Top Law Schools

I am drilling with level 4 questions now and I have seen improvement in the categories I've done so far, such as Must Be True, Flaw, Strengthen, weaken, etc. I am working now on necc. assumption it seems as if I get one right, one wrong, two right, one wrong. I can't find consistency, where as with the others, the more I did, my accuracy increased.

Lying Lawyer wrote:I am drilling with level 4 questions now and I have seen improvement in the categories I've done so far, such as Must Be True, Flaw, Strengthen, weaken, etc. I am working now on necc. assumption it seems as if I get one right, one wrong, two right, one wrong. I can't find consistency, where as with the others, the more I did, my accuracy increased.

No because NA is a one-step process for me where I look for the link that connects the premise to validate the conclusion. Which of the answer choices must be true in order for the conclusion to be plausible?

Depends on the question difficulty but on PT 73 some of the hardest questions that tripped people up were Weaken and Flaw questions.

Lying Lawyer wrote:I am drilling with level 4 questions now and I have seen improvement in the categories I've done so far, such as Must Be True, Flaw, Strengthen, weaken, etc. I am working now on necc. assumption it seems as if I get one right, one wrong, two right, one wrong. I can't find consistency, where as with the others, the more I did, my accuracy increased.

I think necessary assumptions are the easiest to improve on once you get the hang of it, because for all questions, there's only one reasoning method behind it. Perhaps your problem lies with negating the answer choices and applying them to the arguments?

If you're having trouble with them, go back to the bible, or whatever book you used for LRs and drill their methods. It will become mechanical after a while and you'll thrive on N.A. questions before you know it.

But I think everyone has their weak point. For me, the flaws were the hardest, and I struggled with it for a very long time until I drilled the various reasonings behind each questions.

musedreverie wrote:

Lying Lawyer wrote:I am drilling with level 4 questions now and I have seen improvement in the categories I've done so far, such as Must Be True, Flaw, Strengthen, weaken, etc. I am working now on necc. assumption it seems as if I get one right, one wrong, two right, one wrong. I can't find consistency, where as with the others, the more I did, my accuracy increased.

I think necessary assumptions are the easiest to improve on once you get the hang of it, because for all questions, there's only one reasoning method behind it. Perhaps your problem lies with negating the answer choices and applying them to the arguments?

If you're having trouble with them, go back to the bible, or whatever book you used for LRs and drill their methods. It will become mechanical after a while and you'll thrive on N.A. questions before you know it.

But I think everyone has their weak point. For me, the flaws were the hardest, and I struggled with it for a very long time until I drilled the various reasonings behind each questions.

+1

musedreverie! can you elaborate on your methods for improving flaws?

Definitely a contender for hardest question type.

RobertGolddust wrote:Definitely a contender for hardest question type.

No, main conclusion