Level 3-4 LR questions Forum

[azditamo]

I know that these questions are designed to be hard but realistically speaking when you drill these levels are you going toward -0 or just the challenge? I mean, if you do ok on level 1-2 and you struggle on these levels does that mean you need to go back and study the key concepts of that specific lr or is that expected? I am not sure how to really use level 3-4 questions when I drill them.

[magickware]

I wouldn't be worried if you can't get a good number of them right at the start of your PTing.

But by the end of your LSAT prep, you should be able to do all of them without too much effort if you want anything above 170.

[azditamo]

I wouldn't be worried if you can't get a good number of them right at the start of your PTing.

But by the end of your LSAT prep, you should be able to do all of them without too much effort if you want anything above 170.

Yeah I did level 3 flaw and could not for the life of me figure out why some of them were flawed, I mean some of the arguments flowed logically. I dont know, maybe I am missing something but it was upsetting to just stare at this questions and not know what was going on.

[magickware]

Yeah I did level 3 flaw and could not for the life of me figure out why some of them were flawed, I mean some of the arguments flowed logically. I dont know, maybe I am missing something but it was upsetting to just stare at this questions and not know what was going on.

Keep in mind that there are virtually no new flaw type, w.e that are introduced in the more difficult ones.

It's always just more obscure (vague language or buried under a ton of misc. information seem to be the two most common), or LSAC trying to trick you by subverting the things you normally expect.

So, when you look at the flaw questions, pay attention to every word and how they're connected.

And, for all assumption-based question, ALWAYS look for the argument. The premises, what they support, and the conclusion itself.