Reading Every Answer Choice Forum

[onlyhere4fun]

So I have seen different perspectives on this approach. The Kaplan pick and quit approach where you choose the right answer and move on if you're sure you found the right answer/you found the answer you predicted, and the Powerscore/Blueprint perspective that says you should read every single answer choice in every question. I typically only use the pick and quit approach on questions I find easier/more predictable. I tend to move on if I'm very sure that I found the right answer in an LR question for example and it usually works out fine, but it's the sometimes that bothers me. What I seek to gain in time by picking and quitting, costs me the 100% certainty that I would otherwise have had I eliminated every other answer choice. And also this pick and quit approach, which I'm annoyed and ashamed to say has become a habit for me, has made me weaker than I would rather be in terms of eliminating wrong answer choices, particularly in difficult LR or RC questions, because I tend not to be satisfied until I am sure that I found the right answer by virtue of understanding it's the right answer rather than through process of elimination. In essence I tend to look for what's right in an answer choice rather than looking for what's wrong, and the latter approach seems to be a more effective/efficient approach but I am not sure. So do you guys go through every answer choice or pick and quit? or maybe a mix of the two?

[Deardevil]

I only hit it and quit it on games, but even then, it's not 100% of the time.
LR and RC almost always require thorough AC analysis, as tempting wrong options do exist.
It's wiser to not waste time on LG unless you're already quick and finishing with extra minutes to spare,
but it'd be a mistake to not go through every choice on LR since test writers are sly with their CR positioning.

[Barack O'Drama]

I mix the two.

On LG, If I find the right answer, I move on. I might circle it if not 100% sure to come back if I have time.
However, my confidence when I do this is >90% Otherwise, I'll lay eyes on every AC.

On LR, I also tend to mix it up. However, I certainly do it less. If there is a ridiculously easy MBT or MP question early on, I might circle whatever I pre-phrased in my head if I see it and move on. I do this maybe once, maybe twice times per test. I think I also subconsciously scan the answers choices some of the time I do it. In any case, very seldom. I always recommend reading the ACs for LR. Especially on new tests.

I almost never do it with RC.

I would recommend reading all the answer choices most of the time. It usually only takes a second.

Just my .02

[maybeman]

Similar advice as above. Also, although the upper teens tend to be the hardest questions in LR, sometimes a few of the early questions are high difficultly. That means you'll probably encounter a trap answer, and if you're moving on then you're missing these questions a good amount of the time. Bad strategy in my opinion.

[Kopetz]

So I have seen different perspectives on this approach. The Kaplan pick and quit approach where you choose the right answer and move on if you're sure you found the right answer/you found the answer you predicted, and the Powerscore/Blueprint perspective that says you should read every single answer choice in every question. I typically only use the pick and quit approach on questions I find easier/more predictable. I tend to move on if I'm very sure that I found the right answer in an LR question for example and it usually works out fine, but it's the sometimes that bothers me. What I seek to gain in time by picking and quitting, costs me the 100% certainty that I would otherwise have had I eliminated every other answer choice. And also this pick and quit approach, which I'm annoyed and ashamed to say has become a habit for me, has made me weaker than I would rather be in terms of eliminating wrong answer choices, particularly in difficult LR or RC questions, because I tend not to be satisfied until I am sure that I found the right answer by virtue of understanding it's the right answer rather than through process of elimination. In essence I tend to look for what's right in an answer choice rather than looking for what's wrong, and the latter approach seems to be a more effective/efficient approach but I am not sure. So do you guys go through every answer choice or pick and quit? or maybe a mix of the two?

one of the easiest ways for lsac to increase difficulty on a question is to plant answers that look good at a glance. hit and quit is fine on an easy question, but only if you know for sure which questions are the easy ones

[Rupert Pupkin]

If you work efficiently, you should be able to go through every choice. There is enough time. I wouldn't hit and quit if you have the time to double check yourself. For me, it verifies that I am confident in my answer choice selection. Your only hurting yourself if you don't do this. Granted, if its super easy, then sure hit and quit...Thats fine, but even then I would be careful that you don't fall into the trap of making a silly mistake and selecting a shell game answer--then you just went -1 on a question you should have absolutely gotten correctly.

[freekick]

LR and RC: I am myself trying to move from 'hit and quit'/'looking for the right answer' to 'eliminate the wrong answers' mode. Here's why: The kind of thinking required by the test provides more reasons for eliminating answers than selecting and outright winner. Almost all LR questions ask us to pick the best answer, not the right answer. So in looking for the 'right answer', I made my job harder because the test itself wants us to 'dribble our way to the best (not perfect) answer' than score a 'long distance shot'. More so in modern LSATs (PT60+) where the number of Qs with 4 clearly wrong and 1 clearly right/perfect answers seem to have gone down. We now see more Qs with 2 clearly wrong, 2-3 debatable and 1 better than the other but still NOT perfect answer choices. (And I think it is this 'evolution' that makes one feel that LR and RC have become 'harder' compared to the older PTs.) So I now try to think: 'why is this answer wrong' than 'why is this answer right".

LG: I agree with others that given the objective nature of this section, hit and quit is the preferred approach for a majority of the Qs.

[onlyhere4fun]

Thanks everyone for the advice! I'm just going to get in the habit of checking every answer choice in LR and RC and try to save hitting and quitting for LG when I'm sure I have the game down.

[onlyhere4fun]

LR and RC: I am myself trying to move from 'hit and quit'/'looking for the right answer' to 'eliminate the wrong answers' mode. Here's why: The kind of thinking required by the test provides more reasons for eliminating answers than selecting and outright winner. Almost all LR questions ask us to pick the best answer, not the right answer. So in looking for the 'right answer', I made my job harder because the test itself wants us to 'dribble our way to the best (not perfect) answer' than score a 'long distance shot'. More so in modern LSATs (PT60+) where the number of Qs with 4 clearly wrong and 1 clearly right/perfect answers seem to have gone down. We now see more Qs with 2 clearly wrong, 2-3 debatable and 1 better than the other but still NOT perfect answer choices. (And I think it is this 'evolution' that makes one feel that LR and RC have become 'harder' compared to the older PTs.) So I now try to think: 'why is this answer wrong' than 'why is this answer right".

LG: I agree with others that given the objective nature of this section, hit and quit is the preferred approach for a majority of the Qs.

Omg you bring up an excellent point on the evolution of the LSAT. For example on tough RC inference questions I noticed that on newer tests the right answer is not 100% supported by the text, but rather just more supported than all the other answer choices and that has been throwing me off a lot! I think you're right, as I aim for a higher score I'll have to start hitting the answer choices thinking of what's wrong with the AC rather than what's right.

But I noticed you put quotes on harder. Do you believe this evolution just makes the test different rather than harder? It does seem more challenging and less intuitive to hit the answer choices with the "what's wrong with this AC mentality."

[freekick]

LR and RC: I am myself trying to move from 'hit and quit'/'looking for the right answer' to 'eliminate the wrong answers' mode. Here's why: The kind of thinking required by the test provides more reasons for eliminating answers than selecting and outright winner. Almost all LR questions ask us to pick the best answer, not the right answer. So in looking for the 'right answer', I made my job harder because the test itself wants us to 'dribble our way to the best (not perfect) answer' than score a 'long distance shot'. More so in modern LSATs (PT60+) where the number of Qs with 4 clearly wrong and 1 clearly right/perfect answers seem to have gone down. We now see more Qs with 2 clearly wrong, 2-3 debatable and 1 better than the other but still NOT perfect answer choices. (And I think it is this 'evolution' that makes one feel that LR and RC have become 'harder' compared to the older PTs.) So I now try to think: 'why is this answer wrong' than 'why is this answer right".

LG: I agree with others that given the objective nature of this section, hit and quit is the preferred approach for a majority of the Qs.

Omg you bring up an excellent point on the evolution of the LSAT. For example on tough RC inference questions I noticed that on newer tests the right answer is not 100% supported by the text, but rather just more supported than all the other answer choices and that has been throwing me off a lot! I think you're right, as I aim for a higher score I'll have to start hitting the answer choices thinking of what's wrong with the AC rather than what's right.

But I noticed you put quotes on harder. Do you believe this evolution just makes the test different rather than harder? It does seem more challenging and less intuitive to hit the answer choices with the "what's wrong with this AC mentality."

I do find the PT 60+ LR/RC harder in the sense that the KIND and AMOUNT of work required is different than what led to success in PTs 1-50ish. We are still being tested on the same skills but in a different way. This is due to a combination of seemingly more than one right answer and lower level of directness/strength of answer choices. The standard operating procedures given in different guides are therefore less and less applicable. And while people still try to 'fit' modern answers into show '4 clearly wrong and 1 clearly right', but that is after painstaking (and unconvinving) analysis AFTER the test. This (manufactured) clarity is unavailble during the test. That's what I think.

[bearedman8]

.

[spqr351]

.

[poptart123]

If I was sure of the answer then I wouldn't evaluate each choice. However, I also spent a good amount of time learning what the trap answers on certain question types often entailed. This allowed me to look at the answers and avoid many of the traps. Generally, I found the trap answers would that would get me had a slight shift in language if they were really close to what I was thinking the answer was. I'm not the most detail-oriented person, so I had to really train myself to carefully evaluate the answers (to the word choice) when I did decide to view them.

[onlyhere4fun]

LR and RC: I am myself trying to move from 'hit and quit'/'looking for the right answer' to 'eliminate the wrong answers' mode. Here's why: The kind of thinking required by the test provides more reasons for eliminating answers than selecting and outright winner. Almost all LR questions ask us to pick the best answer, not the right answer. So in looking for the 'right answer', I made my job harder because the test itself wants us to 'dribble our way to the best (not perfect) answer' than score a 'long distance shot'. More so in modern LSATs (PT60+) where the number of Qs with 4 clearly wrong and 1 clearly right/perfect answers seem to have gone down. We now see more Qs with 2 clearly wrong, 2-3 debatable and 1 better than the other but still NOT perfect answer choices. (And I think it is this 'evolution' that makes one feel that LR and RC have become 'harder' compared to the older PTs.) So I now try to think: 'why is this answer wrong' than 'why is this answer right".

LG: I agree with others that given the objective nature of this section, hit and quit is the preferred approach for a majority of the Qs.

Omg you bring up an excellent point on the evolution of the LSAT. For example on tough RC inference questions I noticed that on newer tests the right answer is not 100% supported by the text, but rather just more supported than all the other answer choices and that has been throwing me off a lot! I think you're right, as I aim for a higher score I'll have to start hitting the answer choices thinking of what's wrong with the AC rather than what's right.

But I noticed you put quotes on harder. Do you believe this evolution just makes the test different rather than harder? It does seem more challenging and less intuitive to hit the answer choices with the "what's wrong with this AC mentality."

I do find the PT 60+ LR/RC harder in the sense that the KIND and AMOUNT of work required is different than what led to success in PTs 1-50ish. We are still being tested on the same skills but in a different way. This is due to a combination of seemingly more than one right answer and lower level of directness/strength of answer choices. The standard operating procedures given in different guides are therefore less and less applicable. And while people still try to 'fit' modern answers into show '4 clearly wrong and 1 clearly right', but that is after painstaking (and unconvinving) analysis AFTER the test. This (manufactured) clarity is unavailble during the test. That's what I think.

Ahh ok I understand and definitely agree with your assessment.

[tskela]

LR and RC: I am myself trying to move from 'hit and quit'/'looking for the right answer' to 'eliminate the wrong answers' mode. Here's why: The kind of thinking required by the test provides more reasons for eliminating answers than selecting and outright winner. Almost all LR questions ask us to pick the best answer, not the right answer. So in looking for the 'right answer', I made my job harder because the test itself wants us to 'dribble our way to the best (not perfect) answer' than score a 'long distance shot'. More so in modern LSATs (PT60+) where the number of Qs with 4 clearly wrong and 1 clearly right/perfect answers seem to have gone down. We now see more Qs with 2 clearly wrong, 2-3 debatable and 1 better than the other but still NOT perfect answer choices. (And I think it is this 'evolution' that makes one feel that LR and RC have become 'harder' compared to the older PTs.) So I now try to think: 'why is this answer wrong' than 'why is this answer right".

LG: I agree with others that given the objective nature of this section, hit and quit is the preferred approach for a majority of the Qs.

Omg you bring up an excellent point on the evolution of the LSAT. For example on tough RC inference questions I noticed that on newer tests the right answer is not 100% supported by the text, but rather just more supported than all the other answer choices and that has been throwing me off a lot! I think you're right, as I aim for a higher score I'll have to start hitting the answer choices thinking of what's wrong with the AC rather than what's right.

But I noticed you put quotes on harder. Do you believe this evolution just makes the test different rather than harder? It does seem more challenging and less intuitive to hit the answer choices with the "what's wrong with this AC mentality."

I do find the PT 60+ LR/RC harder in the sense that the KIND and AMOUNT of work required is different than what led to success in PTs 1-50ish. We are still being tested on the same skills but in a different way. This is due to a combination of seemingly more than one right answer and lower level of directness/strength of answer choices. The standard operating procedures given in different guides are therefore less and less applicable. And while people still try to 'fit' modern answers into show '4 clearly wrong and 1 clearly right', but that is after painstaking (and unconvinving) analysis AFTER the test. This (manufactured) clarity is unavailble during the test. That's what I think.

This exactly! Whenever I seek RC advice I always run into the "4 clearly wrong and 1 clearly right" line that just isn't as true as it used to be. When I got RC questions wrong in PTs < 50, it was 99% of the time because I missed something and I'd get that "duh" moment. Not the case at all for recent PTs.

[freekick]

LR and RC: I am myself trying to move from 'hit and quit'/'looking for the right answer' to 'eliminate the wrong answers' mode. Here's why: The kind of thinking required by the test provides more reasons for eliminating answers than selecting and outright winner. Almost all LR questions ask us to pick the best answer, not the right answer. So in looking for the 'right answer', I made my job harder because the test itself wants us to 'dribble our way to the best (not perfect) answer' than score a 'long distance shot'. More so in modern LSATs (PT60+) where the number of Qs with 4 clearly wrong and 1 clearly right/perfect answers seem to have gone down. We now see more Qs with 2 clearly wrong, 2-3 debatable and 1 better than the other but still NOT perfect answer choices. (And I think it is this 'evolution' that makes one feel that LR and RC have become 'harder' compared to the older PTs.) So I now try to think: 'why is this answer wrong' than 'why is this answer right".

LG: I agree with others that given the objective nature of this section, hit and quit is the preferred approach for a majority of the Qs.

Omg you bring up an excellent point on the evolution of the LSAT. For example on tough RC inference questions I noticed that on newer tests the right answer is not 100% supported by the text, but rather just more supported than all the other answer choices and that has been throwing me off a lot! I think you're right, as I aim for a higher score I'll have to start hitting the answer choices thinking of what's wrong with the AC rather than what's right.

But I noticed you put quotes on harder. Do you believe this evolution just makes the test different rather than harder? It does seem more challenging and less intuitive to hit the answer choices with the "what's wrong with this AC mentality."

I do find the PT 60+ LR/RC harder in the sense that the KIND and AMOUNT of work required is different than what led to success in PTs 1-50ish. We are still being tested on the same skills but in a different way. This is due to a combination of seemingly more than one right answer and lower level of directness/strength of answer choices. The standard operating procedures given in different guides are therefore less and less applicable. And while people still try to 'fit' modern answers into show '4 clearly wrong and 1 clearly right', but that is after painstaking (and unconvinving) analysis AFTER the test. This (manufactured) clarity is unavailble during the test. That's what I think.

This exactly! Whenever I seek RC advice I always run into the "4 clearly wrong and 1 clearly right" line that just isn't as true as it used to be. When I got RC questions wrong in PTs < 50, it was 99% of the time because I missed something and I'd get that "duh" moment. Not the case at all for recent PTs.

Yeah. And such explanations makes you question your skills, lose confidence and try all kinds of things. That's why I switched to elimination from shooting for the right answer. Reasoned elimination, not out-of-scope/I-don't-like-it kind of elimination, itself is a major skill. Like a poster mentioned above, recognizing trap answers is a very important part of getting proficient on the test.

[HonestAdvice]

The harder questions (16-25) tend to have a few choices that are wrong because of one word. If you see the word "most", it's even possible your answer is right but not most right. The trick is to pick something that cannot be false. Predicting answers could backfire, because the test writers know what you're likeliest to predict.