Top Law Schools

I just began my blueprint course last week and we are well into our study curriculum. I'm finding that I'm struggling with basic LR questions. We've covered techniques on how to answer LR questions such 1. Look for the conclusion, 2. Find premises that cover that conclusion, and 3. Anticipate the answer to narrow down choices. However, I find that I'm not properly anticipating conclusions and I'm often getting bogged down on irrelevant information. I also notice that because of so much information in the stimulus, I miss crucial keywords that pretty much give away the answer. Specific word choice is very important, as one word can make a difference between the right and wrong answer. I'm worried because I feel that if I'm struggling now, I going to struggle even more as we progress into more heavier material.

Does anyone have a framework or method to answering LR questions that has worked very effectively for getting the correct? I'm not looking for a foolproof or 100 percent guarantee because it obviously takes practice. But more like a mental representation or criteria that people use to answer any LR question.

For example, to study for Logic Game questions, there is a video I use by 7sage called "The Fool Proof Method to Getting a Perfect Score on Logic Games Sections." (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NCCe82AEHmw) and it is very effective as if forces you to memorize the method of making inferences, thereby covering many of the similar inference patterns that many game use. Is there something like this out there for LR games or anyone come up with their own way to score perfect or near perfect for LR sections?

I would recommend the LSAT trainer by Mike Kim. It's a good starting point and should help you feel more confident about identifying the conclusion and anticipating answers. You can find it on Amazon.

cm4998 wrote:I just began my blueprint course last week and we are well into our study curriculum. I'm finding that I'm struggling with basic LR questions. We've covered techniques on how to answer LR questions such 1. Look for the conclusion, 2. Find premises that cover that conclusion, and 3. Anticipate the answer to narrow down choices. However, I find that I'm not properly anticipating conclusions and I'm often getting bogged down on irrelevant information. I also notice that because of so much information in the stimulus, I miss crucial keywords that pretty much give away the answer. Specific word choice is very important, as one word can make a difference between the right and wrong answer. I'm worried because I feel that if I'm struggling now, I going to struggle even more as we progress into more heavier material.

Does anyone have a framework or method to answering LR questions that has worked very effectively for getting the correct? I'm not looking for a foolproof or 100 percent guarantee because it obviously takes practice. But more like a mental representation or criteria that people use to answer any LR question.

For example, to study for Logic Game questions, there is a video I use by 7sage called "The Fool Proof Method to Getting a Perfect Score on Logic Games Sections." (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NCCe82AEHmw) and it is very effective as if forces you to memorize the method of making inferences, thereby covering many of the similar inference patterns that many game use. Is there something like this out there for LR games or anyone come up with their own way to score perfect or near perfect for LR sections?

Well, Blind review for LR would be the fool-proof method equivalent I suppose.

But, in general, for answering LR questions here is my approach.

Read question stem. Get my mind ready to be looking for the answer already.

Read the stimulus, and pay attention to prescriptions (words like should, ought, etc) pay attention to quantifiers (all, some, many, most, etc)

I circle these key words and then know that my answer is more than likely going to match. So if a stimulus says Scientists should do X, the answer won't be scientists must do X. Same with quantifiers. If the stimulus is talking about some of a group, the answer isn't going to say ALL of a group.

Bracket or underline the conclusion.

Take a pause and pre-phrase an answer. Don't be opposed to taking 15-20 seconds to think about what you're looking for, especially if you're having trouble.

Hit the answer choices first looking to eliminate.
Put a tilde next to any that I'm reserving judgment for.
If I get down to 2 I'll compare real quick and try to prove one wrong.

So mainly I try to eliminate the wrong first and find something that matches my pre-phrase.

Also, I skip 3-5 per section and come back if they are more hard. This way I get the low hanging fruits, and don't waste time.


That said, if you just started really studying LR then it could just be you need more time to understand the basics.

Sean_33 wrote:I would recommend the LSAT trainer by Mike Kim. It's a good starting point and should help you feel more confident about identifying the conclusion and anticipating answers. You can find it on Amazon.

+1000 for The LSAT Trainer. By far my favorite LSAT prep book.

Also, you should recognize every question type, so you know how to properly break down each one.

Golden rule of thumb is to eliminate wrong choices, as some are obvious, and with practice, you will see those often.
I'm not really a fan of reading the stimulus first, but I won't argue against something that works for many others.
As you see more problems, you know intuitively know what the question will ask, so you only have to skim it, saving time.
For example, if I see a stimulus that contains two names/authors, I immediately know there will probably be a disagreement.
In addition, answer choices are usually short,
so if you encounter a problem in which the choices are dense, it's most definitely a parallel question.

Make sure to brush up on formal logic. A lot of questions will ask stuff regarding conditions, such as assumptions.

Sometimes, pre-phrasing works. Other times, not really.
What you should do is ask yourself (and this applies to RC as well) "why is this written?"
You must understand the conclusion, if given, and the support backing it up.
Is it written with the intention of wanting you to fill in the blanks? It's probably an assumption.
Is it written because it wants you to further explain why it works or does not? Strengthen or weaken.

PS. I third The LSAT Trainer; Mike is a godsend!

.

cm4998 wrote:I just began my blueprint course last week and we are well into our study curriculum. I'm finding that I'm struggling with basic LR questions. We've covered techniques on how to answer LR questions such 1. Look for the conclusion, 2. Find premises that cover that conclusion, and 3. Anticipate the answer to narrow down choices. However, I find that I'm not properly anticipating conclusions and I'm often getting bogged down on irrelevant information. I also notice that because of so much information in the stimulus, I miss crucial keywords that pretty much give away the answer. Specific word choice is very important, as one word can make a difference between the right and wrong answer. I'm worried because I feel that if I'm struggling now, I going to struggle even more as we progress into more heavier material.

Does anyone have a framework or method to answering LR questions that has worked very effectively for getting the correct? I'm not looking for a foolproof or 100 percent guarantee because it obviously takes practice. But more like a mental representation or criteria that people use to answer any LR question.

For example, to study for Logic Game questions, there is a video I use by 7sage called "The Fool Proof Method to Getting a Perfect Score on Logic Games Sections." (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NCCe82AEHmw) and it is very effective as if forces you to memorize the method of making inferences, thereby covering many of the similar inference patterns that many game use. Is there something like this out there for LR games or anyone come up with their own way to score perfect or near perfect for LR sections?

I am struggling with LR as well. You are not alone, I read that LR takes time until you see progress. So have some patience, and if you see the book you are using or the course you are taking is not helping enough, try to get another book or guide to help you with logical reasoning. I also recommend that you read a logic book.
For me I read this book: A Rulebook for Arguments https://www.amazon.com/Rulebook-Argumen ... 0872209547
I purchased it on amazon in kindle format and read it on my iphone and ipad for 6 days, it so easy and fast to read; it kinda help explaining argument a little bit, not super helpful, but helpful to put you in the right path if you are not that good with arguments.

Deardevil wrote:Also, you should recognize every question type, so you know how to properly break down each one.

Golden rule of thumb is to eliminate wrong choices, as some are obvious, and with practice, you will see those often.
I'm not really a fan of reading the stimulus first, but I won't argue against something that works for many others.
As you see more problems, you know intuitively know what the question will ask, so you only have to skim it, saving time.
For example, if I see a stimulus that contains two names/authors, I immediately know there will probably be a disagreement.
In addition, answer choices are usually short,
so if you encounter a problem in which the choices are dense, it's most definitely a parallel question.

Make sure to brush up on formal logic. A lot of questions will ask stuff regarding conditions, such as assumptions.

Sometimes, pre-phrasing works. Other times, not really.
What you should do is ask yourself (and this applies to RC as well) "why is this written?"
You must understand the conclusion, if given, and the support backing it up.
Is it written with the intention of wanting you to fill in the blanks? It's probably an assumption.
Is it written because it wants you to further explain why it works or does not? Strengthen or weaken.

PS. I third The LSAT Trainer; Mike is a godsend!

I have a lot of trouble when the stimulus are very dense, as I can't seem to focus on the main conclusions or premises. Will check out the trainer.