This is a continuation of the Simple Guide on Most Strongly Supported Questions. You should be confident in applying the concepts discussed there, especially regarding language strength/severity. You are probably already familiar with many of the ways test-writers increase the difficulty of Most Strongly Supported (MSS) questions, as very similar techniques are used in reading comprehension. I will do my best to avoid generic, broadly applicable advice that you already know. The guide will then primarily focus on strategy and the few traits I perceive to be especially relevant to hard MSS questions.
Table of Contents:
The main source of difficulty in these questions will be in the ranking of answer choices (ACs). When we come across an MSS question stem, we need to shift into “ranking mode” when going through the ACs. By this, I mean that we might not end up with an AC we love or even like; we have to be ready to rank the best AC out of imperfect choices.* Sometimes, our intuition may lead us to rank the trap AC above the correct one. Let’s delve into what causes these mistakes and the strategies to avoid them.
*Important caveat. The correct answer for many, if not the majority, of MSS questions is actually “perfect,” in that it must be true. However, I will avoid focusing on these; while they can certainly be difficult, the difficulty does not stem from anything unique to MSS questions.
Almost all of the hardest MSS questions involve some sort of subtle jump from the stimulus to AC, designed for the reader to miss. This generally tests our attention to detail and no skills particular to MSS questions; however, one source of frequent confusion is when an AC infers that two concepts from the stimulus have some sort of relationship.
The difficulty here stems from having to rank the reasonableness of this assumption and compare it to other ACs. The LSAT wants to trick us into assuming a connection between ideas just because they appear close together; it all depends on the textual support. Try PT 129 S1 Q18 and PT 131 S3 Q21 for some practice with determining when a relationship between ideas is supported. Applicable strategy advice at the end of the post.
Here, I am referring to a specific error I frequently see students make. First, try PT 138 S2 Q10. Many students see a mildly supported AC and look for a better one (reasonably so). Often, students' instincts can lead to an AC that sounds “familiar” and realistic. This can work both ways, where students discard the right answer because it is utterly false in real life. The real-life plausibility means nothing; we need textual support. The three most selected wrong ACs for the question above are all statements that, without the stimulus, I would choose as true over the correct AC.
MSS questions lack traits specific enough to them to justify listing them under the question type. However, there is a strategy for improvement that applies particularly well to MSS questions.
We have already established that the main barrier for students to do well on these questions is during the ranking of ACs. Often, students complain that they end up choosing between two and always pick the wrong one. Consistency is often an issue, even for advanced students. Many feel that MSS questions can be arbitrary (I am yet to see an LSAT question that was arbitrary).
Finally we can get to some actionable advice. When you are stuck between ACs, you need to pause your intuition and do your best to quantify the gap between the textual support you have versus the textual support that would ensure truth. Then determine which AC has the smallest gap and is thus most supported. This is a skill you have to practice.
We improve by deliberately reviewing every time we are unsure why an answer is wrong or right, or when it feels subjective. This is probably the best indicator that you have something to learn. Unfortunately, these can be the questions that students review the least due to frustration. Every single time this “...subjective” thought pops up during drills or PTs/timed sections, flag and blind review.
Next, get out a pen and paper (before checking the right answer) and start describing the case for each AC and why each is plausible, solely based on textual support. Explaining it to someone else is even better. Once you determine the gaps, simplify them and compare which is more reasonable to assume.
Here is an example. I recommend trying it yourself before proceeding.
Which one is MSS?
Robin is a photographer who recently began charging clients a nonrefundable deposit. In the past, some clients would cancel last minute, which left her losing money and time. Since implementing the deposit policy a week ago, her cancellation rate has declined significantly.
A. Clients who are required to pay a deposit are less likely to cancel than those who are not.
B. Robin had fewer cancellations this week than last.
I’m going to go into detail here; it looks like a lot when written out, but I promise the thought process becomes automatic with practice. When you have done a ton of questions, your brain recognizes the relevant info. I estimate this would take 30 seconds.
1) I will touch on B first, as it might seem the obvious choice if you missed the “absolute vs relative” distinction.
2) Onto A. We know that it is true for Robin’s clients—it doesn’t fall into the same absolute vs. relative fallacy as B—it refers to a rate or percentage. So what is wrong with it?
3) Back to B again. Ideally it would say a lower rate of cancellations. How reasonable is it to assume that a “significant” decline in percentage → decline in the number of clients cancelling?
4) How likely is it that Robin’s experience, just this week, applies to all clients, in general? I hope you did not fall for the “familiarity bias” described previously; the truth of A in real life seems obvious. I would be surprised if it weren’t universally accurate.
5) However, where in the text is that stated? Do we know Robin’s clients this week are representative of clients across every industry? We have zero textual support to assume either way.
So, to recap:
A’s gap: Requires a universal generalization from a tiny data point of 1 week/1 person/1 industry.
B’s gap: Requires assuming that neither of the 2 weeks was a significant outlier.
Based only on textual support, B is better.
