LSAT tricks youve accumulated Forum

[tram988]

I just read a post created by hous and he mentioned an interesting tip. The term "qualify" has a different meaning than one would originally ascribe to it. In the LSAT context, "qualify," is synonymous with restrict, or limit. I have created this thread for people to combine all of their tricks that theve learned for certain question types throughout their studying and practice. Please share your experiences

Hous stated: "Question ask to describe a relation between 2 paragraphs, basic gist is the first paragraph introduces a new technique, and the 2nd limits its use, by showing its limitations.

I eliminated all the answers because none fit, the CA is:

The final paragraph qualifies the claim made in the second paragraph."

From this it is seen that the definition of qualify is of extreme importance in choosing the correct answer. Some people have thought that qualify means verify, or something that gives a reason for a claim to be true. However, as seen in the preceding example, it is an incorrect definition in the context of the lsat.

[isaaca]

Great thread. Waiting for posts..

[hous]

Meaning of "To take for granted"

Just as the "Qualify" example, I misunderstood what this meant. I used to think to take for granted meant the author didnt consider what follows. Takes for granted actually means the author does believe the following without justification.

ex. Takes for granted not all llamas smell bad.

I used to think this meant, the author didnt consider all llamas didnt smell bad.

What this really means is that the author presumes without proper justification that llamas DO smell bad.

This one caused me alot of headache aswell, TLS cleared this one up for me aswell.

When I see takes for granted, I automatically replace it with "Presumes without proper justification"

Therefore this really means, Presumes without proper justification not all llamas smell bad.

[Clever username]

Usually, but not always, when one answer choice contains either "sufficient" or "necessary" or some variation in the language, that's the correct answer. If two have that kind of language, usually neither are correct.

There have been several times when I had no idea what the answer was, so I just said, "Fuck it, I'm picking the one with "sufficient" in it." I haven't been wrong yet.

[jitsrenzo]

That may be a good tip, but you want to make sure the question actually deals with conditional reasoning. There was a question in PT 43, 44, or 45 that was causal, and it stuck in an answer choice that contained the words "sufficient" and "necessary".

[Clever username]

That may be a good tip, but you want to make sure the question actually deals with conditional reasoning. There was a question in PT 43, 44, or 45 that was causal, and it stuck in an answer choice that contained the words "sufficient" and "necessary".

Contained both of them in the answer? I haven't seen that, but seeing both words in one answer choice would definitely give me pause.

And, yeah, you're absolutely right about making sure it's conditional.

[Clever username]

Another pattern I've noticed, but which is by no means absolute, is that the answer in a parallel reasoning question that seems the least likely, whether it uses a different key verb or has only two sentences to the stimulus' three, tends to be the right one.

For whatever reason, I absolutely suck at parallel reasoning, but I've noticed this after going back to check over the questions I got wrong. A lot of times I just think, "Really? That one? All ... right, I guess." You'd think I'd follow my own advice, but that time crunch does funny things and I just can't get myself to pick the answer that seems so wrong.

If anyone else has any tips on parallel reasoning, please share. If there's a parallel reasoning question anywhere between question Nos. 20-25/6, I'll get it wrong 90 percent of the time.

[Big J]

If anyone else has any tips on parallel reasoning, please share. If there's a parallel reasoning question anywhere between question Nos. 20-25/6, I'll get it wrong 90 percent of the time.

These used to kill me and I still save them for last. However, the best thing I read on this site was to just isolate the conclusion first and look for key language, such as "does not" or "is likely." Then jump to the answers and quickly dispense with answers that do not have the same conclusive reasoning. From there, it's usually down to only two-three answers that you have to slug through. Isolate the premises and make sure they support the conclusion the same exact way the stimulus does. The language is key again, just don't be fooled by premises and conclusions that look different but have the same meaning (like contrapositives).

Since I am usually trying to wrap up the section by the time I get here, I just focus on the similarities of the conclusions. Pay attention to words like "if" "does" "will" etc. as they become extremely important on these questions. The conclusion's purpose is what's most important. Think to yourself: is this predicting something, suggesting something, refuting a claim?From there, just make sure the premises match up and you're golden.

[jr494949]

ex. Takes for granted not all llamas smell bad.

I used to think this meant, the author didnt consider all llamas didnt smell bad.

What this really means is that the author presumes without proper justification that llamas DO smell bad.

Therefore this really means, Presumes without proper justification not all llamas smell bad.

i'm confused. so the author presumes that llamas do smell bad or... that not all llamas smell bad?

[Rsrcht]

Takes for granted not all llamas smell bad.

Takes for granted = assumes, presumes (with or without proper justification)
not all = possibly none, but not every one
some = at least one, possibly all

To say that "not all llamas smell bad" means both: some could, and some do not, but at least one doesn't smell bad. If the assumption were without proper justification, there would be no support in the stimulus for the assumption to be made. There are many cases that are both taken for granted and properly justified.

[SpAcEmAn SpLiFF]

Usually, but not always, when one answer choice contains either "sufficient" or "necessary" or some variation in the language, that's the correct answer. If two have that kind of language, usually neither are correct.

There have been several times when I had no idea what the answer was, so I just said, "Fuck it, I'm picking the one with "sufficient" in it." I haven't been wrong yet.

definately gotta second this. if im ever in a pinch ill choose between the necessary or sufficient answer. its usually the point of the question

answer choices that i find are rarely the right one:
uses the word "<insert word here>" in a vague/ambiguous/etc way
presumes what it sets out to prove

also, i find that the "appeals to authority" or "insults the opponent rather than addressing the arguement" answer choices are rarely right, and when they are, it's painfully obvious

[Darth Topher]

cool thread

[izcanzbelawyrnow?]

I've gotten much better with parallel reasoning questions after reading the PR Chapter in the LR Bible, and now usually get all of them right (I also finish them in the 1 minute 20 second period). The tips in that chapter helped me tremendously, and now, I approach PR questions in a similiar way that I approach games. The PoE method works really well here.

First, I look at the quantifiers in the stimulus - does the stimulus use most/many/all/none/some? If so, I skim through each answer choice and look for answers that contain quantifiers which do not match up with the stimulus. Usually there are about 1 or 2 I can immediately eliminate.

Then I look at the relationship between the variables. If the stimulus tells me that Donny is the only one in the class who gets an A, I look in the answer choices for an instance where one part of a whole is the only part to receive something, etc. etc. This technique usually knocks out 1 or 2.

After that I get more technical and diagram - obviously, if there is conditional or causual reading I look there, and if it is a flawed question, I look for a similiar flaw.

However, if I use the first two methods on a question, I almost always get it down to two answer choices left, and sometimes even find the right answer before any hard thinking comes into play.

[lsat120]

For LR questions that state that a law/policy/whatever is worthless because it doesn't apply to two extremes, immediately look for the answer that says something along the lines of how the law/policy/whatever doesn't account for the middle-ground.

[Elms]

Anyone have any tips for "must be true" questions?

[rfm05]

Anyone have any tips for "must be true" questions?

For me, simply ruling out everything that has an even remote chance of being false has helped get to these answers faster. I know it seems like common sense, but at the beginning I had a hard time ruling things out simply by them being false instead of looking at them as they could be false.

[calipaki]

Another pattern I've noticed, but which is by no means absolute, is that the answer in a parallel reasoning question that seems the least likely, whether it uses a different key verb or has only two sentences to the stimulus' three, tends to be the right one.

For whatever reason, I absolutely suck at parallel reasoning, but I've noticed this after going back to check over the questions I got wrong. A lot of times I just think, "Really? That one? All ... right, I guess." You'd think I'd follow my own advice, but that time crunch does funny things and I just can't get myself to pick the answer that seems so wrong.

If anyone else has any tips on parallel reasoning, please share. If there's a parallel reasoning question anywhere between question Nos. 20-25/6, I'll get it wrong 90 percent of the time.

I find parallel reasoning questions to be the easiest. All I do is diagram the stimulus and diagram all the answer choices. You can see the pattern right away. If the stimulus is not one that can be diagrammed then I approach it like a principle and look for similar reasoning or structures in the answer choice. For me this works 98% of the time with this question type.

[JazzOne]

I have developed a trick for logic games. For many people the general questions are time traps. The questions that give me particular pause are the ones that contain different elements for each answer choice. For instance, a question like:

"Which of the following elements CANNOT be third in the diagram?"

A, B, C, D, or E

Now let's suppose I can eliminate A and B based on my previous work on the specific questions. In other words, I've already found solutions with A and B in the third spot, so those can't be the answer. But now I'm really having a tough time figuring out which of the remaining three it is. At this point I like to compare the remaining elements to one another. Suppose there are no clues at all about C and D, but there is a clue about E. Then I figure E has to be the right answer because C and D are indistinct. Essentially what I'm looking for is which element is different from the others. I trust this trick so much that I wouldn't even bother to "prove" that E can't go into the third spot.

Also, another pattern I've noticed on games is that the reason for eliminating one answer to a question is often the same reason for eliminating other answer choices on the same question. Once I spot a particular contradiction (or clue) that makes an answer choice wrong, I keep looking for that same contradiction (or clue) as I try out the other answer choices.

[bluehen]

These used to kill me and I still save them for last. However, the best thing I read on this site was to just isolate the conclusion first and look for key language, such as "does not" or "is likely." Then jump to the answers and quickly dispense with answers that do not have the same conclusive reasoning. From there, it's usually down to only two-three answers that you have to slug through. Isolate the premises and make sure they support the conclusion the same exact way the stimulus does. The language is key again, just don't be fooled by premises and conclusions that look different but have the same meaning (like contrapositives).

Since I am usually trying to wrap up the section by the time I get here, I just focus on the similarities of the conclusions. Pay attention to words like "if" "does" "will" etc. as they become extremely important on these questions. The conclusion's purpose is what's most important. Think to yourself: is this predicting something, suggesting something, refuting a claim?From there, just make sure the premises match up and you're golden.

this makes the whole process alot easier. my strategy has been to skip PR questions because they are time consuming and then come back to them at the end but isolating the conclusion can help you eliminate about 2 or three of the answers and using indicators can usually get me to the corrects answer quite quickly 4 for 4 today thanks to it.

[Clever username]

These used to kill me and I still save them for last. However, the best thing I read on this site was to just isolate the conclusion first and look for key language, such as "does not" or "is likely." Then jump to the answers and quickly dispense with answers that do not have the same conclusive reasoning. From there, it's usually down to only two-three answers that you have to slug through. Isolate the premises and make sure they support the conclusion the same exact way the stimulus does. The language is key again, just don't be fooled by premises and conclusions that look different but have the same meaning (like contrapositives).

Since I am usually trying to wrap up the section by the time I get here, I just focus on the similarities of the conclusions. Pay attention to words like "if" "does" "will" etc. as they become extremely important on these questions. The conclusion's purpose is what's most important. Think to yourself: is this predicting something, suggesting something, refuting a claim?From there, just make sure the premises match up and you're golden.

this makes the whole process alot easier. my strategy has been to skip PR questions because they are time consuming and then come back to them at the end but isolating the conclusion can help you eliminate about 2 or three of the answers and using indicators can usually get me to the corrects answer quite quickly 4 for 4 today thanks to it.

Much obliged.

[blhblahblah]

To say that "not all llamas smell bad" means both: some do, and some do not,

Small correction: to say that "not all llamas smell bad" guarantees that AT LEAST ONE does not smell bad, but does not guarantee that any or some of them smell bad; the latter may or may not be true.

Similarly, you could draw from "not all X's are Y's" that "no X's are Y's" or that "some X's are Y's", but it must be true that AT LEAST ONE X is not a Y.

[blhblahblah]

Some = 1-100
Not all = 0-99

[tram988]

Good tip Blah. That should help some people!

[cipnj718]

Hi guys...so for some reason I do really well in the LR with the first 17 questions...but 18-25/6...i get atleast half of them wrong!!...Mainly I have realized why I get those wrong is because one always is Parallel reasoning and another is Assumption question...The assumption that the author is making is hard to find when it deals with a question from the last few questions....Any special tricks that you can advise me on??....i know about the denial test...but when its harder questions, its harder to use the denial test!...please help!

[isaaca]

I recently realized this, but someone correct me if i'm wrong.

When the answer choice contains an if/then statement, it is almost always (99%) wrong EXCEPT in assumption questions. So, in any other question types, it won't fly...