Manhattan LSAT Logical Reasoning >> PowerScore LRB Forum

[bobtheblob916]

I didn't bother going through this book until after I'd been several weeks into taking full exams...man, was that a mistake. The approaches to Assumption family questions were very enlightening. For example, the division between Sufficient and Necessary Assumption Questions is a really helpful nuance.

And the approach to Flaw Questions is a hundred times better than PowerScore's, which just gives you a list of possible flawed answers. Sure, that's nice, but how about an actual approach to finding an answer instead of a bloated bunch of information. The Strengthen/Weaken section was really helpful too...why does LRB pretend like S/W Qs are easier than Assumption Questions? Sometimes they are, but on the hard ones, the correct answers can be really tricky.

Anyway, I know a lot of people say the LRB is a good stepping stone for moving on to Manhattan LR, but I'd reckon you could skip/skim a bunch of the LRB. Some sections are solid, but several others are filler, or just plain misleading. Definitely DO NOT skip out on Manhattan LR, unless you're getting 0/-1s without it.

And the absolute biggest lifesaver that Man-LR gave me? Read the question stem before the stimulus! I don't know if this works for everyone, but PowerScore specifically tells you NOT to read the Q-Stem first. I followed that strategy for two whole months and did okay.

But once I tried the opposite, I found LR a lot easier and a lot less stressful. When you know what question type you're dealing with, after you've done enough drills, you know what to look for, and how to read the stimulus. It saves you a lot of time and mental energy. Otherwise you'll be rushing through those 3-4 sentence stimuli like a madman, trying to grasp every detail.

[Nova]

+1

[Kimikho]

I didn't bother going through this book until after I'd been several weeks into taking full exams...man, was that a mistake. The approaches to Assumption family questions were very enlightening. For example, the division between Sufficient and Necessary Assumption Questions is a really helpful nuance.

And the approach to Flaw Questions is a hundred times better than PowerScore's, which just gives you a list of possible flawed answers. Sure, that's nice, but how about an actual approach to finding an answer instead of a bloated bunch of information. The Strengthen/Weaken section was really helpful too...why does LRB pretend like S/W Qs are easier than Assumption Questions? Sometimes they are, but on the hard ones, the correct answers can be really tricky.

Anyway, I know a lot of people say the LRB is a good stepping stone for moving on to Manhattan LR, but I'd reckon you could skip/skim a bunch of the LRB. Some sections are solid, but several others are filler, or just plain misleading. Definitely DO NOT skip out on Manhattan LR, unless you're getting 0/-1s without it.

And the absolute biggest lifesaver that Man-LR gave me? Read the question stem before the stimulus! I don't know if this works for everyone, but PowerScore specifically tells you NOT to read the Q-Stem first. I followed that strategy for two whole months and did okay.

But once I tried the opposite, I found LR a lot easier and a lot less stressful. When you know what question type you're dealing with, after you've done enough drills, you know what to look for, and how to read the stimulus. It saves you a lot of time and mental energy. Otherwise you'll be rushing through those 3-4 sentence stimuli like a madman, trying to grasp every detail.

+++++++++++++++1

[ManoftheHour]

I didn't bother going through this book until after I'd been several weeks into taking full exams...man, was that a mistake. The approaches to Assumption family questions were very enlightening. For example, the division between Sufficient and Necessary Assumption Questions is a really helpful nuance.

And the approach to Flaw Questions is a hundred times better than PowerScore's, which just gives you a list of possible flawed answers. Sure, that's nice, but how about an actual approach to finding an answer instead of a bloated bunch of information. The Strengthen/Weaken section was really helpful too...why does LRB pretend like S/W Qs are easier than Assumption Questions? Sometimes they are, but on the hard ones, the correct answers can be really tricky.

Anyway, I know a lot of people say the LRB is a good stepping stone for moving on to Manhattan LR, but I'd reckon you could skip/skim a bunch of the LRB. Some sections are solid, but several others are filler, or just plain misleading. Definitely DO NOT skip out on Manhattan LR, unless you're getting 0/-1s without it.

And the absolute biggest lifesaver that Man-LR gave me? Read the question stem before the stimulus! I don't know if this works for everyone, but PowerScore specifically tells you NOT to read the Q-Stem first. I followed that strategy for two whole months and did okay.

But once I tried the opposite, I found LR a lot easier and a lot less stressful. When you know what question type you're dealing with, after you've done enough drills, you know what to look for, and how to read the stimulus. It saves you a lot of time and mental energy. Otherwise you'll be rushing through those 3-4 sentence stimuli like a madman, trying to grasp every detail.

+++++++++++++++1

[Kimikho]

I didn't bother going through this book until after I'd been several weeks into taking full exams...man, was that a mistake. The approaches to Assumption family questions were very enlightening. For example, the division between Sufficient and Necessary Assumption Questions is a really helpful nuance.

And the approach to Flaw Questions is a hundred times better than PowerScore's, which just gives you a list of possible flawed answers. Sure, that's nice, but how about an actual approach to finding an answer instead of a bloated bunch of information. The Strengthen/Weaken section was really helpful too...why does LRB pretend like S/W Qs are easier than Assumption Questions? Sometimes they are, but on the hard ones, the correct answers can be really tricky.

Anyway, I know a lot of people say the LRB is a good stepping stone for moving on to Manhattan LR, but I'd reckon you could skip/skim a bunch of the LRB. Some sections are solid, but several others are filler, or just plain misleading. Definitely DO NOT skip out on Manhattan LR, unless you're getting 0/-1s without it.

And the absolute biggest lifesaver that Man-LR gave me? Read the question stem before the stimulus! I don't know if this works for everyone, but PowerScore specifically tells you NOT to read the Q-Stem first. I followed that strategy for two whole months and did okay.

But once I tried the opposite, I found LR a lot easier and a lot less stressful. When you know what question type you're dealing with, after you've done enough drills, you know what to look for, and how to read the stimulus. It saves you a lot of time and mental energy. Otherwise you'll be rushing through those 3-4 sentence stimuli like a madman, trying to grasp every detail.

+++++++++++++++1

+2

[Sinatra]

I didn't bother going through this book until after I'd been several weeks into taking full exams...man, was that a mistake. The approaches to Assumption family questions were very enlightening. For example, the division between Sufficient and Necessary Assumption Questions is a really helpful nuance.

And the approach to Flaw Questions is a hundred times better than PowerScore's, which just gives you a list of possible flawed answers. Sure, that's nice, but how about an actual approach to finding an answer instead of a bloated bunch of information. The Strengthen/Weaken section was really helpful too...why does LRB pretend like S/W Qs are easier than Assumption Questions? Sometimes they are, but on the hard ones, the correct answers can be really tricky.

Anyway, I know a lot of people say the LRB is a good stepping stone for moving on to Manhattan LR, but I'd reckon you could skip/skim a bunch of the LRB. Some sections are solid, but several others are filler, or just plain misleading. Definitely DO NOT skip out on Manhattan LR, unless you're getting 0/-1s without it.

And the absolute biggest lifesaver that Man-LR gave me? Read the question stem before the stimulus! I don't know if this works for everyone, but PowerScore specifically tells you NOT to read the Q-Stem first. I followed that strategy for two whole months and did okay.

But once I tried the opposite, I found LR a lot easier and a lot less stressful. When you know what question type you're dealing with, after you've done enough drills, you know what to look for, and how to read the stimulus. It saves you a lot of time and mental energy. Otherwise you'll be rushing through those 3-4 sentence stimuli like a madman, trying to grasp every detail.

+++++++++++++++1

+2

[tuffyjohnson]

How does LSAT trainer compare to Manhattan specifically for LR?

[Hotguy]

How does LSAT trainer compare to Manhattan specifically for LR?

I haven't finished the lsat trainer (ch 28), but very similar. Mike kim is a great writer and it shows. I would say that some sections Manhattan is better and others the lsat trainer is, but mostly same content.
Also I have found that the PS lr bible is a great and solid foundation to be built onto the Manhattan guides. So I wouldn't say that one is better than the other, just that you will notice more improvement on the Manhattan due to usually doing it after the PS bible, but that's just me.

[KingofSplitters55]

Certainly depends on the person.

I never read the question stem before reading the stimulus. I always read the stimulus before reading the question stem. In my case, it works rather well. I find that this method allows me to "digest" the argument as a whole more sub-consciously which then allows me to better pre-phrase and objectively evaluate the answer choices. I find this way I am less likely to be 'close-minded' or overlook certain details that the correct answer hinges on but may not seem important anymore once that 'specific radar frequency' is turned on by looking at the question stem.

I can certainly see why others may prefer it the other way around. I think it's really an individualized thing for one's test-taking nature.