LR Inference Question Types Forum

[Pragmatic Gun]

Hi everyone. I was wondering if anyone had a way to tackle Inference question types, as those seem to give me the most headaches. I rely on the MLSAT method of tackling the question, as that is the first method I learned. I'm open to any other styles of attack as well. Thanks in advance.

[papercut]

Hi everyone. I was wondering if anyone had a way to tackle Inference question types, as those seem to give me the most headaches. I rely on the MLSAT method of tackling the question, as that is the first method I learned. I'm open to any other styles of attack as well. Thanks in advance.

Not sure what the MLSAT method is, but this is how I like to do them:

If it's a formal logic question, then just diagram it out. Done.

If it's not then it's a bit more difficult.

They key thing is to look for strong claims ("all" "always" "is" "must" "only") because it's a lot easier to derive an inference from a strong claim.

There are some sneaky strong words that you should always look for like, "the heart of the matter," "the key," "the main reason," "the central purpose," etc.

If it's a must be true question, look for really weak claims from the answer choices. Avoid causal claims/explanations, strong claims, normative claims (unless you have a normative principle in the stimulus).

If it's a most strongly supported question (there are a lot more of these than MBT questions), then you have some room, because the correct answer choice could be false, but it just happens to be the most supported. ALWAYS summarize the stimulus while being very careful to get the language right. Most correct answers are just summaries.

Each wrong answer choice, for all the inference questions, will try to get you to fall for a flaw. You should be able to look at an answer choice and identify the exact flaw they're trying to sucker you into. Don't just settle for, "well they don't mention that," that's a copout and it's not fool proof when it comes to most strongly supported questions.

In general the correct answer is almost always some sort of combination of multiple propositions in the stimulus.

Hope that helps.

[Louis1127]

Each wrong answer choice, for all the inference questions, will try to get you to fall for a flaw. You should be able to look at an answer choice and identify the exact flaw they're trying to sucker you into. Don't just settle for, "well they don't mention that," that's a copout and it's not fool proof when it comes to most strongly supported questions.

Papercut,it seems that many- MANY incorrect are ACs are simply out of scope from what is mentioned in the stimulus. So when I am reviewing an inference question, and an incorrect AC is out of scope, is there something else I can do in my review analysis than just say "it's out of scope"? I don't see how much more I can analyze it.

Great tip on the correct answers often simply combining parts of the stim, I have noticed that while drilling.

[papercut]

Each wrong answer choice, for all the inference questions, will try to get you to fall for a flaw. You should be able to look at an answer choice and identify the exact flaw they're trying to sucker you into. Don't just settle for, "well they don't mention that," that's a copout and it's not fool proof when it comes to most strongly supported questions.

Papercut,it seems that many- MANY incorrect are ACs are simply out of scope from what is mentioned in the stimulus. So when I am reviewing an inference question, and an incorrect AC is out of scope, is there something else I can do in my review analysis than just say "it's out of scope"? I don't see how much more I can analyze it.

Great tip on the correct answers often simply combining parts of the stim, I have noticed that while drilling.

I went through a dozen LR sections and spent hours labeling each wrong answer choice with the flaw it was trying to get me to fall for.

About once a section I get really stumped, but I never once settled for "out of scope." You have to think really hard about it, but there's usually a more specific answer.

The two most common ways I ended up dealing with an answer choice that seemed to be out of scope:
(1) see if it isn't really trying to sucker people into making an equivocation on related but distinct concepts.
(2) it's really some form of exclusivity flaw (Answer choice says P. But you can have P AND Q, so it's no problem that the author concluded Q.)

Try it. If you run into anything in particular that gets you stuck PM me the question (the text too, I threw out all my LSAT stuff).

[Louis1127]

Thanks Papercut! Yes, equivocation is out of scope, but it is likely more helpful to think of it as equivocation in order to better see how wrong it is.

[papercut]

Thanks Papercut! Yes, equivocation is out of scope, but it is likely more helpful to think of it as equivocation in order to better see how wrong it is.

IMO, it's always better to be more specific. If you're just saying, "they don't mention that," then that's bad, but if you can say what they're trying to get you to equivocate on, then that's good.

[Pragmatic Gun]

Thanks Papercut! Yes, equivocation is out of scope, but it is likely more helpful to think of it as equivocation in order to better see how wrong it is.

IMO, it's always better to be more specific. If you're just saying, "they don't mention that," then that's bad, but if you can say what they're trying to get you to equivocate on, then that's good.

I've noticed that for many of the wrong answer choices in my drilling today, they all seem to misinterpret what the argument core is. It's not so much "This wasn't mentioned", but rather, "well, this is tangentially related to the topic, but it doesn't get to the heart of the matter." I only really mess up on questions where I don't really understand the argument or how the facts fit together.

[papercut]

I only really mess up on questions where I don't really understand the argument or how the facts fit together.

Do you have your weaknesses narrowed down a bit more?

I think you improve the most when you identify your weaknesses more specifically.

[Pragmatic Gun]

I only really mess up on questions where I don't really understand the argument or how the facts fit together.

Do you have your weaknesses narrowed down a bit more?

I think you improve the most when you identify your weaknesses more specifically.

Yes, according to LSAT QA, point of issue, strengthen, and inference questions are my weak points. I have to step up my analytical framework for points of issue and inference.

[papercut]

I only really mess up on questions where I don't really understand the argument or how the facts fit together.

Do you have your weaknesses narrowed down a bit more?

I think you improve the most when you identify your weaknesses more specifically.

Yes, according to LSAT QA, point of issue, strengthen, and inference questions are my weak points. I have to step up my analytical framework for points of issue and inference.

You gotta get more specific than that.

For example:

In strengthen questions there's always an argument in the stimulus. (1) So you have to be a pro at breaking down arguments into premises and conclusion(s). There is also always a flaw in these arguments, (2) so you have to be good at spotting flaws. Once you ID the flaw, you need to think about (3) what could fix this flaw.

So, you have to think about where in these steps you have the most trouble.

[Jeffort]

I only really mess up on questions where I don't really understand the argument or how the facts fit together.

Do you have your weaknesses narrowed down a bit more?

I think you improve the most when you identify your weaknesses more specifically.

Yes, according to LSAT QA, point of issue, strengthen, and inference questions are my weak points. I have to step up my analytical framework for points of issue and inference.

You gotta get more specific than that.

For example:

In strengthen questions there's always an argument in the stimulus. (1) So you have to be a pro at breaking down arguments into premises and conclusion(s). There is also always a flaw in these arguments, (2) so you have to be good at spotting flaws. Once you ID the flaw, you need to think about (3) what could fix this flaw.

So, you have to think about where in these steps you have the most trouble.

I think you improve the most when you identify your weaknesses more specifically.

This is absolutely true. The core of quality LSAT prep that is effective for major score improvement is putting your entire step by step thought process under a microscope to figure out every single mistake/weakness/misstep/etc. you make in your entire process with everything you did from starting the question up to making final answer decision. Basically, examine your entire actual chain of thoughts and decisions all the way through solving a question to find all the weak links in the chains of reasoning/steps you go through to attack questions in order to figure out what needs to be changed/fixed/improved/learned/practiced/etc.

The more specific understanding you strive for with the logic of every question, the detailed reasons why each wrong AC is wrong beyond just a generic label like out of scope, the detailed reasons why each CR is logically correct, quality, thoroughness and depth of your approach/analysis of the stimulus and ACs, quality of understanding of the full logic of each argument/AC, etc. the better you'll know what needs to be changed/improved and be able to figure out and do the right things to improve your skills and fix the weaknesses you find.

Deep thorough review to pinpoint as specifically as possible every single little mistake you make with each question is the key and most direct path to improving and getting to your goal faster with less time wasted instead of doing the time and materials wasting churn and burn routine of mainly just doing a ton of timed PTs/powering through a bunch of materials with superficial review, but meanwhile just making slow and/or inconsistent improvement while wasting fresh PTs and valuable prep time.

Solid advice papercut, students would be wise to take it seriously.

[Pragmatic Gun]

So with a Point of Issue question, I identify the argument in each speacker, then break them down into their premises and conclusions. Then I identify the assumption undergirding their arguments. I check to see if any part of their argument matches up with the other.

The problem I see is when the answer choice is worded differently from what I expect the answer to be.

With Strengthen questions, I do what I do for any Assumption family question (identify the conclusion, then the premises, then the assumption connecting the conclusion to the premise) but I think my problem is in not taking enough time to evaluate the weakness in the assumption. I kind of rush through the evaluation part.

[Jeffort]

So with a Point of Issue question, I identify the argument in each speacker, then break them down into their premises and conclusions. Then I identify the assumption undergirding their arguments. I check to see if any part of their argument matches up with the other.

The problem I see is when the answer choice is worded differently from what I expect the answer to be.

With Strengthen questions, I do what I do for any Assumption family question (identify the conclusion, then the premises, then the assumption connecting the conclusion to the premise) but I think my problem is in not taking enough time to evaluate the weakness in the assumption. I kind of rush through the evaluation part.

By 'worded differently' do you mean it expresses the same idea but is just using different wording than what you 'pre-phrased' or do you mean that it's a different idea/issue than you expected and were looking for going in?

With assumption family questions, the most important part of the analysis to be able to make work of the answer choices without much struggle is spending a little time making sure you understand exactly what the flawed assumption of the argument is/exactly why the argument is flawed rather than just rushing into the answers with only a fuzzy sense/idea of the argument core and what's logically flawed about it. You should take the extra step of analyzing exactly what's wrong/flawed about the argument instead of just stopping at understanding the superficial structure. The CR for all assumption family questions directly relates to the core flaw/flawed assumption of the argument in a way to satisfy the criteria of the question type. Wkn CR attacks the assumption, Str CRs support the assumption, etc.

Focus on understanding what's wrong with each argument before moving into the answer choices. Knowing exactly what's wrong with the argument makes it super easy to quickly knock out most of the wrong answers and then have plenty of time to carefully analyze the contenders to see which one relates to the core the right way for the question type and to clearly see why the trap is wrong. A little more time spent analyzing the stimulus better pays off significantly for timing since it can cut down the time needed to debate answer choices and make a final choice by up to 75%. Most wasted time during timed sections that causes people to have 'timing issues' is time wasted debating answer choices due to a murky understanding of the logic in the stimulus.

[Pragmatic Gun]

The former. It's worded differently and it throws me off a bit.

[Jeffort]

The former. It's worded differently and it throws me off a bit.

This is why I despise wide use of the term 'pre-phrase an answer' in prep materials/advice to describe the final step of analyzing the stimulus before jumping into the answer choices, the word 'phrase' incorrectly describes/defines the actual task in a misleading way.

You aren't supposed to spend any time trying to predict the wording of the sentence the CR will say/how the idea will be expressed. Pre-phrasing is only supposed to mean that get a clear idea in your head of what idea/relationship the CR will express (for example, if it's a necessary assumption question, you make sure you understand exactly what the main flawed assumption connecting the premises to the conclusion actually is), meaning you figure out the specific idea/relationship that is being assumed, not the wording the test writers will use to express the same idea.

The test writers intentionally put a lot of effort into writing correct answers for higher difficulty questions in confusing/less than straightforward ways that require solid reading skills and active thinking/analysis to process properly in order to understand the actual idea expressed/meaning of the sentence before you can analyze how it logically relates to the stimulus and Q stem. The test writers are masters at taking a simple idea that can be expressed in a really simple easy to understand sentence and instead express the same exact idea with a long sentence involving difficult language/phrasing/sentence construction. It's one of the most common tactics the test writers use to 'stealth'/conceal the CR for higher difficulty level questions to make it sound like crap and not stand out among the five on first read under timed conditions so students aren't attracted it.

With 'pre-phrasing' you should only be making sure you have the correct idea/type of thing in mind that the CR will be about/say/describe, not trying to predict the actual wording/phrasing it will contain. Kaplan is the most notorious prep source that actively pushes 'pre-phrasing' (using that exact phrase to describe the 'technique') in incorrect ways that gives students the false idea that they are supposed to be able to predict almost exactly what the CR will say for most questions before reading the answer choices. The example questions their materials/classes use to illustrate the magical technique to wow students with it are level 1 questions where the args are so simple and the flaw so obvious that what the CR says is something that comes to mind fairly easily for most people that read the argument somewhat critically. Tons of level 1 and many level 2 questions have CRs that are phrased in easy to predict ways from basic analysis since the stimulus is super basic and since the test writers write the CR in a simple straightforward way on purpose, to make it an easy level 1 or 2 question!

If you are really rigid with wanting/expecting CRs to be phrased in specific ways very similar to what you come up with in your head, level 3 and level 4 LR questions are going to be torture and extra difficult for you until get more flexible. LSAT writers take huge advantage of the flexibility and large vocabulary of the English language and exploit use of synonyms and paraphrasing all over the test to add layers of difficulty.

There needs to be a better catch phrase to describe the step of trying to 'predict' what idea the CR will say/talk about that you need to look for in the answers than 'pre-phrase'. Accurately predicting what the CR will say for most high difficulty level questions is impossible. Tons of them have totally unexpected CRs with stuff from left field nobody would likely have thought of before going into the answers no matter how long and carefully they analyze the stimulus first. You need to be clear about the logical flaw(s)/assumptions and overall logical structure to prepared for ACs of any form that come at the weaknesses in the arg in unexpected ways. If you clearly understand the argument and it's flaw(s)/weaknesses, go into the answer choices with flexibility, you should be able to spot the CR by noticing that it relates to a weakness in argument you already identified without wasting brainpower trying to predict exactly what the CR will say/exactly how it will hit/attack/relate to a weakness in the arg.

Literal pre-phrasing can also be counterproductive because it leads to tunnel vision making you prone to overlooking the CR because you're only looking for what you pre-phrased and don't consider anything else seriously/give much analysis to ACs that are totally different than what you're looking for. Bad pre-phrasing can cause you to box yourself in by biasing yourself against the CR and in a favor of a trap. The args for high difficulty questions are commonly written in ways to give the superficial appearance of different flaws than it actually contains to fool people that form a bad prephrase by lead them into picking the trap answer that matches their incorrect pre-phrase.

[Pragmatic Gun]

I don't disagree with what you said. Funny enough, I took Manhattan LSAT and the instructor warned us that the CR will sometimes be "less-than-ideal" or poorly phrased. I sometimes find myself doing this. I need to zero in on the idea then even more and worry less about the presentation.

[Jeffort]

I don't disagree with what you said. Funny enough, I took Manhattan LSAT and the instructor warned us that the CR will sometimes be "less-than-ideal" or poorly phrased. I sometimes find myself doing this. I need to zero in on the idea then even more and worry less about the presentation.

Being extra nitpicky about answer choices based on 'cosmetics'/vocab and phrasing and heavily relying on POE to handle high difficulty level questions is a common issue that's partly responsible for why lots of people get stuck/plateau somewhere in the 160s range.

To fully see and appreciate the pattern of how the test writers specifically use really crappy wording/phrasing on purpose to help make hard questions harder, just get some Cambridge packets for common LR question types and carefully work through and thoroughly review just a bunch of level 4 questions for a while. While you do it, pay attention to how your pre-phrases workout in terms of how often they end up leading you straight to an attractive trap answer. Also pay specific attention to your split second first impression immediate love/like/huh?/hate reaction to each answer choice you have immediately after reading it the first time before deeply analyzing it. Pre-cognitive/split second first impressions of ACs you immediately have first time you read it while under test day pressure can easily bias your analysis and in part cause you to get questions wrong because it leads to giving little if any attention to objectively analyzing the CR in depth cuz it sounds ugly and less likely to be correct on first glance.

Keep track of those reactions in detail as you work questions using some simple symbols so you're documenting your actual first impression reactions real-time as you go through each question the first time before you've finished solving it. After you've done that with a bunch of level 4s, go back and look at the reactions you had to the CRs and add up how many were love,like,huh?,hate-eliminate right away ( or whatever categories of reactions you decide to use) and see which types of reactions you had more often to the CRs of level 4 questions in terms of, what proportion were hate-eliminate immediately vs like vs love, etc. Then do the same thing with a bunch of level 3s, then a bunch of level 2s, then compare the different numbers and notice how the CRs for level 3 and especially level 4 are typically phrased to generally produce an initial negative response to get you biased against it right away.

You can measure overall LR skill/ability level, improvement and how much more improvement is needed for getting into the high score ranges best by testing your accuracy rate with level 4 questions and rate/proportion of ones you have a positive rather than negative immediate first impression of the CR. You should strive to get to the level of analyzing arguments well enough so that on level 4 questions, the CR sounds good and you really like it/recognize it as most likely being the CR on first read/or at least have a strong favorable first impression 'gut/intuitive feeling' about it right away rather than getting to liking and picking it through a lot of process of elimination steps and analysis nitpicking the other four apart for a while to finally end up picking the CR by POE default with the ones you actually do get correct.

[Clyde Frog]

I don't disagree with what you said. Funny enough, I took Manhattan LSAT and the instructor warned us that the CR will sometimes be "less-than-ideal" or poorly phrased. I sometimes find myself doing this. I need to zero in on the idea then even more and worry less about the presentation.

Being extra nitpicky about answer choices based on 'cosmetics'/vocab and phrasing and heavily relying on POE to handle high difficulty level questions is a common issue that's partly responsible for why lots of people get stuck/plateau somewhere in the 160s range.

To fully see and appreciate the pattern of how the test writers specifically use really crappy wording/phrasing on purpose to help make hard questions harder, just get some Cambridge packets for common LR question types and carefully work through and thoroughly review just a bunch of level 4 questions for a while. While you do it, pay attention to how your pre-phrases workout in terms of how often they end up leading you straight to an attractive trap answer. Also pay specific attention to your split second first impression immediate love/like/huh?/hate reaction to each answer choice you have immediately after reading it the first time before deeply analyzing it. Pre-cognitive/split second first impressions of ACs you immediately have first time you read it while under test day pressure can easily bias your analysis and in part cause you to get questions wrong because it leads to giving little if any attention to objectively analyzing the CR in depth cuz it sounds ugly and less likely to be correct on first glance.

Keep track of those reactions in detail as you work questions using some simple symbols so you're documenting your actual first impression reactions real-time as you go through each question the first time before you've finished solving it. After you've done that with a bunch of level 4s, go back and look at the reactions you had to the CRs and add up how many were love,like,huh?,hate-eliminate right away ( or whatever categories of reactions you decide to use) and see which types of reactions you had more often to the CRs of level 4 questions in terms of, what proportion were hate-eliminate immediately vs like vs love, etc. Then do the same thing with a bunch of level 3s, then a bunch of level 2s, then compare the different numbers and notice how the CRs for level 3 and especially level 4 are typically phrased to generally produce an initial negative response to get you biased against it right away.

You can measure overall LR skill/ability level, improvement and how much more improvement is needed for getting into the high score ranges best by testing your accuracy rate with level 4 questions and rate/proportion of ones you have a positive rather than negative immediate first impression of the CR. You should strive to get to the level of analyzing arguments well enough so that on level 4 questions, the CR sounds good and you really like it/recognize it as most likely being the CR on first read/or at least have a strong favorable first impression 'gut/intuitive feeling' about it right away rather than getting to liking and picking it through a lot of process of elimination steps and analysis nitpicking the other four apart for a while to finally end up picking the CR by POE default with the ones you actually do get correct.

Why have you not written a book on the LSAT yet?

[Pragmatic Gun]

I know. He's arguing that the best way to beat the test is to recognize the correct answer by gut-feeling. I've been trying to reach that level by breaking down my thought process, so this is exactly what I was looking for. Dude, if you start your own prep company I will invest big bucks.

[Jeffort]

I know. He's arguing that the best way to beat the test is to recognize the correct answer by gut-feeling. I've been trying to reach that level by breaking down my thought process, so this is exactly what I was looking for. Dude, if you start your own prep company I will invest big bucks.

Not exactly, actually the opposite. I'm advocating analyzing the underlying logic of the argument/stimulus extremely thoroughly/deeply so that before you dive into the answers you 'see'/understand the full big picture of the entire logical structure/set of logical relationships that exist in the stimulus very clearly, including the deeper, beneath the surface logical relationships the various pieces of the stimulus have to each other . Meaning that you did more than a superficial reading of what the stimulus explicitly says and analyzed deeply enough to figure out the underlying unstated logical relationships that exist between all the pieces of the stimulus before heading into the answers. This is important to being able to intuitively recognize the CR when you read it because you already figured out and have in your head the underlying logical relationship the CR is talking about/relates to.

In argument based assumption family questions (str, wkn, flaw, NA, SA, etc.) this means that you not only understand the full structure of the argument and entire method/path/pattern of reasoning the argument used to arrive at the conclusion, but most importantly, also figured out the central core flaw/main flawed assumption that is the invisible 'bridge' the author believes is true (assumes) to logically connect/bridge the stated evidence to the stated conclusion.

The part about keeping track of your first impression/intuitive reactions to ACs on first read is a way to test how deeply you really understood the underlying logic of the stimulus before diving into the answers. Lots of CRs for hard questions sound wrong on first read to people that didn't analyze the argument deeply enough to figure out the 'invisible' logical relationships that exist between the various pieces and/or exactly what the main flaw/flawed assumption of the argument core actually is and consequently don't recognize the CR as being relevant/important since they don't have the core flawed assumption/key logical relationships established in the stimulus in mind that it directly relates to.

If you haven't already figured out the main flawed assumption/core flaw/deeper underlying logical relationships and have them in mind, you're unlikely to recognize/be attracted to the CR on first glance since it directly relates to the 'invisible' assumption/unstated logical relationships that require deeper analysis to identify and have in mind, not to things explicitly stated in the text. Not having the key underlying logic/logical relationships/core flawed logic/assumptions in mind from having already figured them out through deep analysis of the stimulus makes the CRs for hard questions frequently sound irrelevant/out of scope on first read to people that only have a superficial understanding of the stimulus (what it explicitly says) when diving into the answers due to poor quality/having only done a superficial analysis of the stimulus.

The better job you do at fully analyzing and understanding the important underlying logic of the stimulus/argument that's important for whatever question type being asked, the more likely you'll recognize the CR on first read since you'll already have the specific underlying invisible/not explicitly stated logical relationship in mind the CR states or directly relates to. If you haven't already figured/identified out the deeper logical relationship/issue the CR is about, it usually won't sound good on first read/be attractive and you'll have to do the deeper analysis you should have done upfront to figure out it's correct if you didn't already eliminate it and box yourself in because it didn't attract you on first read and/or repulses you as probably wrong/irrelevant/out of scope or whatever.