I have hit a road block on my score

[ebertasi]

Hey, thank you for the detailed responses and suggestions.

As far as SN, I usually see the reasoning structure, but often, because there are no SN indicators, I have trouble diagramming (in my head or on paper) the reasoning. I just have a hard time seeing which one is the sufficient condition without having an indicator. The same then goes for the answer choices, and together, these questions can really eat up time. (When there is a parallel flaw question with a considerable amount of conditional reasoning, they are usually terrible, unless I have indicators)

As far as CE, a lot of times I just completely miss the reasoning in the argument. I think that this may be a significant factor in my troubles with strengthen and weaken questions.

Regarding, strengthen and weaken questions, I am usually pretty good about picking out the conclusion in an argument and other argument parts, and I am consistent at answering method and method-AP questions correctly. When I do miss a method-AP questions, I think it is usually because of misunderstanding what the answer choice is referring to (answer choices with odd language I guess). If I ever doubt myself, I can usually stick in premise and conclusion indicators to make sure and that works for me. On a side note, figuring out whether an argument is valid or invalid is not typically something that I do or can do easily, unless the argument is pretty simple. However, I can typically answer flaw in the reasoning questions well. Parallel flaw questions, especially those with SN reasoning do give me trouble, mainly just time consuming)

I will usually read through the entire stimulus before I decide to skip a question. However, if it is a parallel flaw or parallel question in general, I usually just skip over it at first glance because they are usually easy to spot within the first second you look at it.

In reference to reading the stimulus, I think you are right that i try to get every detail out of it that I can. I will try to experiment with moving on to the answer choices with a little bit of uncertainty. As far as diagramming, I don't diagram really at all right now, except for, I do always pick out the conclusion and bracket it. I asked this question in my previous post in reference to mostly key words. I think I am missing questions because I am glossing over key words like each, any, every, some, etc. So, I thought that if i circled those as I went along it might help. However, I think that may add some seconds to the time it takes me to read the stimulus. Also, I find a lot that I "mouth" or say in my head what I am reading. This is not something I normally do when I am reading, but I am not sure if this is good or bad or if it really matters.

In reference to RC, I think that you are correct in saying that I am reading for to much detail. However, I am able to read and diagram most passages in 3:15. But I do find that when I get to the end of the passage I am not good at coming up with the main point. Although I usually get main point questions correct in reading comp, I tend to go through the answer choices looking for the correct answer rather than eliminating loser answer choices, which I think is a problem. I will give your suggestions a try and see how that changes things. Would it be useful to briefly stop and think about what each paragraph says in between the paragraphs? Also, would it be useful in the long run to make any written notes other than the VIEWSTAMP notations?

Thank you again for taking the time to write all this and give me suggestions on how to improve. I really appreciate it. I hope I answered all your questions.

[ebertasi]

Hi, sorry to keep bombarding you with posts, but I have some more information to add since yesterday.

I took the June 2011 PT today and scored a 163. I performed the same on LR and LG, but I did improve on RC which is where the score jump came from. I tried to take a step back from the details while I was reading and I think it did help me to relax and take in more of the main point and different perspectives overall.

Regarding the SN and CE questions on LR, 8 out of the 12 questions I got wrong from both sections, 4 were SN and 4 were CE. The same issue I described above happened again I think.

I have a question about number 14 on the June 2011 test. I picked B, although I was hesitant about the word "skeptics," because nothing else seemed correct at all. I see why B is wrong because it is talking about skeptics, and Waller only talks about the general public, but I can't really wrap my head around why D is the correct answer.

Thanks again! I really appreciate your time and help.

[Steve Stein]

Hi,

I think Dave's going to respond to your other questions, so I'll limit my comments to the question from the June test (congrats on the score increase!)

In that one, Waller, the skeptic, does not believe in extrasensory perception. If ESP existed, Waller argues, people would be able to become rich and famous by proving its existence, and it would be generally accepted by the public.

Chin disagrees, saying that skeptics will never be satisfied. As long as the “cultural elite” remain close-minded to the possibility of its existence, the media and the public will remain skeptical.

So, Waller thinks that if ESP existed, it would be accepted by the public. Since it is not generally accepted, Waller is a skeptic. Chin believes that the public’s skepticism is irrelevant--the public and the media are just skeptical because of the elites’ closed-mindedness.

The stimulus is followed by a Point at Issue question, so the right answer choice will brek down the basic disagreement:

Waller thinks that public skepticism disproves the existence of ESP, and Chin thinks public skepticism is irrelevant.

To further confirm the correct answer to a Point at Issue question, apply the Agree/Disagree Test: One of the speakers will agree with the correct answer choice, and the other will disagree.

Answer choice B may be somewhat enticing, because Chin begins with the point that one can’t demonstrate anything to the point at which all skeptics are satisfied. The problem with this answer choice is that Waller doesn’t comment on this prospect of demonstrating something to the satisfaction of all critics--Waller’s comments are based on the lack of general acceptance among the public.

Answer D is the correct answer choice, as prephrased above. To confirm this as the right answer, it passes the Agree/Disagree Test: Waller would agree with this statement, arguing that public skepticism disproves the existence of ESP. Chin would disagree, arguing that public skepticism is irrelevant.

Let me know whether that clears this one up--thanks!

~Steve

[Dave Killoran]

Hey Elliot,

Thanks for the added information. First off, I'm stoked that you saw a small bump in your RC score. Given that that was your first application of the idea, I think that's a good sign. Let's keep experimenting with that and see if we can't jump up even higher once you are more comfortable with that approach.

Getting everything read within 3:15 is fine (although I'd love to see you under 3 minutes for your scoring range), but coming out of that reading period without knowing the Main Point is not acceptable. I don't want you to stop and review the passage after reading; what I want you to do instead is recalibrate what you are looking for when reading. Hopefully, by dropping the focus on seeing every detail, you can step back a bit and become better at figuring our what the author is really driving at. I often use a forest/trees analogy to help explain how this works: if you read for extreme detail in RC, then it's like being up close to a number of trees in the forest but not being able to see where everything is or how it is shaped. Yes, you can get the details, but you can't see the overall size of the forest, where certain trees are, what types of trees, patterns, etc. You also end up learning a bunch of stuff that often never comes up again. However, if you can get a bigger picture view of the forest, then you can quickly find all those details when they are needed. up until now, you have been reading these passages like you are standing right up against the tree. Let's work away from that approach so you can see how that tree fits in the whole forest. I'm certain that will pay dividends for you.

More on LR coming in a bit...

[Dave Killoran]

On to LR...

Ok, let's take that general approach of reading more broadly over to LR as well. Based on what you're telling me, I think it will benefit you both in the time spent reading and in reducing the mental fatigue you must be enduring through the test. However, we're going to have to retain some detail knowledge here (but not all of it!) because the passages are so short.

Insofar as marking the keywords, try it for a bit and see what you think. Instead of circling, go for an underline instead. As small as a difference as that is, it will save just a bit of time, and we know every second counts. To be honest, my actual hope here is that once you do this for a while, your mind will become attuned to seeing those words as critical, and you'll be able to stop marking each word and still have it stand out to you. With the general reading of the passages, if you can, try to stop "mouthing" the passages--it just slows you down and has no added value to the process.

Let's hit some of the specific reasoning/question type issues now. I'm going to start with SN because I'm concerned by some of what you've told me. When the indicators are there, you seem solid. When the indicators aren't present, it's trouble. That suggests to me that while you are versed in the mechanics of the concept, you aren't entirely certain of how all the pieces fit together. So, I'll ask you this question: what do you think the relationship is between the two conditions? I don't want the logical definition, but rather how you react when presented with the idea--how would you describe it to your roommate, for example?

With CE, I'm wondering, do you see the keywords in the same manner that you see the SN keywords? Or is it possible that we might be in the same position as with SN? Let me know what you think on this.

With Strengthen/Weaken, it is likely that your CE troubles account for part of this, but only part. Usually when students have trouble with these two question types, it's all about the conclusion. You are rightly identifying the conclusion each time, but are you really using that as the focus when you answer the question? So often when people miss these questions they get pulled off the line of the conclusion by a well-constructed answer choice (my favorite example of all-time for this is the Beverage Company Director question from the first Weaken lesson).

Finally, you mention that "figuring out whether an argument is valid or invalid is not typically something that I do or can do easily, unless the argument is pretty simple." I'm actually thinking you are probably wrong about this Flaw in the Reasoning questions are all about understanding validity errors, and it's unlikely that you could knock out a 163 if you had a hard time with this. So, I'm going to leave that unaddressed for now.

Actually, one last point. You said, "I will usually read through the entire stimulus before I decide to skip a question." I don't love this because it's a total loss as far as an investment. The goal would be that, if you were ultimately going to skip a question, to be able to determine that earlier in the stimulus, say after a line or two. However, the SN/CE issues may play into this a bit, so we'll see once I hear back from you about those issues.

Thanks!

[ebertasi]

When I see conditional reasoning in a stimulus, and I don't see any indicators, I guess I try to figure out what the requirement is first. I try to figure out what has to be there in order for the conditional reasoning to work. If I described it to someone I guess I would say that the relationship is that the sufficient condition is dependent upon whether or not the necessary condition occurs. I am really not sure how else to describe it.

As far as cause and effect, I think I just completely miss it a lot of times when it is in the stimulus, even with the indicators. I do know the indicators listed in the book, but somehow I just gloss over them. Regarding the CE relationship, I understand that in an LSAT argument, if there is CE, then the author believes that he has ruled out every other cause there could be. I also know the list of 5 things to look for when weakening or strengthening a causal relationship.

I remember the Beverage Company Director and the plastic rings, I actually answered that question correct However, I can see my self losing sight of the conclusion on questions with shell game answers. I probably just need to be more conscious of that when I run into Strengthen and Weaken questions. Could I say that if the answer choice is not attacking or strengthening the conclusion directly I should probably have second thoughts about that answer?

When I mentioned the valid or invalid, wheat I mean is I don't really consciously think about it after I read the stimulus. Also, do you have any advice for prephrasing? I seem to have difficulty with that.

Thank for letting me know about not trying to read the whole stimulus. I often feel as though I am one of those people that when I start reading it I have to finish it and the same goes for trying to knock out two contenders. I know if I can't knock it out I should probably just move on and come back later. Thanks for the advice! I'll work on that.

[ebertasi]

One other thing,

"No lawyer can be found at the park" would be diagrammed, L P?
"No lawyers are fisherman" would be diagrammed, L F?

Thanks for the clarification!

Also, Steve, thank you for detailing question 14. It makes more sense now. However, if that were on a test again, I am not sure I would get it right in the moment. None of the answers are very appealing.

[Dave Killoran]

Hey Elliot,

With conditionality, you have the general idea. I always simplify it to two things:

Necessary: the thing that has to happen
Sufficient: if this thing happens, something else happens too (but that doesn't means it causes it)

The indicators are a great way to start learning conditionality, especially because they often help overcome the "real world perspective" that people often try to apply to these ideas. I don't even think about the real world; I just look at what the author said. In this way, you start to realize that there are tons of "indicators" out there. Anything with the idea of "must" or "have to" or "need" etc automatically becomes conditional. In one respect, this is why we want people to do so many LSAT questions--so they can see the various ways this type of idea is conveyed.

With causality, this statement you made says it all: "I do know the indicators listed in the book, but somehow I just gloss over them." You need to take a moment before starting the next LSAT LR section and mentally commit to really seeing those words when they appear. In your mind, they should appear in flashing neon red. If you don't, you're just giving away points and time.

For this question, "Could I say that if the answer choice is not attacking or strengthening the conclusion directly I should probably have second thoughts about that answer? " The answer is yes, be very wary. But don't forget that a lot of ideas are "umbrellas," where broader statements can imply other ideas that fall under their "umbrella."

With prephrasing, my colleague Jon made a series of posts about that on our blog that I'd suggest you check out:

http://blog.powerscore.com/lsat/the-fun ... ng-part-i/
http://blog.powerscore.com/lsat/the-fun ... g-part-ii/

And last, yes, you have the right diagrams for those two conditional statements--good work!

[ebertasi]

Hey Dave,

Another 163 today. Performed the same on logic games and on logical reasoning. 7 questions wrong in each section in LR, even though I thought I performed a lot better on one of the sections Reading Comprehension was again better than it has been in the past so that is good! Thank you so much for all your advice, I think I just need to keep practicing what we have talked about and I am optimistic I can get that 165 and improve some on LR. I read the blog on prephrasing, so I think I will give that a few practice runs as well.

Thank you for all your help, Powerscore has been great.