Top Law Schools

Hello everyone,

I want to know if you think that the following way is a good way to attack the stimulus of a tough LR question. This is PT 19-S4-Q23 "Construction contractors"

So, here's what went through my head:

This stimulus has alot of relationships going on here with two types of contracts and short descriptions of each as well as a result from each of these two types concerning the frequency of cost overruns.

Instead of trying to memorize the short description of each and the result, which will likely get jumbled in my head, what if I just remember that there are two types of cost-plus contracts and keep my finger over the part of the passage where the description of them are, and remember that cost overruns are more common in the second type.

Quick note: I did this because if I tried to remember exactly that the first type is when the contractor's profits are a fixed percentage of the costs and the other type is when the contractor's profits are a fixed amount over and above the contractor's costs and that the type in which the contractor's profits are fixed yields higher costs overruns, which is the opposite of what we would expect, all of this would have been jumbled up in my head and I would have gotten the question wrong no doubt.

I then went through the ACs and the only ones that weren't easily eliminatable were D and E, and when I thought about E I eliminated it too. Then I checked D against the stimulus, it checked out, yay.

Do you think this is a good way to approach a complex, difficult LR stimulus, or do you think that I need to keep the relationships of the stimulus in my head from now on and I simply got lucky on this one, and won't always be so lucky next time?

If you're totally confused as to what I'm asking: I'm asking if you think it is advisable to approach LR almost like in the way that you approach RC- get a big picture understanding of the argument or group of statements, keeping a "stimulus map" in your head, so to speak (remembering where specific things are that are important to the argument/group of statements), eliminating blatantly wrong ACs via your understanding of the argument (without having the entire core memorized because it's probably going to get jumbled up in my head), and then with those two or however many semi-attractive ACs, comparing those against the stimulus, which shouldn't take too long if your mental "stimulus map" is good!

Feel free to let any comments fly.

Just wanted to come in here and say that that stimulus absolutely sucked. Wow. I am interested to here responses to this question.

Sidenote: am I crazy or does every single answer choice except for (D) exclusively deal with either only ONE of the contract types or make an irrelevant blanket statement with no comparison?

It's not essential to do any of that. You don't want to have to refer back to the stimulus, ideally, the way you would an RC passage. This is a fairly straightforward question type - resolve the paradox. We should have two statement of fact which appear to be in conflict with each other. We should find only one answer choice which speaks to the facts of the scenario, while allowing both to be true, and providing some narrative or answer to the "how" question.

Paradox side 1: We would expect x to occur, given y.
Paradox side 2: However, z occurs instead.

In this question it's everything from "Under"... to "common." for side 1, and "Paradoxically" to "kind." for side 2.
Only should have two contenders, D and E, and E doesn't speak to the scenario (stimulus has to do with cost overruns, not exaggerated estimates.) Rather than marking up the stimulus, paying close attention to the answer choices is going to be the better option from a time/value perspective.

If you wanted to mark up the stimulus, I'd recommend you do so by bracketing off the two sides of the paradox, so you can refer back and double check your answer to make sure it speaks to exactly the scenario being described.

tl;dr- LR is going to change more based on the question type than the stimulus. Be aware of certain things -types of reasoning being employed, the conclusion, major flaws... but really differentiate your approach to each question type. Marking up the passage would take too long and wouldn't help much, because you don't know what your question type is until after you read the passage, and the question type dictates the approach.
For more, please read the Powerscore Bible.

WaltGrace83 wrote:Just wanted to come in here and say that that stimulus absolutely sucked. Wow. I am interested to here responses to this question.

Sidenote: am I crazy or does every single answer choice except for (D) exclusively deal with either only ONE of the contract types or make an irrelevant blanket statement with no comparison?

Walt,

Yeah- that's the beauty of the paradox question types. Only one answer will deal with BOTH sides of the paradox while providing some explanation or "how" answer. the others will usually only speak to one side of the paradox.

Thanks for the response, guys.

Gustave, I appreciate you making the problem as simple as possible- that is very helpful. One quick follow up question: So what would you get out the stimulus? Would you retain each relationship in your head (i.e. two types of contracts and short descriptions of each as well as a result from each)?

I realize that you are essentially "reading for structure", but are the descriptions of each type of contract not important enough to try and retain in your initial read of the stimulus?

Louis1127 wrote:
I realize that you are essentially "reading for structure", but are the descriptions of each type of contract not important enough to try and retain in your initial read of the stimulus?

It's exactly because they're so important that we DON'T want to try to read for memorization. We're humans. I think. Which means we actually kinda suck at memorization, especially being able to then apply memorized data in a meaningful way. Instead, read for structure, identify key aspects, sort the answer choices into contenders and losers and then refer back if necessary to help winnow between your faves.

tl;dr- trying to remember all the details from a convoluted stimulus -> inevitable failure -> likely frustration and confusion -> CWR. Don't go to Case Western Reserve.

Read the stem first, so you know what to look for in the stimulus.

Gustave wrote:

Louis1127 wrote:
I realize that you are essentially "reading for structure", but are the descriptions of each type of contract not important enough to try and retain in your initial read of the stimulus?

It's exactly because they're so important that we DON'T want to try to read for memorization. We're humans. I think. Which means we actually kinda suck at memorization, especially being able to then apply memorized data in a meaningful way. Instead, read for structure, identify key aspects, sort the answer choices into contenders and losers and then refer back if necessary to help winnow between your faves.

tl;dr- trying to remember all the details from a convoluted stimulus -> inevitable failure -> likely frustration and confusion -> CWR. Don't go to Case Western Reserve.

Thanks Gus!