LSAT and Law School Admissions Forum

Get expert LSAT preparation and law school admissions advice from PowerScore Test Preparation.

General questions relating to LSAT Reading Comprehension.
 ronnieronnie
  • Posts: 16
  • Joined: Jan 24, 2012
|
#3467
I am having trouble getting the abstract questions correct in the Reading Comprehension section. I try to treat them as parallel questions, but locating important words in the answer choices is not helping me get the correct answer. For example I was working on the June 2003 Reading Comp. section and question 23 in the last passage was an analogy question but all of the answer choices had important or essential in them and that was the trigger word I prephased. How do I get more accurate with these abstract analogy questions?

Help please!
Ronnie
 Nikki Siclunov
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 1362
  • Joined: Aug 02, 2011
|
#3482
Hello Ronnie,

You can attack questions such as Q. 23 on June'03 in the same exact way as you do Parallel Reasoning questions in LR. Your job is to understand, above all else, the structure of the original argument and look for the same structure in one of the answer choices. Looking for the "same words" is often not enough. You need to understand the relationship between the premises and the conclusion and focus on replicating the same relationship in the correct answer choice. In this particular question, you need to parallel the comparison between the original significance of details to the witnesses vs. their possible significance in the courtroom. The example provided at the end of the passage can also prove exceptionally useful.

Go back to the Elemental Attack section in our discussion of Parallel Reasoning questions in LR and see how that would apply here. Make sure to match not only the conclusions but also the premises to the correct answer. The Test of Abstraction is especially helpful method for solving some of the more difficult questions of this type. In the passage, the author argued that minor details are usually unimportant to a witness at the time of an armed robbery and are easily forgotten. These same details, however, can later prove crucial in establishing the identity of the perpetrator. In other words (and this is the Test of Abstraction), a minor detail is often considered unimportant in one situation, but it can prove crucial in another. Do you see which of the five answer choices best matches that prephrase?

Good luck!

Get the most out of your LSAT Prep Plus subscription.

Analyze and track your performance with our Testing and Analytics Package.