Problems Grasping LR

[meredith.dominguez]

I am taking the on-demand course and I am struggling with LR. I comprehend the materials and drills, but then take too long or can't figure out the assumption with actual time test questions. I am also doing well on the arcade games.

I think I know what the issue is... when I read the passage I want to write out the P -> C, then I can see the assumption clearly, and find the logical answer. I can't do this in the test, so I am getting lost with all of the background and not drawing the assumption clearly.

I have finished Lesson 2. Should I drive on to Lesson 3 or start over with Lesson 1?

[tommywallach]

Drive on. If you're only a few weeks of work in, just keep going. Things will start to stick, and speed up. I promise!

-t

[Lesro22]

Please help!

I am having difficulty understanding how to arrive at the correct answer when it comes to some flaw questions. I am able to identify the argument core but get stuck in finding the flaw. I did Interact Session 4 and have been doing my reading and sample test questions. Can't figure out what I'm missing? Should I stay on the section till it sticks or move on? What are some good pointers or what is it that I'm suppose to be asking myself once the conclusion is found?

Thanks in advance!

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Please help!

I am having difficulty understanding how to arrive at the correct answer when it comes to some flaw questions. I am able to identify the argument core but get stuck in finding the flaw. I did Interact Session 4 and have been doing my reading and sample test questions. Can't figure out what I'm missing? Should I stay on the section till it sticks or move on? What are some good pointers or what is it that I'm suppose to be asking myself once the conclusion is found?

Thanks in advance!

There are three reasoning structures in LR.
1. Conditional Logic
2. Causation
3. Comparison

After you find the Argument Core, ask yourself in descending order until you arrive at yes.
1. Are you playing a linking game?
2. Are you playing a game of causation?
3. Is there a comparison?

That's how you find the flaw. Then you need to be able to express the flaw. Answers that express linking or causation are typically pretty easy to identify. The language cues are familiar: causes, results in, due to, if, only if, unless, when, etc. Answers that express a comparison are often presented in abstract language (e.g. the argument attacks the proponent of a claim, rather than the claim itself). Chapter 4 of our LR Strategy Guide covers these.

Hope that helps!

[Lesro22]

Thanks for your response! I have been applying your helpful tips with the questions. I don't have a problem finding the core...I just get stuck at times trying to identify the flaw. On some questions I am able to identify it and in others it's confusing. I am practicing the question types in the strategy books and in the practice tests.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

If you cannot identify the Flaw when reading the argument, use the answers to narrow the options. You'll likely be able to eliminate one, two, maybe three answers on your first pass without much effort. Then of the two or three remaining good answers, ask yourself very specifically, what would this flaw look like? What would I expect to see in the stimulus? And then go check to see whether it's indeed there.

So for example, with a generalization flaw. I'd expect the conclusion to be much broader than the evidence. Surveys are fine, just be careful that they're not unrepresentative. Suppose, I'm debating between one answer that is a generalization flaw and another that is parts to whole. Both of which could easily look like the other. The conclusion is key. If the conclusion is about other individuals as is the evidence, then it's a generalization flaw. If the conclusion is about a group to which those individuals belong, then it's parts to whole.

So check your contending answers by asking yourself what you would expect to see in the argument, if this answer were correct.

Good luck!