Best Methods for Mastering Conditional Reasoning? Forum

[harvardorbust2016]

Hi all -

I am working towards my Oct/Dec test dates, and my analysis of PT wrong answers is telling me to work on conditional reasoning. My accuracy on LGs and LR questions featuring conditional reasoning is not where I would like it to be.

I have the following study materials at my disposal:
- Powerscore LR Bible
- Powerscore LG Bible
- Powerscore LG Workbook
- Cambridge LR Bundle Vol. 1, 2
- Cambridge LR: Conditional Reasoning
- Cambridge LR: Parallel Flaw
- Cambridge LG: In/Out
- Cambridge LG: Misc.
- Cambridge LG: Complex Ordering
- Cambridge LG: Determined Assignment
- Cambridge LG: Limited Scenario
- Cambridge LG: Difficult Games
- The LSAT Trainer
- 10 Actuals Vol. 4, 5

I don't think all of these will be particularly useful for a focus on CR (and I've gone through a sizable chunk of it already) - however, I wanted to provide a comprehensive list of what's available.

I just purchased the LR Bible for the CR section, as I hear it's extremely good, so I haven't studied it as thoroughly as I would like. My current plan is to study the CR section and drill, drill, drill the Cambridge LR Conditional Reasoning questions before moving on to the In/Out LG questions. I'm not sure, though, if it'd be worthwhile to reverse the LR and LG questions. I think LG is generally easier to improve, but I'm much stronger on the other types of LR questions...

I'd love any input from people who have found success mastering conditional reasoning. What techniques worked for you? What didn't? Is there anything else I should invest in, material wise?

Thank you!

[Op_Diom]

A lot of must be true, inference, flaw and sufficient assumption questions have conditional reasoning. Hence, it would probably be wise to spend a good deal of time practicing these types of questions. If you are having difficulty with conditional reasoning, then chances are you are also having difficulty recognizing the most common types of conditional flaws since you are not only failing to choose the right answer, but you are also choosing a wrong answer too. I would review the flaw sections of LR guides along with their conditional sections.

Furthermore, when I started to visualize the conditions in a strictly formal manner and began to anticipate the common flaws that could be perceived as following from the rationale used in the stimulus, then I started to make strides. Therefore, it could help to either draw out or visualize a diagram of sorts as in 'p --> q, r --> -q, r, hence -p.' Or if there are a good deal of modifiers like some many most all or none, then visualizing a venn diagram of sorts will help see the necessary relations between conditions, which is often asked for in the answer choices. (Like if most of the people at a party are either lawyers or doctors, and some people at the party are published authors then it's not necessarily the case that some doctors or lawyers are authors nor most the people there are doctors [but it is possible] but rather if no author is a doctor or lawyer, then there are some people which are not either doctors nor lawyers).

[harvardorbust2016]

Thank you so much for your response! I really love the Venn Diagram idea and I will absolutely go back and review the sections on flaws to really nail that.

Do you find that, during the test, you have time to draw out diagrams for LR questions? I imagine that, with practice, it won't be necessary for many CR questions, but I'd still be concerned about timing.

[Op_Diom]

Your welcome. Yeah, usually there are only a couple complex conditional questions at most that require a quick diagram, but sometimes after enough practice you can nearly do it in your head. However, all it really takes is a couple circles or squares with the first letter of each condition implemented as a label. For instance,

edit: sorry it won't allow me to draw a box using the keyboard but you get the picture.

Hence, if no authors are either doctors or lawyers, then there are some people at the party who are neither lawyers
| | nor doctors. Or not all the people at the party are doctors or lawyers, etc.