Top Law Schools

I understand the general way to attack different principle questions and don't usually miss them on my practice exams but it's not something I completely understand and would like to not rely on my good fortune of just getting them right come time for the real exam.

I had a tutor distinguish for me that principle questions can be separated into "flow up" or "flow down", such as "which one of the following judgements most closely conforms to the principle above" is a flow down and I need to approach it as such. I get this logic but I think sometimes I'm not entirely sure what form of LR the principle question is and I spend too much time trying to identify it. Is this a good approach I should attempt to sharpen or does an easier method exist to attack principle questions? Again I usually get what they're asking and what the answer is but I'd like to be more precise with my answer is what it is.

I split questions into two camps, which makes attack them less complicated; reasoning versus inference/set of facts.

Reasoning (thinks assumption, flaw, weaken/strengthen) will almost always have a gap that you are trying to find in order to fulfill the required task.

Inference/set of facts are statements which you have to assume to be true, and then infer something from them. Principle are some of the most abstract, but the process is the same; evaluate each answer choice by comparing it to the demands of the stimulus to see if it holds up.