Hi Zestor,
Thanks for the message! Okay, it seems you've gotten off-track a bit in understanding what we've been talking about in the book. Let me try to help you out here, and to do that I'm first going to start with the biggest picture elements in your post.
Zestor wrote:I am always on the lookout for premise/conclusions first, but I cannot say I am comfortable in realizing when they are present/not present.
You should always be looking for these things, so that's good! Most LR questions are arguments, meaning there is a conclusion. Try to find it! Of course, some are Fact Sets, and there is no conclusion there. the lack of a conclusion is the tipoff.
But more broadly, you know where conclusions are in real life—you identify them every day just to operate normally; on the LSAT they just hide them a bit more slickly (and on purpose). So, always ask yourself: why was this written? What's the point being made? That point is the conclusion of the argument.
Zestor wrote:I look for the indicator words, and I literally try to diagram everything in terms of formal logic - often times not realizing what on earth is present in the question.
This is where I knew you were running into issues. Not everything can be diagrammed (or should be) and the logic formations you mention don't appear in many questions. So, for you to attempt to apply this approach will be frustrating since it will only work sometimes.
Think about it this way: the LSAT presents and tests many different forms of logic, and so you need to recognize those ideas and use different tools to attack them. Certain concepts (conditionality being a great example) show up frequently, and this is why I use the air-traffic controller analogy in terms of dealing with a concept such as that: worry about it
when it appears on your radar, otherwise ignore it. By comparison, formal logic doesn't appear all that much, so I don't "look" for it per se, I just react when I see it. Otherwise it's not in my mind.
Some concepts do appear a lot, but once handling these ideas is second nature you have the ability to recognize when they will be critical to the solution. It sounds like this is where you are hitting issues, so here are some links to get you started on thinking about how all this works:
Zestor wrote:I try to diagram any statements with 'ifs' into conditional statements, etc. but I just dont feel comfortable with my knowledge base whatsoever.
See those links above, especially LSAT Conditional Reasoning: When To Diagram. Most "ifs" are no big deal at all and don't require diagramming!!
Zestor wrote:A big source of confusion is the question types and formal logic/cause + effect/(I looked at ahead to see whats in the bible) principle layer that I will be facing.
I'm not following you here, to be honest. First, don't worry about [principles until you hit them. All they do is "broaden the question stem but you are still doing the same underlying function (Strengthen, Weaken, etc) .You are borrowing tomorrow's troubles for today by worrying about them
Second, some questions do have those relationships in them, but there are questions of
every single type that do NOT. your job is to be the air traffic controller who sees when they are present (which starts with indicators words, but over time should grow into you simply knowing what causality, for example, "sounds" like (namely that one thing makes another happen)).
Zestor wrote:I have no clue why I cannot organize this section well in my head. Please help.
Go back to the Primary Objectives earlier in the book and review them. They give you a template for approaching each problem!
In brief, specifically for you:
* Read the stimulus; is there an argument present? If so, what's the conclusion and premises? If no conclusion is present, expect a Must/Cannot/Resolve question.
* Is there any type of obvious flaw or logic present? If so, what is it (this is the air-traffic controller role)? You've seen many example throughout the LRB, and that's a great starting point for recognizing a lot of the issues they present to you.
* If you do see something notable/recognizable, do you want or need to diagram it? Usually the answer is no; diagramming is only useful
when it helps you better understand what they wrote. If it's not going to help or you don't need it, don't do it! For example, you could diagram every sentence in this paragraph, but do you need to in order to understand each one? I doubt it
That's a start. Thanks and please let me know if this helps!
I)