h3jk5h wrote:Let me walk through all the logical reasoning questions I got wrong on Prep Test 46 Section 2.
4. I chose E) instead of A). During the actual test, I did not find any of the answer choices attractive because the question appeared to be a sufficient assumption question that was peculiar. It wasn't your typical matching components A, B, and C from the stimulus to the answer choices, so I didn't know how to approach it under the time pressure. After blind-review, I was able to see why A) is the correct answer choice.
11. I chose C) instead of A). I was wracking my brain on this question because none of the answer choices seemed attractive. Even during blind-review, I struggled to identify the correct answer. And when I checked the answer, and read the stimulus again, it suddenly occurred to me that it was an extremely simple question that required a somewhat careful reading of the text. The conclusion is about how an employee should act towards an employer, not the other way around. I completely failed to notice the word-switch from the premise and the conclusion. I felt like smacking my head with my hand.
16. I chose A) instead of B). I read the stimulus slower and more carefully during blind-review, and was able to identify B) as the correct answer choice with ease. I then identified a flaw in A, in that it says "...often less expensive..." This is too weak to strengthen the argument, and B) strengthens the link between the premises and the conclusion, and A) does a poor job of strengthening the conclusion.
17. I chose B) instead of E). Right after reading the stimulus during the actual test, I knew exactly what the flaw was. But I just glossed over the answer choices, and missed E). It was a complete mental lapse on my part (maybe because I knew I was down on time so I started rushing?).
20. I chose D) instead of B). When I was blind-reviewing (i.e. reading the stimulus and answer choices slowly so I can absorb all the information), I was not happy with myself missing B) as the obvious answer. I knew what the flaw was, but I didn't read B) carefully on the actual test to fully understand the structure of this argument. I simply glossed over it.
22. I had no chance on this question. I didn't know what laser-printer drums meant, didn't know nick had a meaning other than a person's name, and had no clue how a laser-printed document could be "suspicious". I narrowed it down to C) and D) because I knew the others couldn't be the right answer (I had some clue of what was going on in the stimulus). But because I simply didn't comprehend what the stimulus was talking about, I picked the wrong answer. Will check the Manhattan forums later.
24. I chose A) instead of D). I remember myself not being able to identify the big flaw during the test. I was doubting about whether "chemical residue proves alcoholic beer". When I was blind-reviewing, the light bulb suddenly went on... I remember on the actual test reading D) and going, "huh? This seems like a typical correct LSAT flaw question answer," but I just didn't comprehend what it meant. It was such an easy question in hind-sight. But why did I miss in the actual test?
A very consistent pattern on my misses on LR questions is these mental lapses described above. Whenever I look at my watch during the actual test, I have a tendency to read the stimulus and the answer choices faster on the subsequent questions than I normally do, resulting in getting questions wrong that I think I shouldn't have.
Another thing: during and after these blind-reviews of all these LR sections, I used to feel encouraged because I would get almost all questions right without the time limit. But now that I've kept on making the same stupid errors over and over, I now feel rather demotivated.
As for particular question types that I struggle with, the Inference family and Point at Issue questions come to mind. I spend the most time and miss more on these questions.
I seem to lack a careful, clear, and fluid comprehension of the English language. My reasoning skills seem to be better than my reading skills, but how can I put the former into good use without the latter?
I make careless errors prep test after prep test. It's actually the story of my academic life (although it didn't bite me as hard as these LSAT prep tests). I am someone that is not attuned to details, and perhaps law is not where I should go into because of this? I may be stretching too far.
For those of you who managed to finish reading this post, what do you think? What should I do?
Edit: Some of you may think and say to me, "well, buddy, just read slower and more carefully!" Yeah it sounds easy! But when I look at my watch during the test, this detail-ignoring habit simply creeps back in unconsciously.
Okay, here's my question-by-question analysis and then some broad advice afterwards:
Q4 Definitely a tough stim in a lot of ways. I'm going to guess you have trouble with about half of your assumption questions- sound about right? This isn't a scope shift argument- it's overlooked possibilities (which you don't usually see in sufficient assumption questions). Be on the lookout for arguments with relevant evidence but a conclusion that's too strong for that evidence. (They're extremely common in Necessary Assumption, Flaw, and Str/Wk Questions). Basically the author gives us two reasons why these new extremists might not be able a danger to democracy, but then they jump to an overly broad conclusion: there pose NO threat. Had the author simply said they "might not" pose any threat, there would be no problem. So the assumption is that there's no unconsidered way that these extremists could pose some threat. If this were a Necessary Assumption Question, the correct answer would just rule out at least one such competing alternative. But this is a Sufficient Assumption Question, and so the answer has to rule them all out. By stating that these extremists can't effect any change in their government, the answer effectively does just that.
For the record:
B and C are both irrelevant comparisons. Be on the lookout for the word "Than" in answer choices- it's a word from the devil. Any answer choice that represents a comparison had better darn well be comparing two things that the author compared- and in the same way. If the stim wasn't comparative (and this one wasn't), the answer *CANNOT* be a comparison.
D and E "sometimes put aside.." "not always supporting": Sufficient Assumption questions require answers that ensure the conclusion. If the conclusion says NO threat- the answer choice must be equally strong.
Q11 Your analysis tells me that your reading of the stims is a problem for you- we'll get to that later. For now though, I get the impression that you aren't looking for argument patterns in these. This is a flaw question, and that means that there are certain arguments you're likely to find. One of those is a type of scope shift called representation. When you see "study" or "survey" in one of these questions- you should be thinking about representation or overlooked possibilities-causation. That's not a guarantee, but it should be your first line of attack. You did pick up on the issue eventually, which is good. A scope shift-representation argument occurs when the conclusion is drawn about one group based on evidence about another. Also, in terms of answer choice C- irrelevant comparisons strike again. We never compared two kinds of humor- we compared two kinds of self-deprication. Always view comparative answer choices with suspicion- they're usually wrong.
Q16 Strengthening questions are generally going to be some version of overlooked possibilities. This one is a specific type known as Pro/Con. Notice the comparison in the conclusion? The author is saying that new technology is better than the traditional stuff. When the author advocates for a course of action, they are assuming that the pros outweigh the cons. (and if there's a second, compared course- traditional means in this case- they're assuming the pros for one are better than the pros for another) To strengthen the argument, the answer needs to either rule out a potential con of their chosen course of action or present us with another pro for that course of action that clearly outweighs the other option. In this case, the stimulus actually gave us the con that the answer ruled out- "if a person has the right hardware". Be on the lookout for conditional evidence in assumption family stims. If the entire argument rests on that "If" statement being true- the evidence needs to tell us it is true. In this case, the correct answer ruled out the possibility that they wouldn't have the right hardware- which is important if we're going to show that the new means are better than the old ones.
As far as answer A goes- the problem isn't the "often less expensive". This is a strengthening question- the correct answer doesn't need to prove anything, just make the conclusion more likely. So "often" isn't a problem. The conclusion here is about access- it's easier to access information now than before because this new technology can convert things that aren't already in a friendly format into something usable like audiotapes, braille, etc. Answer choice A is talking about things that ARE already in a format friendly to the visually-impaired, and that's irrelevant. Does that make sense?
Q17 So you figured out that the Analyst was pointing out a classic causal alternative- namely that the law passing and the drop in crime rates was a coincidence. Looks like your problem came with the answer choice itself. Beware answer vague answer choices. B was a VERY common trap answer. If you're thinking to yourself, "Bad causal argument" and aren't careful- you're going to fall for the first answer choice with the word "cause" or "effect" in it. These method of argument questions (like many others on the LSAT) thrive on vaguely worded answer choices. If you see an answer with vague terminology like "one event" "caused by another", etc. you MUST match each of those vague concepts up with specifics from the stimulus in order to figure out if it's correct or not. **DO NOT LEAVE VAGUE ANSWER CHOICES VAGUE**
If you match up B- you get this:
B) Arguing that the legislator unreasonably concluded that the drop in crime rates was caused by the law's passage without ruling out the possibility that they BOTH effects were the result of a common cause.
And when you look at it that way- it's clear that this is wrong. The analyst never argued that the passage of the law and the drop in crime rates were the results of one cause. The analyst was arguing that the passage of the law wasn't the cause of the drop in crime rates by pointing out they had dropped in other places. I'm going to guess this lack of careful reading is getting you in trouble in a lot of places on the test.
Q20 Okay- this is definitely making a lot of sense. You, my friend, are rushing because you have some strange notion that if you get to every question- even if that means screwing up 10 questions in the process- you're going to have a better score. But that's not, unfortunately, how it works.
Q22 On the LSAT, the subject matter is irrelevant. It's the structure of the argument that matters. You don't need to know what a laser printing drum is- I certainly didn't- to get this question right. Weakening questions are almost always some form of overlooked possibilities. In this case, the conclusion is that we can trace a page to its specific printer based on the nick in the drum. It could just as easily have said "You can trace the page to its specific printer based on the color of the ink" or "You can trace the child's parent back to the color of the child's hair". The entire point of the argument is it overlooks the possibility that there could be the same nicks on different drums. (Or the same color of ink could be used by different printers, or that you can find brown hair in people who aren't the child's parents, etc) I think you got WAY too caught up in the specifics. The subject matter is just window dressing. Its only point is to make the same hand full of arguments look different. Look at it this way:
I can't go to school today because I don't have any money
I can't go to dinner tonight because I don't have a car
I can't go to school today because I have money
Two out of three of those statements has the exact same assumption. Which two?
....
The first and second. Both of them assume that you need something in the evidence for the thing in the conclusion to happen. The third statement- which looks a lot like the first- is the odd one out. It assumes that having the thing in the evidence is mutually exclusive with the thing in the conclusion.
I can't <X> because I don't <Y>
You can fill in whatever the hell you want for X and Y- the assumption NEVER changes. And that's exactly how LSAC looks at it. It has templates, and it changes the nouns and verbs to make the arguments look unique. Even though they aren't.
Though on a management side- why were you even bothering with this question if you knew it wasn't going to go well? To me, that's just as big a problem here.
Q24 This argument actually shows up from time to time. It's a special kind of scope shift- belief vs fact. Beware a conclusion about what IS the case based on evidence about what we know or believe. When you realize you didn't know the flaw but still had another question to do- what did you do? Did you stare at 24 for a while and finally guess? Or did you move on fast to 25 and decide you'd come back to 24 if you had time?
OVERALL:
So you already know your problem, and you sort of know the solution. But let's talk about it in more detail.
First- I get the whole "My reasoning is better than my reading" issue. I have moderate surface dyslexia, and so a LOT of my prep for the LSAT was about learning how to read this stuff given my time constraints. (LSAC doesn't like to give extra time to anyone with moderate anything) First- you know you aren't reading these carefully, and you're just rushing through. And you're doing it because you're afraid of missing questions at the end. But, my friend, you already ARE missing questions at the end. You're not helping yourself. I'm also going to guess you end up re-reading the stim over and over again because you went so quickly the first time. Your rushing is destroying your time and your score. You CANNOT answer a question about a stimulus you don't understand, and you CANNOT evaluate an answer choice you don't understand. And you can fight against that reality all of you want, but arguing against gravity isn't going to make you fly.
So here's what you're going to do for your next timed section:
1) Move your mouth while you read. For most people this REALLY helps with their reading accuracy. It recruits an area of your brain known as Broca's Speech Center to help you process what's in front of you. It also has the added benefit of slowing you down a little- since Broca's analyzes language slower than visual and auditory routes. For some people this ends up distracting them, but try it out for a section and see how it goes.
2) PAUSE AND PARAPHRASE. This really isn't negotiable. After every sentence you read in a stim, pause and rephrase is back to yourself. For the sake of argument, just do it for a few sections and see what happens. If it's an argument based question (assumption family, for example), repeat the paraphrased argument back to yourself in the form of <Conclusion> because of <Evidence> after you've read the final sentence. This will save your life. You will feel like you're going so slowly, but you'll end up with a higher score.
3) Skip questions. Stop trying to get to all 25 questions. It's not helping. Set your sights on 22 for now. That means that there are three questions you get to proactively skip in your LR sections. Q24's weakening question is a great example. If within 10-15 seconds you feel utterly lost- circle the question, give it a guess answer (always use the same guess answer- so you can see it later), and get the hell out of dodge. Use the time you're saving to slow your butt down while reading the answers and the stims in LR. And yes, I get it, part of you wants to say "But to get a 170, I can't skip 3 questions in each LR section!". First- that's not true. Secondly, even if it were- baby steps. Let's get you to a 165 first. Fair?
4) I have additional concerns about your predictions and analysis of answer choices, but for now let's focus on your management. I also want you to do this exercise:
https://cloud.box.com/s/rmde3ymihmd05xgldb0j Pay close attention to steps 5 and 6. I'm curious to see what the numbers end up looking like. This is a horrible exercise to do- it's so very unfun. But you desperately need to do this. Finally, I want you to review these section management notes:
https://cloud.box.com/s/ku1i5qyrchwmnptxylar I wrote them up for other LSAT instructors, but it's got some stuff in it that would benefit you.
