Top Law Schools

I think that I am going to rework the manhattan book, but I am convinced I am not doing it correctly. How can I better improve?

I read powerscore then Manhattan . Then I read the trainer and for me it changed how I did lr. I got pretty good at it. The approach in the trainer is somewhat unique and it really beats it into you. It highlights how most lr question types are just testing logical flaws, and regardless of the prompt identifying that flaw or flaws is the key to unlocking the question.

I'm not a LSAT veteran or anything but for the longest time I was having the most trouble with MSS/Inference questions. I found reviewing a question with 7Sage's video, reading the Trainer chapter, and reviewing the problems I got wrong in depth all contributed to my improvement and accuracy of this question type.

My attitude towards this question type went from hating it to frustration to tolerance.

I spent A LOT of time on this question type, more than I have on any other question type probably 2-3 weeks with some breaks in between. When I was in the frustration phase, I just moved to LG since that is a stronger area for me (to build up my confidence again).

AlexandraHope wrote:I think that I am going to rework the manhattan book, but I am convinced I am not doing it correctly. How can I better improve?

What are you having trouble with? A particular question type or just in general? If the latter, make sure you really know your conditional logic and argument analysis (finding premises / conclusion). If you can't immediately determine the argument structure, working with the argument is going to be very difficult.

I used manhattan/trainer and cambridge bundle packet per question type after the reading sections in each book. Really helped me out in LR.

RZ5646 wrote:

AlexandraHope wrote:I think that I am going to rework the manhattan book, but I am convinced I am not doing it correctly. How can I better improve?

What are you having trouble with? A particular question type or just in general? If the latter, make sure you really know your conditional logic and argument analysis (finding premises / conclusion). If you can't immediately determine the argument structure, working with the argument is going to be very difficult.

Just want to emphasize the idea that you have to know what types of LR questions you're struggling with before you can really attack your weaknesses. For instance, you're going to really struggle with inference questions if you have not yet come to understand that an inference answer cannot introduce new information. I think that only when you have a systematic approach to each type of question you'll encounter in LR will you really be able to kick butt in the section. Trying to take each question on its own terms as if they are unique sounds like a complete nightmare.