Top Law Schools

If you have 2 minutes left in a section and you can reasonably have a chance to get both right within those two minutes, but have a much better chance at getting at least one right by spending the total amount of time on it, do you go with the one question? More broadly, is it better to sacrifice time for accuracy (obviously want to do both, but in practical terms here) or the other way around? Or is there a delicate balance?

cbateman212 wrote:If you have 2 minutes left in a section and you can reasonably have a chance to get both right within those two minutes, but have a much better chance at getting at least one right by spending the total amount of time on it, do you go with the one question? More broadly, is it better to sacrifice time for accuracy (obviously want to do both, but in practical terms here) or the other way around? Or is there a delicate balance?

This is a straight "expected value" problem, but unfortunately, there is no "right" answer unless you have a better idea of your chances of answering a question correctly after spending one minute on it versus two minutes.

The only scenario I can think of where your situation is likely is when those two questions are the last two of the ones you skipped on your first passes through a section. Consequently, they are likely the most difficult questions in the section. You're probably not going to figure anything out in two minutes rather than one, so you may as well try for both questions.

This is a super specific scenario, though, and doesn't generalize well.

As the above people have already said--lack of information makes it difficult to generalize.

You will just have to weigh your own perceived chances of a correct answer in a given time frame and make a judgement call.

At the very least the guiding principle that you should follow: So long as it is significantly more likely than the alternative, it is better to have one in the hand than two in the bush. The inverse would also be reasonable.