While drilling LR, I'll often find myself between two Forum

[flash21]

I'll often find myself between two questions, and often enough I'll choose the wrong one. How would you guys think to remedy this situation? Right at this moment I'm typing out questions from my drilling packet and writing out for each answer why it was right/wrong etc, any other tips?

[neprep]

Being stuck between two ACs is more of an endemic problem than one that's specific to you or any test taker I think. Probably because that's just the way the ACs are written — to be enticing.

What helped me was not only understanding why the right and wrong answers were so, but also trying to figure out why I picked the wrong answer and rejected the correct one. What trick did I fall for? Often, I'd go to the MLSAT LR Forum (http://www.manhattanlsat.com/forums/log ... ng-f4.html) and see what their instructors are saying about the questions. A lot of the time, they'll write out something along the lines of "(C) is a very attractive choice because _______, but it's not as good as (A), since _______." I found that after doing enough of this, I could glean a pattern and extract some guiding principles about incorrect ACs on other questions of the same nature. Something like this is pretty standard advice here, but I just want to endorse this method that, at least for me, showed observable and sustained results

[flash21]

Being stuck between two ACs is more of an endemic problem than one that's specific to you or any test taker I think. Probably because that's just the way the ACs are written — to be enticing.

What helped me was not only understanding why the right and wrong answers were so, but also trying to figure out why I picked the wrong answer and rejected the correct one. What trick did I fall for? Often, I'd go to the MLSAT LR Forum (http://www.manhattanlsat.com/forums/log ... ng-f4.html) and see what their instructors are saying about the questions. A lot of the time, they'll write out something along the lines of "(C) is a very attractive choice because _______, but it's not as good as (A), since _______." I found that after doing enough of this, I could glean a pattern and extract some guiding principles about incorrect ACs on other questions of the same nature. Something like this is pretty standard advice here, but I just want to endorse this method that, at least for me, showed observable and sustained results

Okay thanks - I think I'm doing something quite similar. In my word document, I'll write down WHY i chose the answer I chose, then write down why it is wrong in addition to why the right answer was right. I'm finding a pattern where in flaw answers, I'll identify the flaw but somehow choose the wrong answer still?

Also, cause + causation trip me up, along with those"opposite" answer choices (if it asks to strengthen, I may at times choose the one that weakens)

[bp shinners]

"(C) is a very attractive choice because _______, but it's not as good as (A), since _______."

I haven't spent enough time on the Manhattan forms to comment on if this is accurate to there forums. However, it's not accurate to the test - one answer choice won't be good but not as good as another one; one answer choice is right, and the other four are wrong.

[neprep]

"(C) is a very attractive choice because _______, but it's not as good as (A), since _______."

I haven't spent enough time on the Manhattan forms to comment on if this is accurate to there forums. However, it's not accurate to the test - one answer choice won't be good but not as good as another one; one answer choice is right, and the other four are wrong.

Right, that's totally my fault. I meant "not as good" to mean "insufficiently good" to be the right answer, making it the wrong answer. While writing that I was thinking "any answer that is not the correct answer is obviously not as good as the correct answer," making even an unequivocally wrong answer "not as good" as the correct one. Sorry if that confused you, OP!

[jrsbaseball5]

LR has always been my worst section, but I feel like I'm improving a lot using this technique on many questions so take it for what its worth.

When I get stuck between two questions I return to the argument (or what Manhattan refers to as the core) and analyze both answer choices in relation to the argument. What I find invariably is that one of the two will relate very well to the question, while the other will be slightly off, meaning it is slightly out of scope, focuses on the wrong thing etc. It is often a minor issue, but when you look at the argument structure you can see how it is slightly off base and are able to select the correct answer that way.

In order to do this effectively I have taken a few extra seconds (probably 5-7) to make sure I understand the argument structure before moving on to the answer choices. Though this seems like a substantial amount of time I have found that it has actually helped me shave time in the long run because I can more quickly eliminate wrong answers and don't have to keep re reading the question.

In essence my improvement has come from understanding the argument structure much better before tackling the answers.

Hope that helps.

[lawschool22]

LR has always been my worst section, but I feel like I'm improving a lot using this technique on many questions so take it for what its worth.

When I get stuck between two questions I return to the argument (or what Manhattan refers to as the core) and analyze both answer choices in relation to the argument. What I find invariably is that one of the two will relate very well to the question, while the other will be slightly off, meaning it is slightly out of scope, focuses on the wrong thing etc. It is often a minor issue, but when you look at the argument structure you can see how it is slightly off base and are able to select the correct answer that way.

In order to do this effectively I have taken a few extra seconds (probably 5-7) to make sure I understand the argument structure before moving on to the answer choices. Though this seems like a substantial amount of time I have found that it has actually helped me shave time in the long run because I can more quickly eliminate wrong answers and don't have to keep re reading the question.

In essence my improvement has come from understanding the argument structure much better before tackling the answers.

Hope that helps.

This. True understanding of the argument (while it sounds so obvious) is the key. You must understand both what the argument is saying, and, perhaps more importantly in the context of eliminating wrong AC's, what it is not saying. Incorrect choices are almost universally wrong due to a degree issue (saying "most" or "all" when the argument core clearly does not support a generalization), a scope issue (why are we talking about birds when the argument was talking about squirrels?), or a formal logic issue (concluding that a sufficient condition is necessary, illegal negation, etc.). When you know what the argument is clearly saying (pay attention to details!) it becomes much easier to spot the incorrect AC's.

[flash21]

LR has always been my worst section, but I feel like I'm improving a lot using this technique on many questions so take it for what its worth.

When I get stuck between two questions I return to the argument (or what Manhattan refers to as the core) and analyze both answer choices in relation to the argument. What I find invariably is that one of the two will relate very well to the question, while the other will be slightly off, meaning it is slightly out of scope, focuses on the wrong thing etc. It is often a minor issue, but when you look at the argument structure you can see how it is slightly off base and are able to select the correct answer that way.

In order to do this effectively I have taken a few extra seconds (probably 5-7) to make sure I understand the argument structure before moving on to the answer choices. Though this seems like a substantial amount of time I have found that it has actually helped me shave time in the long run because I can more quickly eliminate wrong answers and don't have to keep re reading the question.

In essence my improvement has come from understanding the argument structure much better before tackling the answers.

Hope that helps.

This. True understanding of the argument (while it sounds so obvious) is the key. You must understand both what the argument is saying, and, perhaps more importantly in the context of eliminating wrong AC's, what it is not saying. Incorrect choices are almost universally wrong due to a degree issue (saying "most" or "all" when the argument core clearly does not support a generalization), a scope issue (why are we talking about birds when the argument was talking about squirrels?), or a formal logic issue (concluding that a sufficient condition is necessary, illegal negation, etc.). When you know what the argument is clearly saying (pay attention to details!) it becomes much easier to spot the incorrect AC's.

Okay thanks - I think I get what you guys mean. I do find often one answer choice will emphasize a premise too much and not effect the conclusion. I'll relate the two AC's back to the arguement structure and let you guys know how that helps.

[Nicolena.]

This has been a common problem for me as well. I'm so glad you posted this. Thanks guys!

[Bratva]

it's even worse for me because when i'm down to 2. i pick the correct ones and then change my answers....-_-
i'm seriously considering just reversing the answers for the couple of questions that i'm not entirely sure about
however, i've never had the guts to try that...

[bp shinners]

it's even worse for me because when i'm down to 2. i pick the correct ones and then change my answers....-_-
i'm seriously considering just reversing the answers for the couple of questions that i'm not entirely sure about
however, i've never had the guts to try that...

Try this - if you're about to switch an answer don't do it unless you can explain why your first answer is wrong. A lot of people switch when they can explain why the new one is right, but you should also be able to explain why your first answer is wrong. If you can't do that, stick with it. For most of my students, this results in a net positive.

[Bratva]

it's even worse for me because when i'm down to 2. i pick the correct ones and then change my answers....-_-
i'm seriously considering just reversing the answers for the couple of questions that i'm not entirely sure about
however, i've never had the guts to try that...

Try this - if you're about to switch an answer don't do it unless you can explain why your first answer is wrong. A lot of people switch when they can explain why the new one is right, but you should also be able to explain why your first answer is wrong. If you can't do that, stick with it. For most of my students, this results in a net positive.

alright i'm gonna try this tmr! thanks!!

[lawschool111]

I'll often find myself between two questions, and often enough I'll choose the wrong one. How would you guys think to remedy this situation? Right at this moment I'm typing out questions from my drilling packet and writing out for each answer why it was right/wrong etc, any other tips?

From my experience, LR questions can be narrowed down to two answer choices. I used to have the same problem as you. I was able to eliminate this problem by paying close attention to nuances and distinctions in the stimulus and answer choices. If I had to guess...you know how to attack LR problems, but need to be more attentive when you are reading the stimulus and revising the answer choices. LSAT writers are always looking for ways to trick you and through you off...chances are if you are able to narrow down LR answer choices to 2, then you have the fundamental concept of how to attack LR. Seems like you just need to be more alert when you are attacking the problems.

[lawschool111]

I'll often find myself between two questions, and often enough I'll choose the wrong one. How would you guys think to remedy this situation? Right at this moment I'm typing out questions from my drilling packet and writing out for each answer why it was right/wrong etc, any other tips?

From my experience, LR questions can be narrowed down to two answer choices. I used to have the same problem as you. I was able to eliminate this problem by paying close attention to nuances and distinctions in the stimulus and answer choices. If I had to guess...you know how to attack LR problems, but need to be more attentive when you are reading the stimulus and revising the answer choices. writers are always looking for ways to trick you and through you off...chances are if you are able to narrow down LR answer choices to 2, then you have the fundamental concept of how to attack LR. Seems like you just need to be more alert when you are attacking the problems.

i meant throw* haha