Got One of Six; Require LR Assistance Forum

[Deardevil]

Dear everyone,

Hi. About a week ago, I embarked on my arduous journey to law school, first reviewing the logical reasoning portion via PowerScore.
I probably should have started on logic games, but oh well; hopefully, by the time I get through the blue book, the green will be cake.
As for the reading comprehension... I was never good at that part. Math and writing on the SAT back in high school are bearable, but RC is something else, something that I'll definitely need to prioritize more preparation time for, but that dreaded destination is for another time.
Currently, my weakness lies in weak questions. Everything seems quite understandable up to this point, so I would like some insight on how to properly approach problems that task you to weaken arguments made in stimuli; any help is appreciated and examples are highly appreciated!

PS. A shout-out to McGruff for providing invaluable advice on his path to 180.
This forum got a new member because of it, for better or for worse.
Guess I'll just go refine some skills and look back at some notes before moving ahead.

Sincerely,
Future avocado at law

[Tycho]

Dear everyone,

Hi. About a week ago, I embarked on my arduous journey to law school, first reviewing the logical reasoning portion via PowerScore.
I probably should have started on logic games, but oh well; hopefully, by the time I get through the blue book, the green will be cake.
As for the reading comprehension... I was never good at that part. Math and writing on the SAT back in high school are bearable, but RC is something else, something that I'll definitely need to prioritize more preparation time for, but that dreaded destination is for another time.
Currently, my weakness lies in weak questions. Everything seems quite understandable up to this point, so I would like some insight on how to properly approach problems that task you to weaken arguments made in stimuli; any help is appreciated and examples are highly appreciated!

PS. A shout-out to McGruff for providing invaluable advice on his path to 180.
This forum got a new member because of it, for better or for worse.
Guess I'll just go refine some skills and look back at some notes before moving ahead.

Sincerely,
Future avocado at law

This is a strategy that's detailed in the LRB, but I always found it useful to distinguish between the premises/conclusion(s) of the stim (underlining/circling if you like) before looking at the answer choices. Going into the question with a clear understanding of what the stim is actually saying seems obvious but is tremendously helpful.

[Barack O'Drama]

Dear everyone,

Hi. About a week ago, I embarked on my arduous journey to law school, first reviewing the logical reasoning portion via PowerScore.
I probably should have started on logic games, but oh well; hopefully, by the time I get through the blue book, the green will be cake.
As for the reading comprehension... I was never good at that part. Math and writing on the SAT back in high school are bearable, but RC is something else, something that I'll definitely need to prioritize more preparation time for, but that dreaded destination is for another time.
Currently, my weakness lies in weak questions. Everything seems quite understandable up to this point, so I would like some insight on how to properly approach problems that task you to weaken arguments made in stimuli; any help is appreciated and examples are highly appreciated!

PS. A shout-out to McGruff for providing invaluable advice on his path to 180.
This forum got a new member because of it, for better or for worse.
Guess I'll just go refine some skills and look back at some notes before moving ahead.

Sincerely,
Future avocado at law

Hello Daredevil, I have also began studying for the LSAT by trying to get good at LR.

So weaken questions seem to be your kryptonite. Well the good news is at least you were able to identify what was giving you the most trouble, as to address it. So assuming you know the basics, i.e., reading to structure. finding conclusions, flaws, support/premises.

So essentially for weaken questions you get an argument where the truth of the premises do not yet guarantee the truth of the conclusion. Your goal is to find an answer choice that makes it less likely that these premises do in fact lead to this conclusion, often by suggesting that the same premises could lead to an alternate conclusion.

When I do them I go through and eliminate any questions that actually strengthen the argument. Often the LSAC will throw at least 1-2 answer choice that do the opposite you're looking for and strengthens the argument. Then eliminate any that just have no bearing/don't weaken at all. You'll most likely be left with 1-2 choices and then go from there and find why one is better than the other. Sometimes the key to the answer can be in quantifiers such as many, most, few, numerous, etc.

[Barack O'Drama]

Dear everyone,

Hi. About a week ago, I embarked on my arduous journey to law school, first reviewing the logical reasoning portion via PowerScore.
I probably should have started on logic games, but oh well; hopefully, by the time I get through the blue book, the green will be cake.
As for the reading comprehension... I was never good at that part. Math and writing on the SAT back in high school are bearable, but RC is something else, something that I'll definitely need to prioritize more preparation time for, but that dreaded destination is for another time.
Currently, my weakness lies in weak questions. Everything seems quite understandable up to this point, so I would like some insight on how to properly approach problems that task you to weaken arguments made in stimuli; any help is appreciated and examples are highly appreciated!

PS. A shout-out to McGruff for providing invaluable advice on his path to 180.
This forum got a new member because of it, for better or for worse.
Guess I'll just go refine some skills and look back at some notes before moving ahead.

Sincerely,
Future avocado at law

This is a strategy that's detailed in the LRB, but I always found it useful to distinguish between the premises/conclusion(s) of the stim (underlining/circling if you like) before looking at the answer choices. Going into the question with a clear understanding of what the stim is actually saying seems obvious but is tremendously helpful.

Absolutely crucial!

[Tycho]

Also, def. check out Manhattan Prep's LSAT forum if you haven't already. Great resource for LR explanations for individual Qs.

[Deardevil]

I have little issue with distinguishing the premise(s) and conclusion.
Sometimes, the out of scope and strengthening or no effect choices are obvious to eliminate.
Other times, the wording gets to me, and although I'm still left with two to three options, I inevitably choose the wrong one.

I think, if a conditional statement is involved in the conclusion, it'd be easier for me because I'm much more certain on how to attack that specific weak question problem, which is to isolate the answer choice that suggests that the necessary condition doesn't have to occur for the sufficient condition to occur. I'm assuming non-conditionals also work in a similar fashion like some answer explanations seem to convey.
Also, should I read the question stem before the stimulus?
That way, if it asks me to weaken the argument, I feel like I could skim and not take into too much consideration the premises and focus more on the conclusion as a means to conserve time. If so, should I also be doing so for any question type in general?
For me, I think reading the stimulus could be more effective, and the book also suggests this.
But I believe another guide suggests otherwise, so I'm wondering which tends to works better for you guys.

Nevertheless, the Ice Age example in the Logical Reasoning Bible had me like "HUH?"
I can only hope the exam won't have any hellish problem like it, but that's just wishful thinking.
Is it discouraging to encounter a challenging section? Duh. Frustrating? You bet.
But also motivating since I do believe in hard work. Which is why I should really stop procrastinating if I'm aiming for 180.

I'll definitely hop over to Manhattan Prep. Thanks for the help, fellas.

[tasteofcherry]

I have little issue with distinguishing the premise(s) and conclusion.
Sometimes, the out of scope and strengthening or no effect choices are obvious to eliminate.
Other times, the wording gets to me, and although I'm still left with two to three options, I inevitably choose the wrong one.

I think, if a conditional statement is involved in the conclusion, it'd be easier for me because I'm much more certain on how to attack that specific weak question problem, which is to isolate the answer choice that suggests that the necessary condition doesn't have to occur for the sufficient condition to occur. I'm assuming non-conditionals also work in a similar fashion like some answer explanations seem to convey.
Also, should I read the question stem before the stimulus?
That way, if it asks me to weaken the argument, I feel like I could skim and not take into too much consideration the premises and focus more on the conclusion as a means to conserve time. If so, should I also be doing so for any question type in general?
For me, I think reading the stimulus could be more effective, and the book also suggests this.
But I believe another guide suggests otherwise, so I'm wondering which tends to works better for you guys.

Nevertheless, the Ice Age example in the Logical Reasoning Bible had me like "HUH?"
I can only hope the exam won't have any hellish problem like it, but that's just wishful thinking.
Is it discouraging to encounter a challenging section? Duh. Frustrating? You bet.
But also motivating since I do believe in hard work. Which is why I should really stop procrastinating if I'm aiming for 180.

I'll definitely hop over to Manhattan Prep. Thanks for the help, fellas.

I would recommend reading the stimulus prior to the stem. I would also recommend going through the LRB even if you decide to hop over to Manhattan prep. It doesn't take very long to get to the lessons and there are foundation tips that are pretty useful. Reading the stem first is going to require that you review the stem, go back to the passage, and then go back to the stem yet again. It wastes more time in my experience.

LRB is helpful in dividing up 'question families'. Remembering to prephase when you can is a huge help. I find that the toughest questions for me are Assumption, Flaw in the reasoning, and method of reasoning. I have a pretty good foundation and understanding of most of the questions included in LRB. Don't hesitate to send me a message, sometimes it helps to hear someone explain why they came to a specific answer. LRB is great but sometimes I go to google for questions that I'm still confused on, and a lot of times explanations I find on message boards register with me better than the ones provided in the LRB.

What page is the ice age example on again?

[Deardevil]

I would recommend reading the stimulus prior to the stem. I would also recommend going through the LRB even if you decide to hop over to Manhattan prep. It doesn't take very long to get to the lessons and there are foundation tips that are pretty useful. Reading the stem first is going to require that you review the stem, go back to the passage, and then go back to the stem yet again. It wastes more time in my experience.

LRB is helpful in dividing up 'question families'. Remembering to prephase when you can is a huge help. I find that the toughest questions for me are Assumption, Flaw in the reasoning, and method of reasoning. I have a pretty good foundation and understanding of most of the questions included in LRB. Don't hesitate to send me a message, sometimes it helps to hear someone explain why they came to a specific answer. LRB is great but sometimes I go to google for questions that I'm still confused on, and a lot of times explanations I find on message boards register with me better than the ones provided in the LRB.

What page is the ice age example on again?

True; reading the stimulus first makes sense. It's what I've been doing 99% of the time.
Perhaps I should only attempt the reverse if I encounter a point at issue question.
There's one in the book that has two sides, but the stem only cares about one,
meaning you'd waste precious time reading the opponent's argument; that's just mean.

Those questions you list are definitely of the toughest nature; requiring you to think outside the box is always challenging.
The example should be in the review for the weaken question section.
Can't quite remember if it's actually that bad since I'm pretty okay with weaken types now.

[zeglo]

.

[tasteofcherry]

Don't ever read the question first. You'll soon see that most stimuli are very similar. You'll be able to point out flaws before even knowing the question. Then, the answer you may already be looking for, and it comes faster. .

+1 prephasing is so helpful with so many question types.

[Deardevil]

Don't ever read the question first. You'll soon see that most stimuli are very similar. You'll be able to point out flaws before even knowing the question. Then, the answer you may already be looking for, and it comes faster. It'll waste time if you read it first. I don't think you'd waste time reading the opponent's argument. When you get good/fast, that is negligible time. Basically it's just some argument, and then the question can ask you five things about it (except for the few questions based on facts, not arguments).

One argument could have a few questions on it, such as what is being assumed, what is the flaw, which of the following would make it logically sound, what would strengthen, what would weaken...all on the same stimulus in theory. Knowing common flaws and assumptions is key.

I read the stimulus and say okay, I see this flaw, I see this here is the conclusion, and I know what is needed to make this right; now to the question to see which one they are actually asking.

Valid points! I hope to improve in that area and reading in general.
Stimuli are usually lengthy or seem poorly worded, which is off-putting.
I'll definitely have to "get good" at focusing more on stimuli than stems, which hopefully does become predictable.

Thanks for the input!