commonalities for LR Forum

[moonluna]

Hey guys,

I was wondering if anyone had any commonalities they notice for wrong answer choices?

Here are a few that I noticed in wrong answer choices:
-be careful for STRONG LANGUAGE. i.e- ALL, NONE
-be careful for predictions. i.e- if this, then this will happen/ once something happens, it will result in.
-be careful for comparative answers
-be careful for answers that are irrelevant to the passage. i.e-talks about safety, yet the passage doesn't mention safety.
-be careful for answers that do the opposite of what the question asks. instead of strengthening, it weakens.
-be careful for answers that attack the character and not the argument.

Anyone have commonalities they find for right answer choices?
soft language. i.e- "some/at least one" is what I have found.

[LionelHutzJD]

Hey guys,

I was wondering if anyone had any commonalities they notice for wrong answer choices?

Here are a few that I noticed in wrong answer choices:
-be careful for STRONG LANGUAGE. i.e- ALL, NONE
-be careful for predictions. i.e- if this, then this will happen/ once something happens, it will result in.
-be careful for comparative answers
-be careful for answers that are irrelevant to the passage. i.e-talks about safety, yet the passage doesn't mention safety.
-be careful for answers that do the opposite of what the question asks. instead of strengthening, it weakens.
-be careful for answers that attack the character and not the argument.

Anyone have commonalities they find for right answer choices?
soft language. i.e- "some/at least one" is what I have found.

Narrow scope and out of scope.

[Mr. Frodo]

Hey guys,

I was wondering if anyone had any commonalities they notice for wrong answer choices?

Here are a few that I noticed in wrong answer choices:
-be careful for STRONG LANGUAGE. i.e- ALL, NONE
-be careful for predictions. i.e- if this, then this will happen/ once something happens, it will result in.
-be careful for comparative answers
-be careful for answers that are irrelevant to the passage. i.e-talks about safety, yet the passage doesn't mention safety.
-be careful for answers that do the opposite of what the question asks. instead of strengthening, it weakens.
-be careful for answers that attack the character and not the argument.

Anyone have commonalities they find for right answer choices?
soft language. i.e- "some/at least one" is what I have found.

Narrow scope and out of scope.

In my prep, I'm noticing that watching out for answer choices that mention what should happen instead of what can/has/will can help to eliminate said choices quickly.

[Jeffort]

The types of correct vs. incorrect answer choices you can expect in LR questions depends on many factors including the question type, the type of reasoning (i.e. the particular flawed method(s) of reasoning) employed in the stimulus when an argument is presented, the type of logical reasoning presented (for example, cause and effect reasoning, conditional reasoning or prescriptive/reasoning that offers a recommendation conclusion, comparative reasoning, etc.), the scope of the material presented in the stimulus about the main subject matter (namely the topic the conclusion is about), whether the stimulus is an argument or just a set of information, any extra information, if any, presented in the question stem and a few other things.

There are various different combinations that form the base of the many patterns that repeatedly occur in LR questions. Good prep classes and good prep books/sources are long because there are many different context based patterns to learn in order to become proficient at answering the various question types accurately and efficiently under timed test day conditions.

Different question types and argument types have different relationships/characteristics/patterns so there is no 'one size fits all' list of common characteristics you can apply universally to all question types. The patterns are compartmentalized, meaning they vary by question type and the other factors mentioned above.

For instance, when working must be true or most strongly supported questions, scope of the evidence presented in the stimulus is important when evaluating answer choices since the question types are about proof/evidence for a valid inference, so some incorrect answer choices will state things that go beyond the scope of what the evidence presented is sufficient to prove true.

In contrast, when evaluating strengthen and weaken question answer choices, evaluating for relevance rather than scope is the proper approach. The correct answer choice will typically present something that was not mentioned in the argument and may appear to be 'out of scope' for that reason. The reasoning/analysis task for those question types is determining whether the additional evidence presented in an answer choice is relevant to the argument and its conclusion. Basically asking 'does this new information matter to/have an impact on the conclusion and/or reasoning of the argument?'. People get mixed up and frequently incorrectly eliminate the correct answer choice on strengthen and weaken questions on the basis of it being out of scope because it has information about something not mentioned in the argument. If you've ever eliminated the correct answer choice without much thought/analysis due to thinking at the moment, 'out of scope, artifacts of decorations from the religious ceremonies (or whatever) are not talked about in the argument', then you've made this common mistake.

Relevance and scope (although somewhat related) are two different concepts/ways to think/reason with/analyze and apply to different reasoning tasks.

With strengthen and weaken questions you'll frequently encounter 'opposite' answer choices that strengthen rather than weaken and vice versa as well as irrelevant information/no impact on the argument choices.

Other question types have different types of common incorrect but tempting answer choices.

For instance, point of issue/point of disagreement questions. They are an inference based question type with which you have to figure out which answer choice states something you have enough evidence in the stimulus to logically infer that one speaker disagrees with and that the other speaker agrees with, based on what they said. Scope is important with these since you cannot infer a speakers position about a topic they have said nothing about. Common attractive but incorrect trap answers for this question type state something you can infer one speakers point of view about, but not the others since (s)he said nothing about it, as well as ones that both speakers would agree about, or alternatively that both disagree about the truth of the statement in the answer choice, based on the available evidence.

The list goes on for each question type and variation. Getting good at performing well on the LSAT LR sections involves becoming familiar with the various common structures and relationships compartmentalized per question type and reasoning type.

Going heavily with a general/simple rule of thumb (that doesn't require much effort/thought/analysis to always apply instead of really analyzing the logic of the material presented) approach that is mainly based on focusing on the soft, middle or strong language/logical force of the statement in the answer choice to make selections will not consistently land you on the correct answer choice and will likely hold you below 170 or lower range. Such an approach does work ok on lower difficulty questions and some harder ones here and there when you have it down to two, need to or decide to flip a coin with a shortcut due to time pressure, but does not always hold true.

There are exceptions in the formulations of the questions on every test that prevent blanket use of simple/semi brainless/lazy or desperate -when against the clock- /skip doing real analysis strategies from helping achieve anything higher than a 160s range score or a score significantly higher than a persons current score range ability level due to luck or easy brainless shortcuts.

[hallbd16]

The types of correct vs. incorrect answer choices you can expect in LR questions depends on many factors including the question type, the type of reasoning (i.e. the particular flawed method(s) of reasoning) employed in the stimulus when an argument is presented, the type of logical reasoning presented (for example, cause and effect reasoning, conditional reasoning or prescriptive/reasoning that offers a recommendation conclusion, comparative reasoning, etc.), the scope of the material presented in the stimulus about the main subject matter (namely the topic the conclusion is about), whether the stimulus is an argument or just a set of information, any extra information, if any, presented in the question stem and a few other things.

There are various different combinations that form the base of the many patterns that repeatedly occur in LR questions. Good prep classes and good prep books/sources are long because there are many different context based patterns to learn in order to become proficient at answering the various question types accurately and efficiently under timed test day conditions.

Different question types and argument types have different relationships/characteristics/patterns so there is no 'one size fits all' list of common characteristics you can apply universally to all question types. The patterns are compartmentalized, meaning they vary by question type and the other factors mentioned above.

For instance, when working must be true or most strongly supported questions, scope of the evidence presented in the stimulus is important when evaluating answer choices since the question types are about proof/evidence for a valid inference, so some incorrect answer choices will state things that go beyond the scope of what the evidence presented is sufficient to prove true.

In contrast, when evaluating strengthen and weaken question answer choices, evaluating for relevance rather than scope is the proper approach. The correct answer choice will typically present something that was not mentioned in the argument and may appear to be 'out of scope' for that reason. The reasoning/analysis task for those question types is determining whether the additional evidence presented in an answer choice is relevant to the argument and its conclusion. Basically asking 'does this new information matter to/have an impact on the conclusion and/or reasoning of the argument?'. People get mixed up and frequently incorrectly eliminate the correct answer choice on strengthen and weaken questions on the basis of it being out of scope because it has information about something not mentioned in the argument. If you've ever eliminated the correct answer choice without much thought/analysis due to thinking at the moment, 'out of scope, artifacts of decorations from the religious ceremonies (or whatever) are not talked about in the argument', then you've made this common mistake.

Relevance and scope (although somewhat related) are two different concepts/ways to think/reason with/analyze and apply to different reasoning tasks.

With strengthen and weaken questions you'll frequently encounter 'opposite' answer choices that strengthen rather than weaken and vice versa as well as irrelevant information/no impact on the argument choices.

Other question types have different types of common incorrect but tempting answer choices.

For instance, point of issue/point of disagreement questions. They are an inference based question type with which you have to figure out which answer choice states something you have enough evidence in the stimulus to logically infer that one speaker disagrees with and that the other speaker agrees with, based on what they said. Scope is important with these since you cannot infer a speakers position about a topic they have said nothing about. Common attractive but incorrect trap answers for this question type state something you can infer one speakers point of view about, but not the others since (s)he said nothing about it, as well as ones that both speakers would agree about, or alternatively that both disagree about the truth of the statement in the answer choice, based on the available evidence.

The list goes on for each question type and variation. Getting good at performing well on the LSAT LR sections involves becoming familiar with the various common structures and relationships compartmentalized per question type and reasoning type.

Going heavily with a general/simple rule of thumb (that doesn't require much effort/thought/analysis to always apply instead of really analyzing the logic of the material presented) approach that is mainly based on focusing on the soft, middle or strong language/logical force of the statement in the answer choice to make selections will not consistently land you on the correct answer choice and will likely hold you below 170 or lower range. Such an approach does work ok on lower difficulty questions and some harder ones here and there when you have it down to two, need to or decide to flip a coin with a shortcut due to time pressure, but does not always hold true.

There are exceptions in the formulations of the questions on every test that prevent blanket use of simple/semi brainless/lazy or desperate -when against the clock- /skip doing real analysis strategies from helping achieve anything higher than a 160s range score or a score significantly higher than a persons current score range ability level due to luck or easy brainless shortcuts.

Well said
Bump +1