the answers are there anymore lol.

Perfect answer. Ha.

"Found" isn't literal here. RC isn't a word find puzzle. The question is simply put, "can the all RC questions be answered using only the passage and your brain?". The answer is yes.
If you want to be super legalistic (and kind of douchy), then no, you can't symbol match your way to RC glory. But everyone knows that and it's an uninteresting statement.

This question is not philosophical.

TurtlesAllTheWayDown wrote:"Found" isn't literal here. RC isn't a word find puzzle. The question is simply put, "can the all RC questions be answered using only the passage and your brain?". The answer is yes.
If you want to be super legalistic (and kind of douchy), then no, you can't symbol match your way to RC glory. But everyone knows that and it's an uninteresting statement.

This question is not philosophical.

Think they were trying to be funny...

Br3v wrote:

TurtlesAllTheWayDown wrote:"Found" isn't literal here. RC isn't a word find puzzle. The question is simply put, "can the all RC questions be answered using only the passage and your brain?". The answer is yes.
If you want to be super legalistic (and kind of douchy), then no, you can't symbol match your way to RC glory. But everyone knows that and it's an uninteresting statement.

This question is not philosophical.

Think they were trying to be funny...

God, I hope so...

TurtlesAllTheWayDown wrote:

Br3v wrote:

TurtlesAllTheWayDown wrote:"Found" isn't literal here. RC isn't a word find puzzle. The question is simply put, "can the all RC questions be answered using only the passage and your brain?". The answer is yes.
If you want to be super legalistic (and kind of douchy), then no, you can't symbol match your way to RC glory. But everyone knows that and it's an uninteresting statement.

This question is not philosophical.

Think they were trying to be funny...

God, I hope so...

Totally agree with you in that 'found' is not literal, but that's very obvious. Therefore, when the answer to a question seems so simple, it begs to be scrutinized on a more philosophical level of reasoning. The obvious answer is yes, but why would the OP ask such a simple question? It's like asking "can every LSAT question be answered by the information in the stimulus?"

marlo45 wrote:

TurtlesAllTheWayDown wrote:

Br3v wrote:

TurtlesAllTheWayDown wrote:"Found" isn't literal here. RC isn't a word find puzzle. The question is simply put, "can the all RC questions be answered using only the passage and your brain?". The answer is yes.
If you want to be super legalistic (and kind of douchy), then no, you can't symbol match your way to RC glory. But everyone knows that and it's an uninteresting statement.

This question is not philosophical.

Think they were trying to be funny...

God, I hope so...

Totally agree with you in that 'found' is not literal, but that's very obvious. Therefore, when the answer to a question seems so simple, it begs to be scrutinized on a more philosophical level of reasoning. The obvious answer is yes, but why would the OP ask such a simple question? It's like asking "can every LSAT question be answered by the information in the stimulus?"

OP asked to question to get the opinion of whether it was always worthwhile to examine passage for each Q. I think OP stated that above (give or take typo. Hinge = hince)

marlo45 wrote:

TurtlesAllTheWayDown wrote:

Br3v wrote:

TurtlesAllTheWayDown wrote:"Found" isn't literal here. RC isn't a word find puzzle. The question is simply put, "can the all RC questions be answered using only the passage and your brain?". The answer is yes.
If you want to be super legalistic (and kind of douchy), then no, you can't symbol match your way to RC glory. But everyone knows that and it's an uninteresting statement.

This question is not philosophical.

Think they were trying to be funny...

God, I hope so...

Totally agree with you in that 'found' is not literal, but that's very obvious. Therefore, when the answer to a question seems so simple, it begs to be scrutinized on a more philosophical level of reasoning. The obvious answer is yes, but why would the OP ask such a simple question? It's like asking "can every LSAT question be answered by the information in the stimulus?"

This feels like a trap...

Br3v wrote: OP asked to question to get the opinion of whether it was always worthwhile to examine passage for each Q. I think OP stated that above.

Examining the passage is the only way to know what the author is suggesting. Of course, every answer can be found question can be answered with the information in the passage.

OP specifically said 'in writing.' That makes it seem as if he was asking if there is always a paraphrase or something of the like to answer every question. The answer to that is no.

A lot of the "Which of these would the author most likely agree with?" questions are definitely NOT in the passage. For many of these you need to just have a general feeling of his beliefs and what he would or would not agree with.. But finding direct textual support in one or two sentences may be impossible.

The ones that are like "which of the following Y is analogous to the way the author perceives X?" are stupid and not to be found no matter how hard you look. Where you have to pretend lichens are dinner guests and shit like that

I WILL say that I think most of the WRONG AC's in those cases CAN be found in the passage -- i.e. for the "which of the following will the author agree with" statements, you can usually find paraphrased opposition to the incorrect ac's in the passage, and then it's pretty easy to do p.o.e. from there.

SaintsTheMetal wrote:A lot of the "Which of these would the author most likely agree with?" questions are definitely NOT in the passage. For many of these you need to just have a general feeling of his beliefs and what he would or would not agree with.. But finding direct textual support in one or two sentences may be impossible.

The poster after this one touched on my other caveat - that the analogy questions aren't in the passage directly. Those are the exception, though.

As to the ones mentioned by Saints, I agree and disagree. For the most part, the best way to go about doing them is to have a solid grasp of what the author believes and find the one that matches up. So I agree with him there.

However, two caveats to that. I think there is usually 1-2 sentences that will very, very strongly imply the exact same thing that the author is stating. While having an overall feel is the fastest way to get to the answer, and sometimes you need the 1-2 sentences I reference plus the 'flavor' of the rest of the passage, I think there are always a few sentences there that you can point to that most people would feel prove the answer.

The exception to this is when the author makes a strong, comparative statement. If she states that something is the biggest, the strongest, the most important, etc..., you can bet that that's going to show up in a question, and it's going to be one where you have to make a small jump. So yes, the author never talks about a certain alternative, so if the answer focuses on that alternative, it's not in the passage. However, if I know that a certain method A is the most efficient way to distribute aid after a disaster, then an answer that says, "Method B, used to distribute aid during Disaster X, could be more efficient." is something with which the author would agree. Not directly stated, but you can get it from info in the passage.