Hi there,
the problem i have is that for assumption questions, whenever i find the gap after reading the stimulus, i sorta block all other answers i'm reading and am inclined to reject them a priori. is that dangerous? my mind just goes to tunnel visioning mode and shoot straight for the answer that shows the gap. and this leads me to this nagging feeling that i might be wrong and i don't have the time to crush every wrong answer choice by thinking it through because of time. how can i overcome this? should i individually think through every question and give a solid on why it is wrong? or do i not care and just go straight to the answer?
also for strengthen/weaken, i am NEVER 100% sure i got the question correct because some answers (which have no effect) just nags my mind and tells me that maybe i overlooked how these no-effect answers?
LSAT Forum
2 postsPage 1 of 1
-
- rosemerrychill
-
Thanks Received: 0
- Forum Guests
- Posts: 4
- Joined: December 13th, 2012
-
- ohthatpatrick
-
Thanks Received: 3808
-
Atticus Finch
- Posts: 4661
- Joined: April 01st, 2011
- This post thanked 1 time.
Re: confidence issues
For me, within LR, there are three types of situations:
- answers you can precisely predict
- answers you can only kinda predict in a fuzzy, functional way
- answers you can't predict
Necessary Assumption falls into both of the first two categories. Keep in mind that the correct answer to Necessary Assumption is either Providing a Missing Logical Link (these are ones we can precisely predict) or Ruling Out a Potential Objection (these are ones we can only predict in a fuzzy way.
It's not like you know for sure, as you read the stimulus, whether the answer will provide connective tissue or rule out an objection, but your instincts can get better the more you start thinking in these terms.
Generally, Nec Assump questions that involve "symbol repetition" (i.e. A is B. Therefore, A is C) are going to just want that typical missing link we can predict. [note: Sufficient Assumption is almost exclusively like this]
In these cases, I, like you, get pretty aggressive about just scanning the answer choices looking for the link I know we need.
When Nec Assump deals with more real world type situations ... Solving a Problem, Explaining a Phenomenon (Causality), Interpreting a Statistic, etc., then I don't expect an answer I can precisely predict. I just predict functional answers: the answer will rule out a way the solution will backfire ... the answer will rule out an alternative cause or reverse causality ... the answer will rule out an alternative interpretation of the statistic.
So I think you're correct to be aggressive when the question type and stimulus lend themselves to making specific predictions, but you should definitely not think that most of LR works that way. Our goal is to take advantage of the predictable answers so that we have a cushion of time for other questions in which we DO need to evaluate all five answers.
NOTE: this advice is mainly catered to experienced LSAT students ... when you start out studying for this test, you normally need to analyze all the answers ... as you get better at understanding LSAT patterns, you'll be able to correctly anticipate more answers, at which point you can start more actively seeking out the ideas you want.
I feel you when it comes to Strengthen/Weaken. They are the questions I'm most likely to get wrong because the correct answers don't "lock-in" with that same sense of certainty that other answer choices do. That's just the nature of the beast. Make sure you're still thinking through the argument in terms of missing links and possible objections ... most correct Str/Weak answers just find some way of alluding to a missing link or possible objection. And don't let yourself read too much into answers that are really neutral ... although we normally have to supply one mini-step of common sense to relate the answer choice to the argument, we should NOT be bringing in any "what if" type ideas that involve extraneous assumptions on our part.
Let's end with this ... here's a rough breakdown of how predictable I think the various question types are:
- answers you can precisely predict
Sufficient Assumption (almost always)
Main Conclusion
Principle Justify
Necessary Assumption (~half the time)
Role of the Claim
Flaw (~half the time)
Describe the Response/Method/Technique
Identify the Disagreement
- answers you can only kinda predict in a fuzzy, functional way
Nec Assump
Flaw
Strengthen
Weaken
Match the Reasoning
Match the Flaw
Inference
- answers you can't really predict
Resolve/Explain
Apply the Principle
Hope this helps.
- answers you can precisely predict
- answers you can only kinda predict in a fuzzy, functional way
- answers you can't predict
Necessary Assumption falls into both of the first two categories. Keep in mind that the correct answer to Necessary Assumption is either Providing a Missing Logical Link (these are ones we can precisely predict) or Ruling Out a Potential Objection (these are ones we can only predict in a fuzzy way.
It's not like you know for sure, as you read the stimulus, whether the answer will provide connective tissue or rule out an objection, but your instincts can get better the more you start thinking in these terms.
Generally, Nec Assump questions that involve "symbol repetition" (i.e. A is B. Therefore, A is C) are going to just want that typical missing link we can predict. [note: Sufficient Assumption is almost exclusively like this]
In these cases, I, like you, get pretty aggressive about just scanning the answer choices looking for the link I know we need.
When Nec Assump deals with more real world type situations ... Solving a Problem, Explaining a Phenomenon (Causality), Interpreting a Statistic, etc., then I don't expect an answer I can precisely predict. I just predict functional answers: the answer will rule out a way the solution will backfire ... the answer will rule out an alternative cause or reverse causality ... the answer will rule out an alternative interpretation of the statistic.
So I think you're correct to be aggressive when the question type and stimulus lend themselves to making specific predictions, but you should definitely not think that most of LR works that way. Our goal is to take advantage of the predictable answers so that we have a cushion of time for other questions in which we DO need to evaluate all five answers.
NOTE: this advice is mainly catered to experienced LSAT students ... when you start out studying for this test, you normally need to analyze all the answers ... as you get better at understanding LSAT patterns, you'll be able to correctly anticipate more answers, at which point you can start more actively seeking out the ideas you want.
I feel you when it comes to Strengthen/Weaken. They are the questions I'm most likely to get wrong because the correct answers don't "lock-in" with that same sense of certainty that other answer choices do. That's just the nature of the beast. Make sure you're still thinking through the argument in terms of missing links and possible objections ... most correct Str/Weak answers just find some way of alluding to a missing link or possible objection. And don't let yourself read too much into answers that are really neutral ... although we normally have to supply one mini-step of common sense to relate the answer choice to the argument, we should NOT be bringing in any "what if" type ideas that involve extraneous assumptions on our part.
Let's end with this ... here's a rough breakdown of how predictable I think the various question types are:
- answers you can precisely predict
Sufficient Assumption (almost always)
Main Conclusion
Principle Justify
Necessary Assumption (~half the time)
Role of the Claim
Flaw (~half the time)
Describe the Response/Method/Technique
Identify the Disagreement
- answers you can only kinda predict in a fuzzy, functional way
Nec Assump
Flaw
Strengthen
Weaken
Match the Reasoning
Match the Flaw
Inference
- answers you can't really predict
Resolve/Explain
Apply the Principle
Hope this helps.
2 posts Page 1 of 1