Tip For LR That Has Helped Me A Lot Forum

[Nightingale]

This is really only addressed to people who have a good amount of study time available, but I feel like it is something that can be worked into anyone's schedule. (Note: this is a pretty intuitive exercise, and i'm undoubtedly sure many of you do this in some form or another)

In short, what you will basically be doing is extending the method of "pre-phrasing," which is trying to infer what the answer could be from the information provided to you in the stimulus and question stem before looking at the answer choices.

What i've been doing is going through old prep tests and physically breaking down the entire stimulus on a separate piece of paper. This means writing down any conclusions, sub-conclusions, premises, and, most importantly, describing how they work together to form the argument.

My notes might look something like this:

1) Statement is made
2) Author draws conclusion that opposes statement (1)
3) Author cites evidence that undermines statement (1) that supports own conclusion (2)
4) Argument follows logically

While this may be a time consuming exercise, I have found that it has really helped me nail down flaw/weaken/strengthen/and assumption questions. Plus, being able to intuitively deconstruct any given argument's structure will help you in every facet of LR and RC.

Hope this helps!

[A.Taarabt7]

This is really only addressed to people who have a good amount of study time available, but I feel like it is something that can be worked into anyone's schedule. (Note: this is a pretty intuitive exercise, and i'm undoubtedly sure many of you do this in some form or another)

In short, what you will basically be doing is extending the method of "pre-phrasing," which is trying to infer what the answer could be from the information provided to you in the stimulus and question stem before looking at the answer choices.

What i've been doing is going through old prep tests and physically breaking down the entire stimulus on a separate piece of paper. This means writing down any conclusions, sub-conclusions, premises, and, most importantly, describing how they work together to form the argument.

My notes might look something like this:

1) Statement is made
2) Author draws conclusion that opposes statement (1)
3) Author cites evidence that undermines statement (1) that supports own conclusion (2)
4) Argument follows logically

While this may be a time consuming exercise, I have found that it has really helped me nail down flaw/weaken/strengthen/and assumption questions. Plus, being able to intuitively deconstruct any given argument's structure will help you in every facet of LR and RC.

Hope this helps!

Thanks for the info
when I move to the LR phase of my prep next month I will incorporate some of this to help me understand LR better. Thank you.

[jrsbaseball5]

Awesome! Thanks

[Nightingale]

No problem!

[bp shinners]

My notes might look something like this:

1) Statement is made
2) Author draws conclusion that opposes statement (1)
3) Author cites evidence that undermines statement (1) that supports own conclusion (2)
4) Argument follows logically

While this may be a time consuming exercise, I have found that it has really helped me nail down flaw/weaken/strengthen/and assumption questions. Plus, being able to intuitively deconstruct any given argument's structure will help you in every facet of LR and RC.

Hope this helps!

This is the ideal for what's going on in your head when you're taking the test. It's almost like you have my personal narration down for a stimulus, which is a good thing.

I want to definitely endorse this exercise. I wouldn't try it on the actual exam, and you don't have to full-on write it out for every stimulus, but this is the type of narrative you should have going on inside your head when doing LR questions.

[TTX]

What i've been doing is going through old prep tests and physically breaking down the entire stimulus on a separate piece of paper. This means writing down any conclusions, sub-conclusions, premises, and, most importantly, describing how they work together to form the argument.

My notes might look something like this:

1) Statement is made
2) Author draws conclusion that opposes statement (1)
3) Author cites evidence that undermines statement (1) that supports own conclusion (2)
4) Argument follows logically

While this may be a time consuming exercise, I have found that it has really helped me nail down flaw/weaken/strengthen/and assumption questions. Plus, being able to intuitively deconstruct any given argument's structure will help you in every facet of LR and RC.

Hope this helps!

This.

I find the process of typing up questions I got wrong or were uncertain of is enough to give me a firmer grip on LR.
I imagine your method would push everything to the next level.

[Kharon542]

Thanks, I'll start trying this out!

[SwindlersList]

Nice.

Tagging for when I'm there.

[MissJenna]

Thank you. Is there any way you can do an example of this for a real question?

This is really only addressed to people who have a good amount of study time available, but I feel like it is something that can be worked into anyone's schedule. (Note: this is a pretty intuitive exercise, and i'm undoubtedly sure many of you do this in some form or another)

In short, what you will basically be doing is extending the method of "pre-phrasing," which is trying to infer what the answer could be from the information provided to you in the stimulus and question stem before looking at the answer choices.

What i've been doing is going through old prep tests and physically breaking down the entire stimulus on a separate piece of paper. This means writing down any conclusions, sub-conclusions, premises, and, most importantly, describing how they work together to form the argument.

My notes might look something like this:

1) Statement is made
2) Author draws conclusion that opposes statement (1)
3) Author cites evidence that undermines statement (1) that supports own conclusion (2)
4) Argument follows logically

While this may be a time consuming exercise, I have found that it has really helped me nail down flaw/weaken/strengthen/and assumption questions. Plus, being able to intuitively deconstruct any given argument's structure will help you in every facet of LR and RC.

Hope this helps!

[Nightingale]

Thank you. Is there any way you can do an example of this for a real question?

Here's a good, simple example from a question in the LR Bible for Flaw in the Reasoning:

Here is what I would write down in my notes, followed by an explanation:

(Note that this is an expanded version of what I would actually write, and I suggest you develop your own method of shorthand to make this exercise go by a little faster.)


1) Conclusion is stated by author.

Cotrell is, at best, able to write magazine articles of average quality.

Judging whether or not the first sentence is the conclusion can often be tricky, so you must look at context clues. In all arguments, conclusions are always supported by premises (evidence), and the first part of the second sentence provides the context we need.

2) Author offers evidence in support of initial conclusion (1)

The most compelling pieces of evidence for this are those few of the numerous articles submitted by Cotrell that are superior...

Clearly, the author is attempting to strengthen the statement he or she made in (1), but there is a problem with the evidence...

3) The author's cited evidence in (2) holds only if the conclusion in (1) is valid.

Since Cotrell, who is incapable of writing an article that is better than average, must obviously have plagiarized superior ones./i]

When you look at (1) and (3), they are exactly the same in meaning. As we all know, every argument's conclusion must flow from the premises, not the opposite. Since the conclusion is the same as the premise, the author presupposes the truth of the conclusion (1).

4) Thus, the argument is circular in its reasoning and is flawed.

Circular reasoning questions can be tricky, but when you are able to intuitively understand the location and function of each premise and the conclusion, the answer becomes obvious.


If I messed up or didn't fully answer your question, let me know!

[Nightingale]

I want to definitely endorse this exercise. I wouldn't try it on the actual exam, and you don't have to full-on write it out for every stimulus, but this is the type of narrative you should have going on inside your head when doing LR questions.

I just wanted to reinforce what bp shinners mentioned about having an inner-dialogue running through your head. This is absolutely the right way to view this exercise: as a study tool that helps streamline LR by strengthening your ability to break down questions in your head automatically (without needing to physically write down notes).

Thanks for the post, bp shinners!

[lsatkid007]

How about a MBT question? How would you tackle those?

thanks

[Throttle]

Thank you. Is there any way you can do an example of this for a real question?

Here's a good, simple example from a question in the LR Bible for Flaw in the Reasoning:

Cotrell is, at best, able to write magazine articles of
average quality..........

The argument is most vulnerable to criticism on
which one of the following grounds?

Here is what I would write down in my notes, followed by an explanation:

(Note that this is an expanded version of what I would actually write, and I suggest you develop your own method of shorthand to make this exercise go by a little faster.)


1) Conclusion is stated by author.

Cotrell is, at best, able to write magazine articles of average quality.

Judging whether or not the first sentence is the conclusion can often be tricky, so you must look at context clues. In all arguments, conclusions are always supported by premises (evidence), and the first part of the second sentence provides the context we need.

2) Author offers evidence in support of initial conclusion (1)

The most compelling pieces of evidence for this are those few of the numerous articles submitted by Cotrell that are superior...

Clearly, the author is attempting to strengthen the statement he or she made in (1), but there is a problem with the evidence...

3) The author's cited evidence in (2) holds only if the conclusion in (1) is valid.

Since Cotrell, who is incapable of writing an article that is better than average, must obviously have plagiarized superior ones./i]

When you look at (1) and (3), they are exactly the same in meaning. As we all know, every argument's conclusion must flow from the premises, not the opposite. Since the conclusion is the same as the premise, the author presupposes the truth of the conclusion (1).

4) Thus, the argument is circular in its reasoning and is flawed.

Circular reasoning questions can be tricky, but when you are able to intuitively understand the location and function of each premise and the conclusion, the answer becomes obvious.


If I messed up or didn't fully answer your question, let me know!

Delete the stimulus and write the pt number, sec, and question.

[sreiter18]

tagging this. thanks!

[evolution]

Thank you.

[NoodleyOne]

Love it.