Improvement

[LawLover]

I have read the Logical Reasoning Bible. I have even memorized the wrong answer types for certain questions. I have also memorized the types of correct answers for certain types of questions. I have basically memorized the entire book. I know the LSAT is not a memorization test. I have even gone over previously taken tests by trying to validly show myself why wrong answers are deemed incorrect and why correct answers are correct. I am still not getting better at this section. How do I improve my success in this section of the LSAT? How do I get better at the logical reasoning part of the test? Am I going over previously taken tests wrong? I am worried I am never going to get better on this section. Any advice helps. Any ideas help.

[Dave Killoran]

Hi LawLover,

Thanks for the message! Yes, you are right that the LSAT is not a test of memorization, but that doesn't mean memorization is unhelpful. It will unquestionably help you to know things like each flaw, lists of indicators, common wrong answers, etc. But, after that, it's a matter of application and speed of recognition. If I give you a problem to look at, how fast can you break it down? do you see all those indicators and instantly know what's the conclusion is, etc? If a flaw is present, how long does it take to recognize it? Those steps will solve a lot of questions pretty quickly (June 2018 is pure proof of that; there are numerous LR questions on that test which are straight off the cookie-cutter assembly line of LSAT logic). Those are the questions you make time on, which you need for the harder questions, the ones where they manipulate what you think you know vs what they are doing. There are plenty of those on the J18 exam as well, and that's where people either made their score or were hurt.

With the above mind, tell me how you are going over each LR question. What's your exact process, and what do you think you are looking for?

Thanks!

[LawLover]

Dave,
What exactly are you asking? Do you want me to basically give you a certain type of question, and tell you how I approach it and select the answer I think is right? Is that what you are asking?

lawlover

[LawLover]

Dave,
I will give you two examples of how I approach logical reasoning questions on the LSAT. Using PrepTest 20 section 1. I will start with the first question because I ended up getting it wrong.

The first thing I do is read the stimulus. The next thing I do is read the question stem. From that I recognize that the question is a most strongly supported. I automatically know that this question type falls within the first family question type and so I am looking for an answer that passes the fact test. So, I am trying to avoid could be/possibly true answers, extreme answers, new information answers, shell game, opposite answers, and revers answers.

So, then I read each answer choice, and from there I read each answer choice crossing off answers that do not come from information in the stimulus. But I still end up picking out the wrong answers.

Moving on to question two of that section. I read the stimulus. Realizing that this is an argument. I identify the conclusion of the argument.

I then go on to the question stem, and I see that it is a weaken question. From there I realize that I am automatically avoiding opposite answers, shell game, and out of scope answer.

But I am looking for in the argument incomplete information, inaccurate comparisons, and overly broad conclusions. So, I read each answer choice throwing out the losers and picking the strongest contender, and it ends up being wrong.

Is this what you are looking for Dave?

[Adam Tyson]

I'll pop in here, LawLover,if you don't mind, and say there is a fairly large gap in your process. That missing step is what we here at PowerScore call "prephrasing" - determining what the correct answer should say, or do, or contain BEFORE you look at any answer choices. Prephrasing is what distinguishes top LSAT takers from everyone else, and the folks who are performing at the highest levels on this test are doing it every. single. time.

Using the first question that you referenced, here's what that process should look like:

1. Read the stimulus, notice there is no argument, anticipate a Must Be True or similar question.

2. Read the stem, and confirm that it is a Most Strongly Supported question, which is a sub-category of Must Be True, so I know that I need to draw an inference based on what I read, with no outside information or assumptions on my part.

3. PREPHRASE! What can I infer from this cave that is completely full of water that has stalagmites, which had to have been formed by water dripping from ceiling to floor? (and by the way, I visualize this to help myself. In my mind I see scuba divers in a cave full of water, with stalagmites. These divers may or may not be wearing berets and carrying baguettes.) If the cave is full of water, but the stalagmites were formed from dripping water, then it must be that at some point in the past the cave was NOT full of water! Otherwise, how would the water drip? Okay, I have a prephrase and I head to the answers.

4. Sort losers and contenders, using my prephrase as my guide. A looks backwards - I want LESS water in the cave, and a higher sea level seems to suggest the opposite, maybe. Loser. B looks perfect - contender! C - no idea who first knew about the tunnel, the stimulus said nothing about that and it has nothing to do with my prephrase. Loser. Same with D - I have no idea about past entrances, only that there is currently just the one. Loser. E is new info, too - I don't know anything about the portion of mineral content, only that at some point water dripped and left minerals behind. Loser.

5. Select answer B! It's my only contender, and a perfect match for my prephrase, so I am confident and waste no time thinking about it. On to the next question!

That extra step, prephrasing, will protect you from picking attractive wrong answers, will help you quickly eliminate losers, and even though it may take a moment at the front end of the process will almost always save you time in the sorting and selecting. You'll likely go faster and with greater accuracy. Give it a try! Do batch of 25 or so questions in a row where you refuse to look at any answers until you have a solid prephrase in mind, no matter how long it takes. Use conditional diagrams when appropriate, notice causal arguments, identify conclusions, flaws, etc., all before you start perusing answers.

Let us know how that goes! I think you'll be pleasantly surprised at what a difference it makes. Good luck!

[LawLover]

Adam,
I did forget to put "prephrase" in my explanation before I go to the answer choices. Now I will be honest here sometimes I try to think of a "prephrase", and sometimes I do not. I think for me I have this idea that if the stimulus is to complicated, confusing, or long then I tend to not prephrase an answer. I do need to get used to doing it all the time. Sometimes I prephrase, and other times I do not.

LawLover