Having a correct habit as my second- hand nature system

[lathlee]

Dear Lsat tutors,

every time i do prep questions, then do the trouble shooting for the incorrect questions, half of the questions to 2/3 questions that i got wrong in first place, most notably logical reasoning sections, i realize that i could have gotten them correctly in first place if i solved them using primary objective (tm) techniques properly and all of them. But sometimes out of general fear and fear out of running out of time, there are many times I just skip a stage to couple stages then just blindly jump in after reading a question stem and question, then gets bombed. I know in my brain and in rational sense that i need to use primary objective techniques but in reality, it is really hard and simply do every single time.

is there any effective strategy that any LSAT tutors or users of this website used in order to drill in primary objective techniques in one's arsenal always, every-time,all occasions as in of my hereditary nature?

[Nikki Siclunov]

Hi lathlee,

You ask an interesting question, and, in fact, may have already answered it yourself. They key, as you astutely point out, is to automate what you "know in [your] brain and in rational sense": the execution of the Primary Objecties needs to become a natural, almost instinctual response to the stimulus. You shouldn't have to think consciously about each and every step of the process. Rather, you should make this process into a habit.

The first step is to recognize the problem (which you have). The second is to practice, practice, practice in order to fix it. Habits don't form overnight: they require diligence and motivation. To help you out, here's how I'd downsize the Primary Objectives into 4 simple steps:

• 1. Read the stimulus
  1.1. If it contains an argument, what's the conclusion? Do you think it's weak/strong? (Hint: it's usually quite weak)
  1.2. If fact set, move to step 2.
  
  2. Read and ID the question stem
  
  3. Prephrase.
  3.1. If the stem is in the Help/Hurt families, return to the argument and figure out what's wrong with the conclusion. Then prephrase an answer as per the stem.
  3.2. If the stem is in the Prove family, put the facts together and come up with a conclusion on your own. Use this as your prephrase.
  
  4. Read the answer choices.
  4.1. Isolate the contenders from the losers. Know exactly why the losers are wrong.
  4.2. If multiple contenders remain, compare them using any applicable techniques (Prove Test, Assumption Negation Technique, Justify Formula, etc.).

Remember: any significant improvement in LR will require you to do thousands of questions. You can't possibly break them all down to such level of detail. This is fine to do now, while you're still mastering the technique, but I want you to think of the Primary Objectives the way you think about, say, your morning ritual: you wake up, turn the coffee machine on, take a shower, crack two eggs in the skillet (or whatever). The point is, you don't consciously think about every step of the way: you just do them mechanistically. The same should eventually happen with the Primary Objectives: they should become habit-forming after awhile.

Hope this helps!

Thanks,

[lathlee]

This was tremendous help but one small tweet like a question. If the stimulus contains only a fact set, shouldn't i examine all the facts/only the premises and identity how each facts influence , impact, know precisely what it means before i read the question stem then proceed to prephrasing ?

also, 3.2. If the stem is in the Prove family, put the facts together and come up with a conclusion on your own. Use this as your prephrase.

when I come up with my own conclusion, do i need to include the conclusions of argument, if there is a conclusion, when I come up with my own conclusion?

also, i am just making sure, when you said "come up with my own conclusion" you mean the concluding statements of this fact set/ arguments or conclusion as there must be "this question is asking this, therefore there must be this flaw/opening/" in here, sense?

[Nikki Siclunov]

Lathlee,

See my responses below.

f the stimulus contains only a fact set, shouldn't i examine all the facts/only the premises and identity how each facts influence , impact, know precisely what it means before i read the question stem then proceed to prephrasing ?

That's exactly what I meant - you need to know what the facts state. No more, no less. The trick is not to get bogged down in minutiae. This is, after all, an open-book test. You can refer back to the stimulus if/when necessary to prove an answer.

also, 3.2. If the stem is in the Prove family, put the facts together and come up with a conclusion on your own. Use this as your prephrase.

when I come up with my own conclusion, do i need to include the conclusions of argument, if there is a conclusion, when I come up with my own conclusion?

A stimulus that only contains a fact set does not, by definition, contain a conclusion. It's up to you to try and make a reasonable conclusion on the basis of these facts.

also, i am just making sure, when you said "come up with my own conclusion" you mean the concluding statements of this fact set/ arguments or conclusion as there must be "this question is asking this, therefore there must be this flaw/opening/" in here, sense?

I wasn't able to follow your last question, but I believe I answered it above. If the stimulus contains a bunch of facts and no conclusion, generally it's a good idea to think about what these facts suggest/entail. The conclusion (or inference) you can make on the basis of these facts represents a powerful prephrase when attacking MBT questions. If the stimulus already contains a conclusion, and you're still dealing with a MBT question, then don't worry about coming up with another conclusion: just know what the argument is, and proceed by the process of elimination applying the Fact Test to each and every answer choice.

Hope this clears it up!

Thanks,