Subscription pricing
My PT average has dropped from roughly the high 160s/low 170s on the older PTs to reliably the lower 160s on the PTs in the 70's. I'm planning on taking in Sept. and this shift in my performance is unnerving especially this close to gameday. Has anyone experienced this before/have good advice on ways to change my mindset in approaching the most recent PTs?
0
20 comments
Yeah, I think that's a pretty good start. You don't want to take the 70's before you're far enough along to pick up on what makes them uniquely valuable, but you don't want to save them for the end either. Use the earliest tests to get comfortable PTing and to identify all of what will be your many glaring weaknesses. Think of the first stage of the PT/BR process as more of an extension of the core curriculum. You should be returning frequently to the curriculum at this point and drilling more than you're actually PTing.
Once you've pushed your BR score average above your target score, you're in phase two and you should start jumping around in the PTs. Your goal now is to keep increasing your BR score while simultaneously closing the gap between your timed score and target score. You do this by continuing, as needed, all the review and drills you were doing before while increasingly focusing on test taking strategies. So you need to really develop an effective skipping strategy, pacing strategy, consistent annotation methodology for RC, etc.
Phase three, if you get to phase three, is when you're consistently scoring at or above your target score under timed conditions, and consistently scoring at or very near 180 on BR. From here, you really start targeting individual points more than the broader concepts.
So that's my post curriculum strategy. I kinda just made this up on the fly the other day on another thread but I actually really like it. It's very close to what I did, but much more structured in a way I was unaware of when I was working my way up.
@jhaldy10325
So should I take tests 36-55 and then start incorporating the 70's in?
Thanks
During the 60's I was scoring between 171 and 175 now I'm lucky to get 169. Just got a 164 on 75. :/ Probs brain tumor, or stress. IDK
Yeah, between 77 and 78 I think we're seeing the beginning of a trend of more challenging LG. 77 had some basic, standard games, but then game 3 was an absolute nightmare. 78 didn't have anything like that, but we didn't get a single standard easy game. One grouping game had a reserved spot for a driver or whatever, and the other had sequencing within the groups. Similarly, both of the sequencing games were complicated by either a conditional rule that split the diagram or else a second layer. Not one standard game. So I think it's good to be prepared for that going forward. Be prepared for more complex games, and if you do start out with some more basic, standard easy games, start mentally preparing yourself for a monster.
Word.
To kind of build on @danielznelson160's post, in LR it's way more important to focus on eliminating wrong answers than finding the right one. If you can effectively throw out all of the garbage ACs, you'll find the right answer even if it's of the crappy, weaker, or "relative support" variety (as @jhaldy10325 made a post about).
I also agree with the observations on LG. Games that seem like they should be straight forward are a little more time consuming than you'd expect on first glance. I remember when I took 78 for real, game 1 took me ~7 minutes to do, and I started to freak out because I had grown accustomed to knocking out the first game in a solid 5 mins. When I retook 78 last Saturday, I still took about 6/7 minutes to get through game 1, but by staying composed I was able to grind through the rest of the section and get that -0 *pats self on back*
Moral of the story: stay calm, we got this
I agree with a lot of what people are saying. However, I feel like the 50's were much more difficult
Yes, this is all but inevitable for just about anyone. The LR is especially unique in the newer tests, having a different coat of paint on the exterior, so to speak.
Everyone kept telling me I'd get used to the newest tests, but I was highly skeptical. During BR and review, I doubted I would ever be able to catch even half of my mistakes and even lowered my goal score/range as a result. But improvement can and almost certainly will happen. Definitely review and re-review and retake these tests, if only by taking them one section at a time. Once you start making progress, you'll start to see more the subtleties of the newer material but it'll only abstract. Eventually, you'll begin to nail down specifics. Here are some takeaways I have from the newest tests:
- Some MSS questions allow you to draw a causal conclusion from information merely presenting a correlation. The other answer choices are clearly wrong, and while you can't properly infer a causal relationship from a correlation, a correlation does support causation. I've seen two questions in the 70s that require you to realize this. The key with MSS is to of course recognize that you're not out to make a valid conclusion, just one that could glean evidence/support from what's provided. In essence, some MSS questions seem to require one to accept a "weaker" answer choice
- Strengthening and Weakening questions, and particularly the toughest of them, similarly allow for weaker answer choices that you are tempted to completely gloss over.
- The logical structure of two arguments may still be parallel even though there are, for example, a different number of variables seemingly used. For example, the reasoning behind A - B; /B; therefore /A seems pretty straightforward, though B, for instance, could represent a broad inclusion of many things in one category. A correct answer choice may be more specific and may not look quite like A -- B (it may look like A -- C + D + E). Hopefully, that makes sense, as I may have gotten a bit too abstract, though I want to keep it that way, so I'm not giving a question away. The key here is to really recognize the actual content of the stimulus and the question's answer choices. I believe I've only seen this once, and I bet you'll recognize the question I'm referring to when you see it.
- RC has lately been introducing some really tough comparative passages. In the past, these passages seemed to have easier content and questions.
- I can't think of any examples right off, but the new tests seem to tempt those experienced with the test in new ways. You'll have a lot of, "Ah, I see what you did there, LSAC," moments as you start to get accustomed to these newer tests.
- Unless there's a new-ish LG, the medium-to-hard LGs are more tedious. What may seem like a standard albeit more challenging sequencing game will take you longer than expected, for example. Also, it seems games more often include conditional logic that is itself conditional. In other words, you may have a sequencing game that has A -- B -- C + D or B - A - D - C. One chain must be relevant and only one can be.
These are some of the things that I personally have noticed, though these may not be exclusive to just the late-60s and beyond.
I took PT 75 in June. I had 13/14 minutes to spare and still couldn't finish Game 4 because I legit froze up. After taking a year long hiatus from the LSAT, I went back to do this game without even looking at any hints (this was to see whether I froze because of my mental state during the test). I completed it in 7-8 minutes.
The point is this: there will most likely be a game that will "shock" you because it seems unlike what you've done before. Don't panic. The skills you possess that makes you successful on other games WILL apply. Trust the process, which means:
1) Write your rules
2) Connect rules together
3) Build scenarios (if this seems to apply)
4) Go through the questions.
The only slight difference I've noticed is that modern games tend to require more brute force rather than making deductions. This is great for those that can kick themselves out of panic mode because it just means applying the process. It's bad for those that can't kick themselves out of panic mode because it means the time you waste spending panicking (like me), the less time you'll have on the questions.
@jinadarcy0610262 haha which PT game section? i need all the spoilers i can get!
This pretty much happens to everyone. For anyone reading that it's not too late, learn from this! Don't save the 70's for the end, mix them into your PT schedule!
Worst case scenario, I do think you can pull out up to the day before. They've got to be able to accommodate illness and accidents and emergencies. You just can't get even a partial refund.
The LR sections are what have me performing in a lower range. Games haven't been my primary cause for concern in the most recent PTs. There is one PT game section that was an exception for me but, in the interest of not dropping spoilers, I won't say which one.
I would just BR/Review all the stuff in the 70's to really get a feel for HOW you are making mistakes and WHY you did not get questions you "usually" get right. That has made a big difference for me in similar situations.
EXACT SAME THING happened to me. I was averaging from 161-165 on my PT's and i just took PT 73 and got a 158. I literally didn't know what went wrong because I did fine on reading comp, games, and one section for LR... But for some reason, on the second section of LR, i did way below my average. I'm just going to take another 4 tests or so from the 70's and BR them. I'm hopeful i'll go back to my averages before the test. Good luck to all you guys going through the same struggle haha.
This is a pretty common reaction to the newer PTs, that's why it's crucial to be really familiar with them by game day. As other have pointed out, this comes through doing really good BR.
I also agree with the sentiment that the LR is what throws off the scores rather than LG. The LR is much more subtle and particular in answer choices IMO. These are changes that you can adapt to though..still two week to adjust, stay calm!
Deadline to postpone is already past. That being said, all you can do now is BR like a madcunt. Drill until you can do those 70's tests @ 100%. It's fine if you have to straight up to redo them.
Thanks for all the encouragement everyone! It helps just knowing that other people are facing the same challenges I am! @jinadarcy0610262 Atleast for me LG has stayed roughly the same and LR and RC have been lowering my score significantly.
You learned the LSAT's tricks before. You can learn them again.
Ah, exactly same thing happened to me 2 days ago and it really got me scared. I was in the similar ranges with the older PTs and when I met 70s, I felt totally lost.
It definitely took me by surprise, especially as you said, so close to the game day but I am trying to do what @jinadarcy0610262 mentioned above. Just keep calm and look through the problems and figure out the weak spots. For me, LR was quite confusing. Still, I have some days left so it's not over yet! I think my mindset was also a factor since I get more nervous when I do PT nowadays thinking 'If I don't do well on this one, I won't survive' or something like that...
I am positive that as soon as we get familiar with the 70s and don't think them as something totally new and unexpected, we will get back to our feet!
As I remember, 3 years ago when I was taking the 2013 October LSAT, everyone was panicking for 60s saying it seemed totally new.
We still have some time, let's face the problem then we can decide I think! :)
@olineali684 and @jinadarcy0610262 would you guys say that the logic games section is lowering your average or is it another section? i'm curious what section or sections change.... i'm not in the 60s and 70s yet, unfortunately but i'm planning to write the sept test
I'm in a similar situation. The most recent exams have lowered my average but I'm spending a lot of time evaluating what went wrong in the most recent exams to learn as much from those PTs as humanly possible. I haven't burned through all of the 70s yet so I'm hoping to take another 1-2 in the 70s before deciding definitively whether or not to postpone. I'm hoping that if I can identify the oddities that have resulted in my lower PT scores, I will be able to not repeat the same mistakes on test day. But first, I'm hoping I can demonstrate my ability to overcome my weaknesses in the next 1-2 PTs in the 70s. Since I don't have a success story to share about this approach (yet!), I'm hoping others can weigh in on whether they overcame their barriers in time for test day. Best of luck to you! Stay positive as best you can! =)