LR Disagree Questions

[s.atrmachin3]

...They crush my soul. I struggle with disagree questions both early and late in sections. Hard ones are hard. "Easy" ones are hard.

Can someone please give specific advice on how to conquer this particular question type?

I'm familiar with the strategy guide approach, so I typically breakdown the first person's argument into a premise and conclusion and anticipate disagreement on one of those. But I have trouble seeing how/where the second person's response connects and then the answer choices throw me for a loop.

On a positive note, I think I've learned that there is a difference between "most likely disagree about..." and "committed to disagreeing that..."

Any help with mastering these disagree questions would be greatly appreciated.

Lance

[ohthatpatrick]

My strategy is slightly different from the book's, so maybe this will work better for you.

First of all, I treat these like Inference questions, not like arguments. The correct answer needs to be the most provable -- i.e., I have language from one dude that supports that he AGREES with the correct answer, and I have language from the other dude that supports that he DISAGREES with the correct answer.

Most answers are wrong because they discuss something that one of the speakers just didn't address, hence, we can't infer that person's position on the matter.

You should get in the habit of actively predicting the answer.

Read the 1st person's statements.
Read the 2nd person's (naturally, looking for any sense of disconnect).
Go back to the 1st person's statements. He probably has somewhere between 2-4 ideas. You must pick ONE of them that the 2nd person disagreed with. You can bracket off that idea in the 1st person's statements. In the 2nd person's statements, bracket off the words that disagree with the bracketed statement from person 1.
Compare these bracketed statements. Do they disagree? If so, you're ready for the answer choices. If not, you may have picked the wrong ideas.

I'll use an example randomly from PT32, S4, Q20

Do it on your own first if you want to reflect on how your process/thinking differs or aligns with mine.

=====

Dana: It is wrong to think that the same educational methods should be used with all children. Many children have been raised in more communal environments than others and would therefore learn better through group, rather than individual activities. A child's accustomed style of learning should always dictate what method is used.

Pat: No, not always. The flexibility of being able to work either on one's own or in a group is invaluable in a world where both skills are in demand.

Okay ... so pick your statement from each person and bracket it off. See if you agree with mine.

Dana: It is wrong to think that the same educational methods should be used with all children. Many children have been raised in more communal environments than others and would therefore learn better through group, rather than individual activities. A child's accustomed style of learning should always dictate what method is used.

Pat: No, not always. The flexibility of being able to work either on one's own or in a group is invaluable in a world where both skills are in demand.

The issue: whether or not a child's accustomed style of learning should always dictate what educational method is used.

The only two answers that are dialed into the right keywords:
(B) All children should learn to adapt to various educational methods

(E) It is sometimes desirable to tailor educational methods to the way a child learns best

(E) seems like the closer fit. Let's verify by Inference. We can infer that Dana would agree with (E) ... she thinks that educational methods should ALWAYS be tailored to a child's style of learning.

Can we infer that Pat would disagree (i.e. can we infer that Pat would say that "it is NEVER desirable to tailor educational methods to how a child learns best")? No. That's way too harsh. Pat says we shouldn't ALWAYS do so, not that we should NEVER do so.

Huh, so (B)?

Let's verify by Inference.

We can infer that Dana would DISAGREE with (B). She thinks that the educational method should always be adapted to the child. (B) is saying the children should adapt to various educational methods (which means more than just the ONE they're accustomed to).

We can do a decent job with inferring that Pat would agree with (B). Since Pat maintains that the method should NOT always adapt to the child (and explains that children need to learn both group and individual contexts), we can support that Pat thinks that children should adapt to more than one educational method.

This is a pretty obnoxious answer. I think if you learn the qualities of trap vs. correct answer, it will help you guard against yourself on future questions.

Notice that the EASY disagreement to spot in the statements was "No, not always".

Why do you think LSAT didn't make this the correct answer:
"The educational method used should always be tailored to a child's accustomed style of learning"
?

Because it's way too easy and direct of a restatement. Rather than giving us DANA's idea, which we KNOW Pat disagrees with, the test will give us Pat's idea, which is not explicitly articulated.

A lot of time the hardest answers are hard because they're phrased in a way that the SECOND person would agree with.

That's the harder version of the correct answer. If it's phrased as something the FIRST person would agree with, it sounds/feels more like what we just read.

The trap answer, (E), sounded a lot like Dana's last sentence, only the strength of language term was shifted from ALWAYS to SOMETIMES which changed whether Pat would still disagree with it.

Finally, make sure your answer passes that Inference test -- prove that you have supporting language that one person's statements AGREE with the answer choice and that the other person's statements AGREE with the negation of the answer choice.

Hope this helps.

[s.atrmachin3]

Patrick, this is gold. I really appreciate you taking the time to explain your thought process on these kinds of questions. I feel a bit less defeated by these questions -- a little more in the light. Now time to study.

Thanks again,
Lance