After you read the stimulus in LR Forum

[Louis1127]

On LR questions that feature arguments (flaw, weaken, strengthen, nec assump, suff assump, crux, others that I may be not remembering right now), once you read the stimulus, do you paraphrase the argument in your head before you hit the answer choices, or do you just read it and hit the answer choices?

For example (I am making up an LR argument here, although this is loosely based on a real LSAT question), after you read the stimulus, but before you hit the answer choices, do you say to yourself, "Okay, this argument is saying that because principles are better remembered by slow and laborious processes, and calculators make the process of learning principles easier, we should restrict the use of calculators".

Essentially putting the argument in your own terms AFTER reading the argument.

Do you ever do this? Do you always do this? Or is this too much/unnecessary?

Feel free to post your opinions/personal styles.

[kevgogators]

I do, for the most part. Alot of the times it provides the answer before I even look at the answer choices.

I'm taking a TestMasters course and this is what they recommend. I've noticed that my accuracy has increased substantially since I began implementing this method.

[js1663]

I do this both for LR and for RC. I think this is essential to keep me from both zoning and out and just reading words without understanding, as well as ensuring that I adequately understand what they've thrown at me.

[KDLMaj]

On LR questions that feature arguments (flaw, weaken, strengthen, nec assump, suff assump, crux, others that I may be not remembering right now), once you read the stimulus, do you paraphrase the argument in your head before you hit the answer choices, or do you just read it and hit the answer choices?

For example (I am making up an LR argument here, although this is loosely based on a real LSAT question), after you read the stimulus, but before you hit the answer choices, do you say to yourself, "Okay, this argument is saying that because principles are better remembered by slow and laborious processes, and calculators make the process of learning principles easier, we should restrict the use of calculators".

Essentially putting the argument in your own terms AFTER reading the argument.

Do you ever do this? Do you always do this? Or is this too much/unnecessary?

Feel free to post your opinions/personal styles.

Yes. When I taught, this was the thing I hit on the most. You cannot answer a question about a stim you don't understand.

I tell everyone to pause and paraphrase as they read and then to repeat the argument back as <Conclusion> because of <Evidence> (in paraphrased form).

As the previous poster noted, a lot of the time it gives you the answer right there. You're also FAR less likely to fall into wrong answer traps- since a lot of them are predicated on a lack of understanding of the stim. You're also less likely to have to re-read the thing afterwards. Slow down on the stim, and it will speed you up on the rest!

[P.J.Fry]

I do, though I usually do it subconsciously. Except on particularly tricky stims, I will "know" that I know what the main argument is and not necessarily take the extra 2-5 seconds to "say" it in my head. Does that even make sense?

I'd estimate that saves me roughly one minute per section which I can use to go re-look at particularly tough questions. The trade-off is that I do still occasionally miss an easier one by carelessness that could have been avoided by taking the time to properly think it through.

[schmelling]

.

[KDLMaj]

I typically will bracket the conclusion and try determine whether or not the conclusion is valid (it usually isn't) and why before moving on to the question.

If it's an assumption family stimulus, the conclusion is NEVER valid. If you think it is- you've already made the same assumption(s) as the author.

[Adrian Monk]

for an NA question, can u single out the conclusion, and then look at the answer choices, and while negating it, can we see if it destroys the conclusion? if it goes against the conclusion, then it is got to be the right anser right? for example, if the conclusion says the this drink is healthy for all athletes, and if if the negation of one anwser choice says this drink is totally not healthy for all athelts, it certainly goes against the conclusion, so can we say thats the right answer. Especially, for the harder NA questions, when you are short of time, can this be like a shortcut?

[schmelling]

.

[Adrian Monk]

This is an extremely effective method, but it only works for NECESSARY assumption questions so you must be absolutely sure you have recognized the question type before employing it.

really? becuse i wasnt so sure, i thought it mgiht work for some, and not work for others. Because the actual way we are taught for NA q's is to look at the premise, then conclusion, and then negate the answer choices to see if it destroys the argument core right What i am suggesting is that we just single out the conclusion, and then see if a negation leads to an answer choice that goes against the conc, thus being the right answer. So, this might work?

[KDLMaj]

This is an extremely effective method, but it only works for NECESSARY assumption questions so you must be absolutely sure you have recognized the question type before employing it.

really? becuse i wasnt so sure, i thought it mgiht work for some, and not work for others. Because the actual way we are taught for NA q's is to look at the premise, then conclusion, and then negate the answer choices to see if it destroys the argument core right What i am suggesting is that we just single out the conclusion, and then see if a negation leads to an answer choice that goes against the conc, thus being the right answer. So, this might work?

It works for Nec. Suff Answers and Strengthen Questions too (VERY effective for high difficulty versions of each)

Someone mentioned it works for Flaw Qs- I can see that working with the more specific answer choices that reference pieces of the stim. Not so much for some of the more broadly worded answer choices. (Don't get me wrong, it *would* technically work, but you would already need to understand the stim well enough to have spotted the right answer to begin with for that answer to work- which sort of defeats the purpose)

Remember that Nec Suff answers are often in the negative (as are Str Qs). Specifically this is in Overlooked Possibilities args (which are common in each)

Hope that helps!

[Louis1127]

Thanks for the responses, everyone. They are quite helpful.

Sometimes the flaw/assumption just pops out of the page at me, and then it is obviously helpful to think about the flaw/assumption before hitting the answer choices. But some arguments seem to be at least somewhat strong OR there are multiple flaws/assumptions in the argument. And in those cases, I am going to start articulating the argument in my head before I go to the answer choices.

[KDLMaj]

Thanks for the responses, everyone. They are quite helpful.

Sometimes the flaw/assumption just pops out of the page at me, and then it is obviously helpful to think about the flaw/assumption before hitting the answer choices. But some arguments seem to be at least somewhat strong OR there are multiple flaws/assumptions in the argument. And in those cases, I am going to start articulating the argument in my head before I go to the answer choices.

If it helps, here're two charts that you may find useful. Keep in mind that the vast majority of arguments on the LSAT fall into one of two broad camps: scope shifts and overlooked possibilities. Learning to identify them and what to look for in the answer choices is key.

Here's a chart on overlooked possibilities and predicting the answer based on the question type: https://cloud.box.com/s/7g4l3ahwk49t8tpbtbwl

And here's a flow chart for finding the assumption in standard assumption questions: https://cloud.box.com/s/lbecemlccmqj6lc2as1d

See if that helps out. It's great to phrase the argument to yourself, but you also want to take a second to identify the argument type and predict what the correct answer needs to do for that question type.

[Louis1127]

Thanks for the responses, everyone. They are quite helpful.

Sometimes the flaw/assumption just pops out of the page at me, and then it is obviously helpful to think about the flaw/assumption before hitting the answer choices. But some arguments seem to be at least somewhat strong OR there are multiple flaws/assumptions in the argument. And in those cases, I am going to start articulating the argument in my head before I go to the answer choices.

If it helps, here're two charts that you may find useful. Keep in mind that the vast majority of arguments on the LSAT fall into one of two broad camps: scope shifts and overlooked possibilities. Learning to identify them and what to look for in the answer choices is key.

Here's a chart on overlooked possibilities and predicting the answer based on the question type: https://cloud.box.com/s/7g4l3ahwk49t8tpbtbwl

And here's a flow chart for finding the assumption in standard assumption questions: https://cloud.box.com/s/lbecemlccmqj6lc2as1d

See if that helps out. It's great to phrase the argument to yourself, but you also want to take a second to identify the argument type and predict what the correct answer needs to do for that question type.

I like the way that you think of flaws as "roadblocks" blocking the conclusion from following from the premises. Never thought of it that way.

[KDLMaj]

Thanks for the responses, everyone. They are quite helpful.

Sometimes the flaw/assumption just pops out of the page at me, and then it is obviously helpful to think about the flaw/assumption before hitting the answer choices. But some arguments seem to be at least somewhat strong OR there are multiple flaws/assumptions in the argument. And in those cases, I am going to start articulating the argument in my head before I go to the answer choices.

If it helps, here're two charts that you may find useful. Keep in mind that the vast majority of arguments on the LSAT fall into one of two broad camps: scope shifts and overlooked possibilities. Learning to identify them and what to look for in the answer choices is key.

Here's a chart on overlooked possibilities and predicting the answer based on the question type: https://cloud.box.com/s/7g4l3ahwk49t8tpbtbwl

And here's a flow chart for finding the assumption in standard assumption questions: https://cloud.box.com/s/lbecemlccmqj6lc2as1d

See if that helps out. It's great to phrase the argument to yourself, but you also want to take a second to identify the argument type and predict what the correct answer needs to do for that question type.

I like the way that you think of flaws as "roadblocks" blocking the conclusion from following from the premises. Never thought of it that way.

Glad you like it! Keep in mind though, this only applies to Overlooked Possibilities arguments. (which you'll find in assumption, flaw, and str/wk questions).

OP args are the most common on the LSAT, and they throw a lot of people off in assumption and str/wk Qs because the overlooked possibilities are unmentioned concepts. I put that chart together so my students would stop looking at an answer choice in a Nec Assumption Q that said "Alien Space Invaders did not land on my hand" and saying "We never talked about Alien Space Invaders- this is wrong!".

So make sure part of what you're doing is learning how to spot these arguments and differentiate them from the scope shift family. For the record, OP args include:

Generic OPs (most of them- any instance where the evidence is relevant to the conclusion, but the problem is the conclusion went too far)
Causation
Pro/Con Args
Nec vs Suff
(and a few more that are less common variants)

[schmelling]

.

[KDLMaj]

Negating just has to unravel the argument, it can target the premise or the conclusions, but typically attacks something not explicitly stated (an assumption)

The negation does not necessarily work on sufficient assumption questions so even though it can sometimes lead to the correct answer its unreliable. Think about it this way- if the assumption is NECESSARY then the argument absolutely cannot stand without it, so negating it would lead you to the right answer. On a sufficient assumption, the assumption is not always necessary, but rather is sufficient in justifying an argument- it will make the argument airtight, but it is not the ONLY circumstance that allows the argument to be airtight, so negating doesn't work. Similarly in necessary questions, the assumption may not make the argument airtight, but it is certainly something the argument MUST HAVE in order to stand so by negating it and watching the argument crumble, you have proven its necessity.

Be careful here- NEVER use the negation of an answer for sufficient assumption questions. The LSAT likes to throw in a necessary assumption for a tempting wrong answer. If you negate- you'll get some false positives. This is particularly true if they decide to throw in an overlooked possibilities argument for the stim.

Here's how I like to think of the whole Nec/Suff thing (if it helps):

It all comes down to the argument type.

Overlooked Possibilities:
Nec Assumption Answer: Rules out at least one unconsidered roadblock to the conclusion [Nora did not work on Wednesday]
Suff Assumption Answer: Effectively rules out all of those roadblocks [Nobody else worked on Wednesday]

Scope Shift:
Nec Assumption Answer: Connects two concepts specific to the stim in the way the author needs [Film critics who dislike a film are less likely to recommend it]
Suff Assumption Answer: Makes the same connection but in a much broader way that includes, but is not limited, to the stim's subject. [People in general who dislike a film are less likely to recommend it]

That's really how the LSAT deals with the differences in answer choices- broadly speaking.