Why cant i get lvl 3/4 questions right?! Forum

[gnomgnomuch]

Almost invariably, whenever I do drilling I get around 95 % right on lvl 1 and 2 questions, that dips to like 75% on lvl 3 questions and then I get around 50% on lvl 4 questions?

Do I just not understand the material enough or something? its so frustrating!

Anybody have any tips? ideas? guides?

[Nebby]

How long have you been studying? I found the more Qs I answered the better I got. It's a game of inches. Pick up a Powerscore bible on whatever section you're having difficulty on. They had good tips and tricks when I was studying for the LSAT.

[gnomgnomuch]

ive been studying for about 3 and a half months.


Im using blueprint online, once finals end, ill be buying powerscore.

[Jeffort]

Level 3 & 4 LR questions are typically more complex arguments/stimulus that require deeper sharper analysis to correctly figure out the precise underlying logic/flawed assumption/flaw in the reasoning compared to the depth of analysis required to understand level 1 and 2 questions well enough to get correct. The arguments are constructed to make it harder to properly identify the true core and underlying flaw(s)/flawed assumption(s) correctly so that the flaw(s) aren't obvious or easy to spot without deep analysis and solid understanding of all the different recurring flawed methods of reasoning that appear on the LSAT. The stimulus/arguments for level 1 and 2 LR questions are written in much simpler more straightforward ways with more basic/obvious flaws so that it doesn't take nearly as much 'below the surface' critical thinking/analysis to understand what's going on in the stimulus well enough to recognize the CR.

Spend some time slowly analyzing the arguments of level 3 & 4 questions for as long as it takes for you to fully understand the exact structure and precise flaw/flawed assumption(s) before even looking at the answer choices. The test writers intentionally write the CRs for a lot of level 3 and pretty much all level 4 questions in awkward/strange/less than straightforward ways so that on first read people instantly don't like it since it sounds like crap and so that only people that have the actual flaw/flawed assumption of the argument in mind already will recognize the CR/be attracted to it and able to quickly understand how it works/why it is correct. In addition to intentionally 'stealthing' the CRs for level 3 and 4 questions to make them unattractive with strange phrasings and other tactics, the test writers also make the trap answer(s) sound especially attractive with the way they are phrased so that on first read before analysis they grab your attention and 'sound good', therefore attracting you to it and helping you form a bias against the weirdly phrased CR so that you don't give it much more thought or any deep analysis beyond the superficial 'it sounds wrong' reason not to pick it.

A good way to improve the depth and quality of your LR analysis skills is to practice doing level 3 & 4 questions where you force yourself to analyze the stimulus deeply enough to clearly understand the full structure of the argument/reasoning pattern and know exactly what's wrong with it before you look at the answer choices. Then, you don't make a final choice until you are logically sure and can articulate why the CR is logically correct and why the wrong ACs, especially the main trap one are logically wrong, and have figured all that stuff out as best as you can to be as certain you are correct as possible before checking the answer key to make sure you are right.

In short, drill in ways to get your LR analysis skills up to the level so that you can solve level 3 & 4 questions accurately with full confidence KNOWING why the right answer is right and the wrong ones are wrong BEFORE you check the answer key so you aren't heavily relying on POE to land on the CR without really understanding why it's correct at the time you select it for hard questions.

Level 3 and 4 questions are designed to test how deeply people analyze arguments to figure out the exact flawed assumption(s) before diving into the answer choices and to test how objectively/deeply people analyze the content of answer choices in terms of making elimination decisions based on what it actually means and how it logically relates vs. based on superficial reasons with how answers are phrased since people tend to shy away from ones phrased in uncomfortable ways that 'sound wrong' on first glance and never really deeply analyze them enough to see how it logically relates. Under time pressure people make lots of answer choice elimination decisions based on how answers 'sound' and 'look' with the cosmetics of the phrasing and word choice instead of for logical reasons based on having analyzed how the idea expressed by the answer choice logically relates to the substance of the stimulus and question type.

Paraphrasing/using synonyms is one common way to 'stealth' CRs by using words never used in the stimulus to talk about the same ideas in the correct answer choice so that people operating on a more superficial 'keywords' level of understanding of the stimulus don't recognize it or like it since it sounds totally different than what the stimulus explicitly said/is about. They do this to test if people are thinking about and understanding the actual substance/ideas expressed by answer choices and analyzing how it logically relates for making elimination decisions rather than relying more on making elimination decisions based a lot on cosmetic reasons/how the answer 'sounds/feels' from how it is phrased/the words used to express the idea.

There are lots of other tactics used to make them significantly more difficult than level 1 and 2 that you can get familiar with through a lot of deep review of level 3 & 4 questions and the various features/characteristics involved in each one that adds to its difficulty level.

Basically, you need to improve the depth and quality of your LR analysis processes and skills to improve accuracy rate with the harder questions. Heavy reliance on process of elimination methods as your main way of getting the harder questions correct has it's limits. Many high difficulty questions are purposely designed in ways so that test takers that don't fully understand the stimulus/underlying deeper logic/flaw/did a shitty job analyzing the stimulus first read will shy away from/not like/eliminate the CR and focus most of their attention on really attractive traps that 'sound better' superficially.

[Louis1127]

Jeffort, I have a question for you. I asked you this a while back, but I asked in very superficial, nonspecific way and it was thus unanswerable.

My question has to do when there are multiple flaws in the stimulus. I'll give you an example of what I am talking about. PT 39-S4-Q20, a flaw question.

The arg core is:

There were studies done that says there is a correlation between good health and high educational levels ----> Research supports the view that good health is largely a result of making informed lifestyle choices.

I thought the flaw/assumption was "Oh, they're assuming high educational outcomes lead to making informed lifestyle choices, and that's totally an assumption". I also thought that "Well what if something was wrong with the study- they asked the questions in a manner that begged certain responses, etc. ?). I went in to the ACs with this mindset and got the question wrong because it turns out the flaw tested in the ACs was the correlation does not necessarily indicate causation flaw. I am sure that I did something else wrong in picking an incorrect answer choice, but my point is that the "flaw" I thought I saw really undermined my ability to arrive the correct answer choice.

What should I think the flaw/assumption is when I go into the ACs in a question like this? Should I think: "They are equivocating between "high educational outcomes" and "making informed lifestyle choices" AND the study may have been flawed in some way AND there is a correlation does not mean causation flaw in going from the premises to the conclusion"?

[BillPackets]

What should I think the flaw/assumption is when I go into the ACs in a question like this? Should I think: "They are equivocating between "high educational outcomes" and "making informed lifestyle choices" AND the study may have been flawed in some way AND there is a correlation does not mean causation flaw in going from the premises to the conclusion"?

Not Jeffort.

But, if I were you, I would go into the ACS with two of the flaws you mentioned in mind: 1) high educational levels =\= making informed lifestyle decisions, and 2) the correlation/causation issue.

I'm not sure if the other flaw you mentioned is actually a flaw. We don't know what types of questions they asked on the survey. They could have been poorly worded (bc most surveys actually are) but I'm not sure if we can make that assumption.

The flaw with the survey is that it overvalues a trait--it makes a conclusion based on the results of one survey. In the words of the trainer, a piece =\= the puzzle.

[Calbears123]

I found out I was better at doing level 3/4 questions when I did'nt know I was actually doing level 3/4 questions. I'd get 90% of them right on practice tests, but I would miss at least half in the packets. Half the battle is in your mind

[dowu]

Prephrase.Prephrase.Prephrase.

[Clyde Frog]

I found out I was better at doing level 3/4 questions when I did'nt know I was actually doing level 3/4 questions. I'd get 90% of them right on practice tests, but I would miss at least half in the packets. Half the battle is in your mind

Knowing is half the battle.

[ket310]

I am having the same issue with OP.

Thank you Jeffort, I will work on it.

[Louis1127]

What should I think the flaw/assumption is when I go into the ACs in a question like this? Should I think: "They are equivocating between "high educational outcomes" and "making informed lifestyle choices" AND the study may have been flawed in some way AND there is a correlation does not mean causation flaw in going from the premises to the conclusion"?

Not Jeffort.

But, if I were you, I would go into the ACS with two of the flaws you mentioned in mind: 1) high educational levels =\= making informed lifestyle decisions, and 2) the correlation/causation issue.

I'm not sure if the other flaw you mentioned is actually a flaw. We don't know what types of questions they asked on the survey. They could have been poorly worded (bc most surveys actually are) but I'm not sure if we can make that assumption.

The flaw with the survey is that it overvalues a trait--it makes a conclusion based on the results of one survey. In the words of the trainer, a piece =\= the puzzle.

Going in with both flaws in mind- good advice Bill! Thanks!

[BillPackets]

I found out I was better at doing level 3/4 questions when I did'nt know I was actually doing level 3/4 questions. I'd get 90% of them right on practice tests, but I would miss at least half in the packets. Half the battle is in your mind

I'm glad someone else has experienced this phenomena. If I do level 3/4 Qs in a book or something, nbd. In the packets I'm like "ok THESE are the hard ones." Then I fuck up.

[BillPackets]

What should I think the flaw/assumption is when I go into the ACs in a question like this? Should I think: "They are equivocating between "high educational outcomes" and "making informed lifestyle choices" AND the study may have been flawed in some way AND there is a correlation does not mean causation flaw in going from the premises to the conclusion"?

Not Jeffort.

But, if I were you, I would go into the ACS with two of the flaws you mentioned in mind: 1) high educational levels =\= making informed lifestyle decisions, and 2) the correlation/causation issue.

I'm not sure if the other flaw you mentioned is actually a flaw. We don't know what types of questions they asked on the survey. They could have been poorly worded (bc most surveys actually are) but I'm not sure if we can make that assumption.

The flaw with the survey is that it overvalues a trait--it makes a conclusion based on the results of one survey. In the words of the trainer, a piece =\= the puzzle.

Going in with both flaws in mind- good advice Bill! Thanks!

Np. We're all gonna make it bruh.

[Jeffort]

On higher difficulty LR questions with multiple flaws, one of them is usually super obvious so it jumps right out on first read to everyone, such as an obvious term shift like with this question, to make it the red herring/misdirection flaw. There is also a deeper core of the argument structure flaw/unwarranted assumption that the CR is about the test writers hope many students won't spot because stopped analyzing after finding the obvious assumption. They do this a lot to tempt people to stop analyzing the argument any deeper before jumping into the answers looking for something they wont find focusing on the obvious assumption and ending up wasting a bunch of time being frustrated.

The CR for multiple flaw ID/Describe the flaw LR Q types is usually about the most serious main core flawed assumption that is the main necessary assumption needed to logically link the evidence together with the conclusion, such as shifting from correlation to causation in this argument. Meaning the CR is usually about the main flaw of the structure of the argument, not a peripheral one made obvious to spot. The educated --> informed lifestyle decisions assumption is peripheral and not really a very serious/significant flaw in the argument since it is an assumption that by common sense standards is likely to be true about a significant proportion of highly educated people, so it's fairly reasonable although logically unsound when treated as absolute rather than just as enhanced probability of making informed lifestyle decisions. Being too extreme/absolute is what makes the assumption technically/logically unwarranted/flawed. It's easy to undermine by pointing out that plenty of college grads smoke and drink heavily and do other unhealthy things even though they know it's not healthy. It's not a fatal flaw to the argument though, whereas shifting from correlation to causation is the fatal core flaw that makes the argument total junk.

With all argument based questions you should always evaluate for all possible vulnerabilities/assumptions/flaws to be properly prepared for whatever they decide to throw at you in the ACs. Since you don't know the difficulty level of questions on test day, you should analyze them all equally as thoroughly/deeply for high accuracy level. It's when people underestimate questions and slack off on the quality/depth/thoroughness of analysis that points are lost for preventable dumb mistakes.

Just make sure to always focus on figuring out the main core flawed assumption even when other obvious one jump out, be flexible/objective when going into the answer choices with all flaws/assumptions in mind and you'll be fine. It doesn't take much more time to fully analyze a more complex stimulus with multiple flaws than a single assumption/flaw argument so might as well play it safe and be thorough with all questions. That's the basis for my recommendation to use level 4 questions for drilling in slow motion to practice analyzing arguments deeply and thoroughly for all possible vulnerabilities, so you get good at doing it and it becomes habit. Once you get used to that level of analysis, level 1 and 2 questions become totally transparent jokes you can cut through way faster than before without making mistakes and level 3 questions become much more transparent too with less difficulty and higher accuracy. Simple over conditioning that makes sense since you don't know the difficulty level of questions when you face them on test day and underestimating questions frequently leads to carelessly thrown away points.