Do you identify LR question types instantly? Forum

[BallHog]

Successful LR takers,

I have noticed that when I work on LR sections, I sometimes don't take into account the type of question I am working on. Basically, I don't systematically say "This is an inference question. This is how you do inference questions." I generally just go through them without even thinking about it.

My question for you is: do you guys automatically know what you are working with and attack that question accordingly?

[Malakai]

Yes. I look at the question type then proceed with the stimulus. LR bible really set up a great foundation for that. It becomes automatic after some practice, (this would vary from person to person, but I picked it up fairly quickly).

To be honest, identifying the question type is/should be one of the earliest stages of LSAT prep. But it gets easier over time that's for sure.

Edit: it takes maybe 1-2 seconds (a mere glance) to ID what I'm looking at

[Cerebro]

I'm currently achieving between -0 and -2 on timed LR sections.

So, fwiw, I think it is like learning how to drive. If you've been driving for a long time, you know that you very rarely have to think about how to drive -- you just deal with the road conditions, operation of the vehicle, staying in the lane, and traffic laws without consciously thinking about every little thing. Now, try to teach a 15yo how to drive for the first time, and you'll be amazed to see how much thought they have to put into every little aspect of driving.

In many respects, I believe this to be a valid analogy for learning the LR section. I think conscious effort is necessary (at the beginning) to identify the question type AND CONSEQUENTLY alter your approach to determining the correct answer BASED ON THAT INFORMATION. However, once you advance to a level of mastery over the material, this identification and the subsequent utilization of type-specific strategies for determining the credited response becomes automatic.

This is why it is important to drill specific question types prior to drilling mixed types (as explicitly recommended in Manhattan's LR guide): so that you develop mastery/proficiency through repetition of specific skills applicable to a single type of question.

To be clear, the explicit identification of question types during mastery/question-type practice is not (based on my understanding) something that should be carried over to actual timed practice (or real tests). Since, by the time one is ramping up timed practices, one should already have achieved a level of mastery that necessitates automatic (unconscious) identification of question type and the corresponding type-specific strategies and considerations required to efficiently select the credited response.

[Triveal]

If it's a long or complicated stimulus, OR if it's a question type that is notoriously difficult for me (parallel argument, flaw) then I will be systematic. Otherwise, I don't think back to the LRB types and categorize them, no.

[BallHog]

Thanks for the awesome advice. Sounds like I have a long way to go!

[LoveLife89]

I think one of the ways I learned was to cover up the answers and the stimulus. Only read the question. Learning the question type, in my opinion, is just as important as anything else. Some question types ask for different things. I had to do this to really learn and now it is automatic. I don't even think anymore about what kind of question it is. I used to get confused with most strongly support and some strengthen questions, but after enough of this method that I am suggesting, you learn the subtle differences.

So, before you do a section, just do drilling on the question and make sure you know why it's that specific type. Power score does a good job of explaining each type

[BallHog]

I think one of the ways I learned was to cover up the answers and the stimulus. Only read the question. Learning the question type, in my opinion, is just as important as anything else. Some question types ask for different things. I had to do this to really learn and now it is automatic. I don't even think anymore about what kind of question it is. I used to get confused with most strongly support and some strengthen questions, but after enough of this method that I am suggesting, you learn the subtle differences.

So, before you do a section, just do drilling on the question and make sure you know why it's that specific type. Power score does a good job of explaining each type

Agreed. I was just about to post this. I will begin taking notes on question types.

For example:

"Sufficient = properly drawn, "if""
"Necessary = assume"

etc. etc.