Subscription pricing
I'm finding a pattern where the questions I mostly get wrong are inference and flaw, more so inference however.
I don't have a problem diagramming (at least I think I don't) but I seem to be misunderstanding the questions a lot!
What do you guys suggest? Am I overthinking the questions, how can I improve in these two types of questions?
Thanks!
0
5 comments
Haven't been on my account for a while so sorry for the late reply! I will definitely try all the things you have all mentioned. Thank you for your detailed responses, I really appreciate it.
I guess, whoever said that "practice makes perfect" wasn't lying.
What is it that you think you're misunderstanding?
For both, exposure is the cure to missing multiple questions.
For flaw: There are many, and the test writers do a good job of hiding them. The more you expose yourself to flaw questions (by drilling), the more readily you'll see A) How they were hidden and B) What exactly the flaw is
For inference: Again, there are plenty. These questions rely on your ability to diagram (even if you think you know how to diagram, go back, and practice again). Again, the test writers do a pretty good job at hiding the inferences (e.g. is it A -> C? Or perhaps, [not] C -> [not] A? or something else?).
What do you guys suggest?
I mean it is kind of obvious, so apologies if you already tried this, but I would suggest re-watching the lessons. I often saw my big improvements when I would revise J.Y's lessons on certain LR questions. For some reason the material sticks a lot better the second time around in a lot of the cases.
Also, I memorized the list of common flaws J.Y. gives in the lessons. That really helped me with flaws. If you still don't get it, I would HIGHLY suggest The LSAT Trainer's flaw chapters - it was fantastic and invaluable for my prep vis-a-vis flaw questions.
Also, for inference questions make sure you understanding on conditional logic is spot on.
Review valid and invalid argument forms as well.
Getting better at Flaw questions will help your LR tremendously, as it intertwines with all question types that have arguments. I see you don't have a 7Sage course- what study resources are you using? How are you doing with conditional reasoning? Definitely know the common invalid and valid argument forms and types of flaws like the back of your hand. Once you remember them, you will have to actually put this to use by drilling Flaw and Inference questions. You have to familiarize yourself with the trap answers because the LSAC just keeps recycling through them.
Are you going over all the wrong answers for flaw questions in depth? When I struggled with that question type, that's what helped me the most. You have to think, "No, this isn't what this type of flaw looks like" in order to eliminate answers quickly and confidently.
Are you pre-phrasing? For example, don't just pick "assumes what it's trying to prove" on a hard Flaw question because you don't understand what's going on. I was guilty of this lol. Don't jump into the ACs until you know what the flaw is. You have to really force yourself to do this at first, but it will pay off tremendously.
um.. maybe if you give an example with the question, it would be easier to figure out. However, in my case, with the inference question I think it is helpful for me when i try to see whether I can answer this based on the question passage or not. Sometimes, they just make subtle twists with the scope. With the flaw questions, I think it is helpful to find out the flaw before you move on to the answer choices. It needs practice, but in this way you will get less confused.