Clarification on missing stimulus info

[Fluffy110]

Thanks in advance for addressing this question.

I've just started the program (on-demand), yet I'm finding myself getting frustrated already. I've completed mod-1 and completed the homework in LR. The class explicitly discussed the need to think "inside the box," but I'm finding that there are a number of questions that have answers with elements found nowhere in the stimulus. For example: The HW question about testing makeup on animals vs human cells. NOWHERE in the stimulus is anything having to do with Company Managers, yet they are referred to in the correct answer somehow.

In the spirit of full disclosure, I took the initial exam this morning and scored a 144. If that wasn't hard enough to swallow, I'm now finding even more frustration in trying to understand the most effective and efficient way of finding the right answers.

Thank you in advance for any clarification, help, or suggestions you have.

-Darren

PS: If you could show me an example of prephrasing at it pertains to a stimulus, that would be incredibly helpful. I have a terrible habit of over analyzing/overthinking to a fault as evidenced by my initial score.

[Robert Carroll]

Darren,

The explanation for that particular question is here: https://forum.powerscore.com/lsat/viewtopic.php?t=8806

It's a good example of a Most Strongly Supported question, where the answer doesn't have to follow with 100% certainty, but a somewhat lesser degree. Those can be tough questions because the answer will involve a little additional assumption, but that assumption should be modest. The wrong answers will all involve much more substantial logical leaps, while the correct answer will be a reasonable inference from the stimulus.

Stick with it! You'll get a lot more comfortable with the nature of the test the further you proceed in the on-demand program.

To your PS, prephrasing is a method of predicting the answer to a question, so it requires attacking the stimulus, reading the question, and then trying to address what that question is asking in your own words. In the example we're discussing here, the second sentence of the stimulus is what I'd probably focus on for a prephrase. The firms are arguing that a certain method will obviate the need to test on live animals. My thought would be something like "They must think avoiding animal testing is important." After all, if they're arguing that the new method will reduce the need for an old method, the only reason they'd think that argument would get off the ground is if they thought the old method was a bad thing. So my prephrase for the Most Strongly Supported question may be "Firms try to avoid live animal testing if they can," or something similar. It seems a reasonable inference from the stimulus. It would be odd if they acted and argued in a way contrary to what they thought their interests were, so I'm going to infer that their interests are to avoid live animal testing.

The nature of a prephrase is determined by the question type you're dealing with. As you'll see later in the course, other question types require different prephrases because the questions are asking different things. For a Weaken question, I want to understand the argument given, figure out why it's not perfect, and then think of new information that would make it worse. So, for a Weaken prephrase, new info is ok. For a Must Be True, Most Strongly Supported, or Main Point question (the types you saw in lesson 1), I want to think "inside the box", as you said, and not bring in new information.

The course will cover this, so, as I said, stick with it and keep asking questions on the forum as they come up!

Robert Carroll

[Fluffy110]

Robert,

I can't thank you enough for your response. The clarification you gave in regards to prephrasing is exactly what I was was trying to understand. So if I'm seeing it correctly, I'm prephrasing the conclusion of the stimulus and manipulating it based on the question type. Is that correct?

As I told Victoria today on the phone, I don't have that thing that allows me to see what's not in front of me. If we went to an art gallery and looked at the painting of a house, while most would see some meaning or hidden something in the painting, I would see a house, lol... BUT, having things explained like you did is a HUGE help.

Thank you again.

-Darren

[Jeremy Press]

Hi Darren,

I think you're on the right track, but I would want you to be careful that you're doing what Robert modeled in his answer: read the stimulus, then read the question stem, then formulate your prephrase. In other words, the question stem should inform your prephrase. If the question stem is a "Must Be True," then both my prephrase and the correct answer choice should be inferences I can conclude with complete certainty from the information in the stimulus. So when I'm prephrasing, I expect to find some information in the stimulus that I can rely on to make a highly certain conclusion/inference. If the question stem is a "Most Strongly Supported," then both my prephrase and the correct answer should be inferences I can draw with the greatest degree of certainty from the information in the stimulus. Because of this slightly lower "standard of proof," I'll prephrase the best I can. But I'll also be more "open" than I might be in a Must Be True question to choosing an answer choice that doesn't precisely match my prephrase. Since the standard of proof is slightly lower, they might throw in a term (like company managers, on this question) that didn't immediately occur to me. And I'll know that's okay. That's how you'll be able to avoid locking yourself into too tight a box on the Most Strongly Supported form of question. Make sense?

I hope this helps!

Jeremy