Do you write down any explanations on your PTs or take notes? Forum

[cocoandcoconuts]

Hi,

I was just wondering...
When you miss some questions, do you write down what's wrong with the answer choices, explanations, your reasoning etc?
Or you just read explanations and try to remember them?
I'm not sure which is efficient...
How do you usually review?
And which do you think is better/efficient? Why?

Thanks!

[Deardevil]

For LG, I repeat games. Initially, some can be hard,
but once you know how to diagram, everything falls into place.

For LR, I explain my reasoning for every single choice for every single question.
If I still do not get something right, I will look up explanations to see my flaws.
Never try to remember them; the LSAT is not a memorization test, but a test of understanding.

For RC, I just hope for the best.

[Mikey]

Dear said it best. That's exactly what I do as well. Just repeat games, explain each answer choice in LR and why it's wrong/right, and

For RC, I just hope for the best.

[cocoandcoconuts]

So you guys don't take any notes?
When you explain your reasoning do you do that before you see correct answers or after?

Dear said it best. That's exactly what I do as well. Just repeat games, explain each answer choice in LR and why it's wrong/right, and

For RC, I just hope for the best.

For LG, I repeat games. Initially, some can be hard,
but once you know how to diagram, everything falls into place.

For LR, I explain my reasoning for every single choice for every single question.
If I still do not get something right, I will look up explanations to see my flaws.
Never try to remember them; the LSAT is not a memorization test, but a test of understanding.

For RC, I just hope for the best.

[Mikey]

So you guys don't take any notes?
When you explain your reasoning do you do that before you see correct answers or after?

I mean if you want to take notes and you feel comfortable doing so then go ahead. Personally, I explain my reasoning before i check the answers. Have you heard of blind review? If not, look it up, it's by 7sage. A lot of people on here do blind review and it's a great way to get better at this test. I write explanations next the answer choice, or I just say it in my head if it's a very clear reason why it's wrong.

[Deardevil]

Like I said, there's nothing to "memorize."

For building the foundation, notes are fine; I've written notes in my beginning stages.
The closest to notes that I take would be the explanations for LR questions.
I've only done a couple, though, but drilling by type, imo, is the better alternative;
strengthen and weaken questions used to be trivial, but I found many errors in my early approach,
and the same can be said for many other types of questions (like flaws, find these holes and fill in the gap).

Ideally, you would be breaking each choice down in your head since you won't be writing "notes" on the actual test.

[cocoandcoconuts]

Thanks

Yeah I have heard the BR method, but I'm not sure how it works...because when you choose answer choice, you have your reasoning to choose the answer choice right? Why do you have to do the reasoning explanation part again after solving the question?
If you know the correct reasoning, you would not miss the question.
If you say you explain after checking answers and trying to figure out what's wrong with the answer choice you chose in the beginning, maybe you can learn something, but in this case I'm worried my reasoning is not correct or that's not what makes the choice wrong...
Maybe I did not understand the BR method fully, I do want to try the method if it really works, but I have above questions about the method, so...not sure how ppl improve...I saw a lot of ppl improved so it seems it works, but just not sure why...

[cocoandcoconuts]

Thanks

Yeah I have heard the BR method, but I'm not sure how it works...because when you choose answer choice, you have your reasoning to choose the answer choice right? Why do you have to do the reasoning explanation part again after solving the question?
If you know the correct reasoning, you would not miss the question.
If you say you explain after checking answers and trying to figure out what's wrong with the answer choice you chose in the beginning, maybe you can learn something, but in this case I'm worried my reasoning is not correct or that's not what makes the choice wrong...
Maybe I did not understand the BR method fully, I do want to try the method if it really works, but I have above questions about the method, so...not sure how ppl improve...I saw a lot of ppl improved so it seems it works, but just not sure why...

Like I said, there's nothing to "memorize."

For building the foundation, notes are fine; I've written notes in my beginning stages.
The closest to notes that I take would be the explanations for LR questions.
I've only done a couple, though, but drilling by type, imo, is the better alternative;
strengthen and weaken questions used to be trivial, but I found many errors in my early approach,
and the same can be said for many other types of questions (like flaws, find these holes and fill in the gap).


forgot to cite...
Ideally, you would be breaking each choice down in your head since you won't be writing "notes" on the actual test.

[20170322]

I'm a big advocate of typing complete explanations for incorrect LR and RC answers.

[cocoandcoconuts]

so do you type and print it out for review?

[RamTitan]

I'm a big advocate of typing complete explanations for incorrect LR and RC answers.

I used to do this, and I believe it's an important step towards solidifying an understanding of those sections, but I have transitioned to a point where I now internalize the entire thought process when reviewing questions. I figure I'll have to do this when taking the test anyways, so might as well get good at it.

[kindofcanuck]

Hi,

I was just wondering...
When you miss some questions, do you write down what's wrong with the answer choices, explanations, your reasoning etc?
Or you just read explanations and try to remember them?
I'm not sure which is efficient...
How do you usually review?
And which do you think is better/efficient? Why?

Thanks!

Not merely questions you missed. Anything you were less than certain about.

Particularly in LR (but also applies to RC), when doing the questions, you're aware how comfortable you are with them. For example, you'll read a stim, a voice in your head will say 'But that only applies if x', you get to the question which asks "This requires what assumption?", B is precisely what you said in your head, bubble it, move on. You don't need to explain those, you've already done it.

You should go back through every question where you got it wrong, and every one where you were less than certain, and handwrite out beside each of them why they were right or wrong. Five explanations per question. It doesn't have to be an essay - mine include "irrelevant", "could =/= must".

If you're just reading explanations you're far less likely to internalise them than if you force yourself to explain it.

Games, just re-do the game. They're all very precise. If you're struggling with a question, you've missed something. Worst case scenario, brute force them with examples, but that's much more time consuming than understanding the necessary implications of the rules you're given.

[Barack O'Drama]

I'm a big advocate of typing complete explanations for incorrect LR and RC answers.

Same...Works well too

[cocoandcoconuts]

So far I was hand-writing the explanations, sometimes in my words sometimes just copying some sentences from explanations online...
but suddenly wonder whether I was wasting time
I was wondering whether I should rather just read explanations online again if I miss the same or similar questions...
Trying to study "efficiently" but...I don't know if I'm doing efficiently

[kindofcanuck]

So far I was hand-writing the explanations, sometimes in my words sometimes just copying some sentences from explanations online...
but suddenly wonder whether I was wasting time
I was wondering whether I should rather just read explanations online again if I miss the same or similar questions...
Trying to study "efficiently" but...I don't know if I'm doing efficiently

Personally, I'd say if you're just reading the explanation online, you're likely to be wasting time.

You need to engage with the argument and the logic. Skimming over somebody else's understanding is unlikely to help, even copying it out might not do much. You need to understand it yourself.

You're demonstrating this when you talk about 'reading explanations again if I miss the same or similar'. If you've already read an explanation, but miss the same or similar question, you cannot have internalised the reasoning behind it, and need to do something more in order to take it on board.

[cocoandcoconuts]

So far I was hand-writing the explanations, sometimes in my words sometimes just copying some sentences from explanations online...
but suddenly wonder whether I was wasting time
I was wondering whether I should rather just read explanations online again if I miss the same or similar questions...
Trying to study "efficiently" but...I don't know if I'm doing efficiently

Personally, I'd say if you're just reading the explanation online, you're likely to be wasting time.

You need to engage with the argument and the logic. Skimming over somebody else's understanding is unlikely to help, even copying it out might not do much. You need to understand it yourself.

You're demonstrating this when you talk about 'reading explanations again if I miss the same or similar'. If you've already read an explanation, but miss the same or similar question, you cannot have internalised the reasoning behind it, and need to do something more in order to take it on board.

You are right...If I understand the logic, I shouldn't miss the same question...
Btw, how do I know my understanding of behind logic is correct?
Sometimes when I read online explanation I found their explanations and my explanations for answer choices are not the same.
That's why I almost always double-check other's explanations.
I assume you guys do not do that, cuz some ppl say when they really do not understand what's wrong with choices then they read other's explanations.
How do you know or can you be sure your reasoning is the one that makes the choice wrong?

[kindofcanuck]

You are right...If I understand the logic, I shouldn't miss the same question...
Btw, how do I know my understanding of behind logic is correct?
Sometimes when I read online explanation I found their explanations and my explanations for answer choices are not the same.
That's why I almost always double-check other's explanations.
I assume you guys do not do that, cuz some ppl say when they really do not understand what's wrong with choices then they read other's explanations.
How do you know or can you be sure your reasoning is the one that makes the choice wrong?

There are a very, very limited number of questions with any degree of ambiguity. Single figures out of the 7,500+ that have been asked on the various tests (I can think of exactly one that I'm aware of, and I can't track it down right now in seconds). You should always be able to explain why an answer is right or wrong when given unlimited time, and especially once the answer key has told you which one you're looking for.

Your explanation can legitimately use different words or phrases - if the online explanation says "irrelevant", and your handwriting says "this doesn't have anything to do with the question" that's not exactly the same wording, but it's the same idea, you've gotten the right reasoning. If the online one says "this negates instead of strengthens the stim", and you say "this one is factually wrong", then you're doing it wrong.

With a clear understanding of English (and I can't imagine how hard the LSAT is for people who don't have that - either through education, or a non-native English background), the combination of formal logic and the common meaning of words will only ever render a single answer possible. The stim, the question, and the answer are essentially three legs to a stool. They all work together. The options used, especially in the harder, later questions, can be convoluted and hard to read, but there will only ever be one possibility, and one way of getting to it (even if that way is described differently - e.g. formal logic vs natural reading for a comparative reasoning passage, they both ultimately ascribe the same meanings).

The one possibility for alternative understanding is that some people may reach an answer by proving that it is the correct one, while others disprove the other four leaving only one possibility. This is (except for cases specifically requiring 'all of these are possible except') sometimes needed if you're low on time, but dangerous because it's less rigorous, and generally takes longer.

In almost all cases, there simply isn't an option for your reasoning being 'different', unless you're getting the right answer by luck. 4/5 options will weaken, or strengthen, or not be an assumption required. They will only meet that in one way. Which is somewhat abstract, but that's the way the test is designed.

[cocoandcoconuts]

You are right...If I understand the logic, I shouldn't miss the same question...
Btw, how do I know my understanding of behind logic is correct?
Sometimes when I read online explanation I found their explanations and my explanations for answer choices are not the same.
That's why I almost always double-check other's explanations.
I assume you guys do not do that, cuz some ppl say when they really do not understand what's wrong with choices then they read other's explanations.
How do you know or can you be sure your reasoning is the one that makes the choice wrong?

There are a very, very limited number of questions with any degree of ambiguity. Single figures out of the 7,500+ that have been asked on the various tests (I can think of exactly one that I'm aware of, and I can't track it down right now in seconds). You should always be able to explain why an answer is right or wrong when given unlimited time, and especially once the answer key has told you which one you're looking for.

Your explanation can legitimately use different words or phrases - if the online explanation says "irrelevant", and your handwriting says "this doesn't have anything to do with the question" that's not exactly the same wording, but it's the same idea, you've gotten the right reasoning. If the online one says "this negates instead of strengthens the stim", and you say "this one is factually wrong", then you're doing it wrong.

With a clear understanding of English (and I can't imagine how hard the LSAT is for people who don't have that - either through education, or a non-native English background), the combination of formal logic and the common meaning of words will only ever render a single answer possible. The stim, the question, and the answer are essentially three legs to a stool. They all work together. The options used, especially in the harder, later questions, can be convoluted and hard to read, but there will only ever be one possibility, and one way of getting to it (even if that way is described differently - e.g. formal logic vs natural reading for a comparative reasoning passage, they both ultimately ascribe the same meanings).

The one possibility for alternative understanding is that some people may reach an answer by proving that it is the correct one, while others disprove the other four leaving only one possibility. This is (except for cases specifically requiring 'all of these are possible except') sometimes needed if you're low on time, but dangerous because it's less rigorous, and generally takes longer.

In almost all cases, there simply isn't an option for your reasoning being 'different', unless you're getting the right answer by luck. 4/5 options will weaken, or strengthen, or not be an assumption required. They will only meet that in one way. Which is somewhat abstract, but that's the way the test is designed.

Really? so if I cannot figure it out why some choices are wrong or don't have similar explanations, I guess that means my understanding is not enough...
btw how long do you usually take for reviewing one section?

[kindofcanuck]

Really? so if I cannot figure it out why some choices are wrong or don't have similar explanations, I guess that means my understanding is not enough...
btw how long do you usually take for reviewing one section?

Depends on the section - if I've messed up a logic game & lost three points in a single section, that's going to be a good 10-15 minutes to go over the entire thing, redraw the diagrams, find the inferences. A good logical reasoning section might just be a few minutes - last night I did PT49 section 4 (LR) - there are three questions I marked with question marks indicating I wasn't certain, of those I got one wrong. Of those the ? was already dealt with because I brute-forced the logic of the comparative arguments in spare 5 minutes at the end of the section. Which left two questions with ? by them, one I'd gotten right, one wrong. A few minutes to write out by ABCDEx2 why 8 were wrong and 2 were right.

Back when I started, I'd go through the entire section and do that to every question in turn. The more you do, the less necessary it is.

[cocoandcoconuts]

Thanks for ur reply
Wish I could finish review within an hour too...

[scalawag]

I outlined the entire LR Bible. It helped me internalize the material in the book but I didn't see an improvement in my LR score.

All you really need to memorize is conditional indicators and premise/conclusion indicators.

As far as boosting your score I think it is helpful to write out an explanation. I use a pen and if I review later it jolts my memory back.

This website is helpful for reviewing LR https://www.manhattanprep.com/lsat/blog ... lanations/

[scalawag]

You are right...If I understand the logic, I shouldn't miss the same question...
Btw, how do I know my understanding of behind logic is correct?
Sometimes when I read online explanation I found their explanations and my explanations for answer choices are not the same.
That's why I almost always double-check other's explanations.
I assume you guys do not do that, cuz some ppl say when they really do not understand what's wrong with choices then they read other's explanations.
How do you know or can you be sure your reasoning is the one that makes the choice wrong?

There are a very, very limited number of questions with any degree of ambiguity. Single figures out of the 7,500+ that have been asked on the various tests (I can think of exactly one that I'm aware of, and I can't track it down right now in seconds). You should always be able to explain why an answer is right or wrong when given unlimited time, and especially once the answer key has told you which one you're looking for.

Your explanation can legitimately use different words or phrases - if the online explanation says "irrelevant", and your handwriting says "this doesn't have anything to do with the question" that's not exactly the same wording, but it's the same idea, you've gotten the right reasoning. If the online one says "this negates instead of strengthens the stim", and you say "this one is factually wrong", then you're doing it wrong.

With a clear understanding of English (and I can't imagine how hard the LSAT is for people who don't have that - either through education, or a non-native English background), the combination of formal logic and the common meaning of words will only ever render a single answer possible. The stim, the question, and the answer are essentially three legs to a stool. They all work together. The options used, especially in the harder, later questions, can be convoluted and hard to read, but there will only ever be one possibility, and one way of getting to it (even if that way is described differently - e.g. formal logic vs natural reading for a comparative reasoning passage, they both ultimately ascribe the same meanings).

The one possibility for alternative understanding is that some people may reach an answer by proving that it is the correct one, while others disprove the other four leaving only one possibility. This is (except for cases specifically requiring 'all of these are possible except') sometimes needed if you're low on time, but dangerous because it's less rigorous, and generally takes longer.

In almost all cases, there simply isn't an option for your reasoning being 'different', unless you're getting the right answer by luck. 4/5 options will weaken, or strengthen, or not be an assumption required. They will only meet that in one way. Which is somewhat abstract, but that's the way the test is designed.

Really? so if I cannot figure it out why some choices are wrong or don't have similar explanations, I guess that means my understanding is not enough...
btw how long do you usually take for reviewing one section?

You'll get there. Reviewing becomes easier. You find that you can take different routes to the correct answer for LR (as in logic vs. natural reading). It's good to be aware of these when you review (check out the link I posted above).

When you study, eventually the different routes and reasons will be jumping out at you when you read the question and answer choice.