Top Law Schools

I know that this is a subjective question, but I find something inherently confounding about aceing these questions. For me, they had a relatively short learning curve, but whereas with other questions I can almost always reason through the correct answer (at least while untimed), I seem to have reached a plateau on these questions. Every once in a while, there will appear a strengthen/ weaken question that I would feel no more confident about if I had unlimited time. There doesn't seem to be an ironclad way to solve them, and often I resort to what I feel the writer might have been thinking and compare that to known tendencies on the LSAT. For assumption family questions, I find this uncertainty way harder to deal with than either assumption or flaw questions.

I just made a thread about this too... http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 6&t=190998

I'm having some serious trouble with strengthen/weaken questions.

I would say Parallel Reasoning

..

interesting I find strengthen/weaken among the easiest questions. I agree with poster above though that parallel are usually the most difficult and time consuming

I have been drilling the different question types from PT 1-38, and I agree that parallel reasoning questions take the most effort to get to a 90% accuracy level, but I still vouch that strengthen/ weaken are tougher to approach 100% mastery. I say this because of that extra little wrinkle of creativity in the scope of right answers that they allow. In most scenarios these are relatively low stress questions, and certainly parallel reasoning take up more time, but at least there's more of a formula for solving them and therefore a higher associated certainty level.