LSAT Help: Diagnose This Student’s LSAT Problems
Lots of people struggle with the LSAT, but few take the time to figure out what the real problem is. For each of the following scenarios, try to assess what the test-taker did wrong before reading further.
Scenario 1: Logic Games: An Unconditional “Must Be True” Question
The test-taker has notated all the constraints for the game correctly and made a few initial inferences. The second question is an unconditional “must be true.” He looks at choice (A), and doesn’t see why it should be true or false. He looks at (B) and feels the same way. Looks through his diagram and notes again but can’t make a determination. The element mentioned in answer choice (C) isn’t even on his diagram! He starts to panic, and thinks of going back to answer choice (A) and starting over, or double-checking if his diagram is correct…
What do you think? What did this test-taker do that was so wrong? Don’t read ahead until you have a guess.
This scenario involves one of the most common misunderstandings that test-takers have about the games section of the exam. Many test-takers, even after reading books and taking courses, work under the assumption that there is an exact ordering(s) or placement(s) of elements dictated by the constraints. Based on this exact ordering, or placement, answer choices must be true, or must be false.
Though the collection of constraints for some games can lead to a limited and absolute set of possible scenarios, this is not the nature of the great majority of games. Furthermore, thinking about the games in terms of these limited and absolute scenarios puts you in the wrong mindset for answering the questions.
The reality is, most LSAT games are designed to only give you part of the picture. The primary decision is therefore not between what must be true and what must be false, but rather, what can be known, and what cannot.
If a question asks what must be true, it is likely that there is one answer about which we know something with certainty, and four about which we don’t. That is, these problems are designed for you not to uncover anything significant about the wrong answer choices.
The test-taker should have trusted in his work and known that there was nothing wrong with not knowing anything with certainty about the first three answer choices. If he understood the constraints correctly, and made the right inferences, chances are that one of the two remaining choices will be something that must be true. If they aren’t, there are other steps he could take at this point (such as coming up with a hypothetical to review what must be true) that wouldn’t require him to retrace his steps.
Scenario 2: Logical Reasoning: Assumption Question
The test-taker has read through the argument, and correctly identified the conclusion, the supporting evidence, and the opposing points. He doesn’t totally understand the author’s point, and he is unable to anticipate a potential answer, but he understands the argument fairly well and feels okay going into the answer choices on what seems to be a very challenging assumption problem. He looks at choice (A). It is clearly wrong, so he crosses it out. He looks at (B). It is somewhat related to the conclusion, but he doesn’t see how it fits into the argument. He crosses out (B). He looks at (C) – it has nothing to do with the subject matter. Clearly wrong. He crosses it out. He looks at (D), which seems pretty close, but there are a couple of modifiers that just don’t seem right. After thinking about it a bit, he crosses (D) out. He looks at (E)…
Guesses on what’s going to happen with (E)?
(E) could be the right answer, and he might end up seeing that quickly and confidently… but unfortunately, that’s not very likely. The argument is a challenging one, and he’s already struggled with a couple of the answer choices. We’ve got all the signs that this is a hard problem, and, for most hard problems, the right answer will not be obvious. Remember, the test-taker couldn’t predict an answer. How will he know when he sees the correct one?
Most likely, the test-taker is going to feel a little bit uncertain about (E), or he’s going to know that (E) is incorrect. What will he do at this point? Does he pick (E) because he’s crossed out all the other answer choices? Or does he start over and review all the answers all over again?
Neither option is desirable, and both can be avoided if you are consistent in implementing a two-step elimination process. Just as it’s a mistake in logic games to think of answers as true or false, it’s a mistake to approach logical reasoning answer choices, at least in the first go around, as correct and incorrect.
Rather, you want to separate out the answers that are not clearly false from those that are. Again, this should feel very different from thinking about answers as being right and wrong.
A reason you want to make sure to build in this first step is that most logical reasoning problems, even the most challenging ones, have at least two or three answer choices that are clearly not in the realm of possibility. That is, those answer choices are so irrelevant to the argument at hand that, even if you don’t understand the argument completely, you can rule out those answer choices. It could be, say, in a “weaken the argument” question, an answer choice that doesn’t relate to conclusion in any way, or, in an “application” question, an answer choice that is missing many of the components of the original argument. Even though these questions as a whole may be very difficult, analyzing some of the answer choices will generally not be.
It always behooves you to be zeroing in on an answer choice, going from a overall understanding (say, the point of the entire argument) to a specific one (the degree of individual modifiers, for example) along the way. If you can consistently get rid of obviously wrong answers correctly and efficiently, you give yourself the best chance possible with the relevant answer choices.
In this example, the test-taker should have eliminated (A) and (C) but kept (B) and (D). Remember that this seemed like a challenging problem. Many times, in challenging problems, the right answer is not one that you can anticipate. So, it may look wrong at first.
Imagine the test-taker had taken a different approach to the elimination process:
In the first round, he gets rid of (A) and (C) quickly, but leaves (B) and (D). Without the burden of having to prove one correct, He spends less time reviewing (B) and (D) — they are in the realm of possibility.
If (E) turns out to be a possibility, we’re down to (B), (D) and (E). If it doesn’t, we’re down to (B) and (D).
It is at this point that he looks at the remaining answer choices in depth:
He looks back at (B). Though he didn’t completely understand it at first, now he sees how it connects to the argument. He tries to think about the opposite of (B) – a good way to test an assumption answer – and the opposite ruins the argument — a good sign. He looks at (D) again, and now the modifiers clearly seem too strong. And (E) is not nearly as relevant as (B). He picks (B) with confidence and moves on….
If you are not using a two-step process, you are forcing yourself to think of the specific and the general at once, and you will invariably end up wasting time during the exam. A two step elimination process can help improve your confidence, pace and accuracy.