I seem to do so much better if I look at the question stem first and know what I am dealing with before I go to the stimulus.
I have tried it the way it is often recommended, by TestMasters and Powerscore, to read the stimulus and then the question stem, but for me there are problems doing this. These problems are things like not knowing how deep to get into the diagramming because I am not sure if it is going to be a justify the conclusion with a sufficient assumption question or if it is a stem that really does not require diagramming such as a main conclusion stem. I feel like I could save time knowing when I have to diagram going into a stimulus than not knowing what will be asked of me.
I truly ask this because I respect the methods that many propose of reading the problem structure in order, going from stimulus to question stem. I simply ask how I can get better at this and if this is a necessary thing to achieve the elite status?
Personally I read the question stem first and then head to the stimulus. I think often times people shy away from this because they tend to re-read the question stem again before heading to the choices. I know with Manhattan LSAT, they leave it up to what feels that most comfortable for you. I think given the two scenarios, if you read the stimulus first, and then the questions, if you have to go back to search the stimulus again, try it the other way and see what flows better for you.
I took Kaplan in UG (they say to read the stem first) and then TM later on (proponents of question reading first) - and while it was difficult to break my stem reading habit, I really believe it’s best to read the question first. You’re much better off if you can just read the question, understand what’s going on and get to a point where you inherently know where the question might take you (ie: that looks like an assumption/flaw/etc). The question stem will then just let you know how to manipulate what you’ve already identified in the stimulus.
I read the stem first as well, it allows me to actually flex my logical thinking skills, when I tried to do it the question first way (like in RC), it felt too game-y. I felt like that was a way to take the test just to take the test, and if you attack any real problem that way (get to the question before knowing the background) you would likely end up confusing yourself and those around you. No use in picking up a really bad mental/study habit just for the LSAT when you can do just as well by practicing the more proper way.
I personally prefer reading the stimulus and then the question. I like the organization and it makes me work harder prephasing and finding patterns, flaws, conclusions, etc. Plus I can predict the type of question i’m going to be asked most of the time.
Then again that’s just me. I don’t think there is a right way to do it.
Question first here. Then stimulus. Then I try to anticipate the answer. Only then do I go into the answers. I did 70+ problems (parallel, flaw, and role) today and missed 2, which is definitely an improvement over where I started a month ago. I find that when I get tired, even though I still read the question before the stimulus, I tend to skip anticipating the answer, and I get all bogged down in the choices and can’t find my way out easily.
But, you know, you’ve got to do whatever works for you. So, if it’s not working one way, then try it the other way for a week or two and see if it helps.
So that would imply reading the question stem first, earlcat? I agree with you that reading the question stem after the stimulus is going to make one have to go back to the stimulus.
It’s interesting to me that TM and PS advocate reading the stimulus first, TM especially because of the huge emphasis they place on knowing how to attack the specific question types. You would think that companies that have detailed strategies for each type would want you to go into the stimulus knowing what strategy you will apply.
Personally I read the stimulus first, because after going through the LRB, it only takes a quick glance for me to know what type it is. I then read the stimulus with the question type fully in mind and then go straight to the answers. I don’t have to read the stem again, because by reading the stimulus with the question type fully in mind, and formulating an answer, it’s pretty clear in my head once I get to the answers.
The previous post pretty much nailed it, as far as I’m concerned. I read for different things on a Resolve/Explain question than on a Strengthen question. I read for different things on a Main Point question than on a Weaken question. I would waste time looking for flaws in the reasoning on a question that asks what role a statement plays if I didn’t know what was being asked before reading the argument. Since question type determines strategy (including strategy of reading), I need to know the question type first.
Psh…why do people even read the stimulus at all? I read the answer choices first then select the one I like most, then read the question stem, then assume I know the stimulus without even needing to read it…
JK, I read the stimulus before the stem to form an unbiased understanding of the information. I also make sure to read every answer choice even if I find my correct answer immediately just to make sure.
Huge proponent of question first here and I’ll tell you why.
Some questions concern the reasoning of the argument (how evidence/premises lead toward some main point/conclusion), while others do not. So I very much like to know before I read the argument whether I’m looking for these component parts (evidence and conclusion) about how the reasoning is flawed versus simply reading it for the information presented.
Reasoning arguments: Anything that asks you to Weaken, Strengthen, ID Assumption, ID Flaw, Main point
Describe the Reasoning: Argumentative Technique/Strategy. Parallel Reasoning
Just read for information: Inference, Resolve/Explain a paradox, Principle, Point-at-Issue.
This difference in reading for reasoning vs. reading for information is so defined that on the actual exam I find performing the mental gymnastics of switching between thinking about reasoning and not thinking about reasoning so exhausting that I actually do all the reasoning questions first, and then mentally switch over to not thinking about reasoning to do the others. I gained significant speed when I stopped the mental gymnastics.
It really doesn’t matter. Every prep test company will tell you it does matter, but they would seem kind of useless if they didn’t take a position on that. The truth is that both methods are equally effective.