Those last two LR questions... Forum

[2curmudgeony]

Studying for the October 2013 LSAT. Have the Powerscore Logical Reasoning Bible and a bunch of practice LSATs, and doing ok. But for every LR section, I always miss at least two. What are some books/sources/study guides that might teach me the master tricks necessary to avoid these pitfalls?

I used to have a timing problem with LGs, but after Powerscore and Ace the LSAT, those are now really easy. Wondering how I can achieve that same mastery over LR.

[TheMostDangerousLG]

Studying for the October 2013 LSAT. Have the Powerscore Logical Reasoning Bible and a bunch of practice LSATs, and doing ok. But for every LR section, I always miss at least two. What are some books/sources/study guides that might teach me the master tricks necessary to avoid these pitfalls?

I used to have a timing problem with LGs, but after Powerscore and Ace the LSAT, those are now really easy. Wondering how I can achieve that same mastery over LR.

Manhattan LR is also a great guide; you should check it out if you're looking to master the section. I think a lot of getting to the last couple Qs just comes from familiarity and comfort with the section, and is helped by focusing on timing during work. Drilling question types (and timing each question to remain cognizant of how much time you're spending per Q) is one of the most helpful exercises for this.

[bp shinners]

When you're down to those last 2, you need to focus on how the LSAT is tricking you instead of the logic behind the questions. At that point, I've found it almost universally the case that you understand the question, but they use some trick in the AC to confuse you.

So when you are reviewing, don't stop at explaining why the right answer is right and the wrong one wrong. Really figure out how they tricked you into picking that wrong answer, and how they hid the correct answer from you. You must have eliminated the credited response if you got it wrong; you must have found something about an incorrect answer enticing. These tricks show up again and again, and if you can figure out the ones you're falling for, you can avoid them.

In my experience, equivocation (switching words around) and logical force in non-logical force words ("independent" is a strong word, but not a common logical force keyword, for example) are the most common tricks they use.

[trojandave]

When you're down to those last 2, you need to focus on how the LSAT is tricking you instead of the logic behind the questions. At that point, I've found it almost universally the case that you understand the question, but they use some trick in the AC to confuse you.

So when you are reviewing, don't stop at explaining why the right answer is right and the wrong one wrong. Really figure out how they tricked you into picking that wrong answer, and how they hid the correct answer from you. You must have eliminated the credited response if you got it wrong; you must have found something about an incorrect answer enticing. These tricks show up again and again, and if you can figure out the ones you're falling for, you can avoid them.

In my experience, equivocation (switching words around) and logical force in non-logical force words ("independent" is a strong word, but not a common logical force keyword, for example) are the most common tricks they use.

Exactly. If you're missing between around 2-4 consistently you're so close to being perfect, you're just getting tricked. One thing that I found helped me was asking myself after reading each stem "What is the conclusion?" It's a really easy question to answer and it might feel like a waste of time to do this, but the ones I was missing were stupid mistakes where I'd pick an answer that felt right, but the answer wasn't actually addressing the conclusion. It felt like it was, and it supposed to feel like it was, but it really only existed to trick people and be the final barrier between a good score and a great score. Figure out how they're tricking you and you'll be great. The basics you have already

[TheMostDangerousLG]

Exactly. If you're missing between around 2-4 consistently you're so close to being perfect, you're just getting tricked. One thing that I found helped me was asking myself after reading each stem "What is the conclusion?" It's a really easy question to answer and it might feel like a waste of time to do this, but the ones I was missing were stupid mistakes where I'd pick an answer that felt right, but the answer wasn't actually addressing the conclusion. It felt like it was, and it supposed to feel like it was, but it really only existed to trick people and be the final barrier between a good score and a great score. Figure out how they're tricking you and you'll be great. The basics you have already

Credited. Paying attention to this when reading each and every question helped me clean up misses that shouldn't have been happening.

[bp shinners]

Exactly. If you're missing between around 2-4 consistently you're so close to being perfect, you're just getting tricked. One thing that I found helped me was asking myself after reading each stem "What is the conclusion?" It's a really easy question to answer and it might feel like a waste of time to do this, but the ones I was missing were stupid mistakes where I'd pick an answer that felt right, but the answer wasn't actually addressing the conclusion. It felt like it was, and it supposed to feel like it was, but it really only existed to trick people and be the final barrier between a good score and a great score. Figure out how they're tricking you and you'll be great. The basics you have already

Credited. Paying attention to this when reading each and every question helped me clean up misses that shouldn't have been happening.

Yep. Look out for qualifications in the premises/conclusion to make sure they match up ("If professor Vallejo is correct..." in a premise means the conclusion has to be similarly qualified), and always check to see if the conclusion introduces new concepts.