What's up!
My name is Jake Brandel, and I worked my way from a 150 flat LSAT diagnostic to a personal high score of 179 on PT138. I'm looking to start working with people scoring in the 150’s or so in order to help them improve their skills, and ultimately reach their ceiling score. You might be wondering, "Jake, why are you offering to do this for free?" Or, "What's the catch?" There is no catch. The truth is that although I have become extremely skilled at this test, I'm still human and make mistakes on certain questions every now and then. I wouldn't charge people for my services until I could actually look myself in the mirror and know I could consistently score 180's, and get 100% of the questions right 100% of the time. The second thing is that I legitimately enjoy this test, and am trying to currently reach my own goal score in November. There is nothing more powerful than reinforcing your own knowledge by explaining things to others. In other words, my tutoring sessions are not simply supposed to be a transactional service; I want to continue and improve too so I can achieve my own aspirations. Reply below if interested and we can work out the details!
Additionally, here are some tips that I've learned through my time preparing for this test:
1. Be kind to yourself, and additionally, be patient with yourself. This is arguably the biggest lesson I had to overcome. After scoring a 150 on my diagnostic, I thought I was a genius. Most people I knew who were doing the LSAT scored around a 150 on their official exam after months of studying, yet I had a score that was similar to them immediately. I thought I was the man. Needless to say, this test humbled me very quickly. In fact, I regressed. I expected to see 10 point jumps every time I took a practice test. However, the reality is that the LSAT just doesn't work like that. Improvement is not linear in LSAT world. Its like the stock market. Improvement will vary and continue to be volatile over short periods of time, but the longer one stays invested and continue to work at it, over long time horizons one will see upward growth. You have to understand that these are extremely intricate arguments that contain many subtle flaws that are impossible to spot when you're in the beginning stages. You have to give yourself time to really understand what the question stems are asking of you, and what the arguments are actually doing (extremely quickly might I add). This is a skill of pattern recognition that does not happen overnight. This takes months of consistency, and learning from your mistakes.
2. 90% of LSAT arguments actually suck. Obviously, 90% is just a figure of speech in this instance. However, the message rings true; most of the arguments you encounter on the LSAT are deeply flawed for one reason or another. This is the mindset you have to have. You have to read these arguments as if they are coming from a politician, or professor, or boss that you know is just bullshitting you. When I was plateauing, I used to read LSAT arguments and think to myself, "Oh yeah that makes total sense! What a great argument!" No. As soon as you encounter an argument that tricks you into thinking it's a good argument (with the rare exception of a valid conditional inference from a conditional set of premises), you need to stop and re-read it. It's highly likely that you're missing something important. As soon as you start becoming ultra petty, and ultra skeptical of what these arguments are trying to slip by you, you'll start spotting flaws and getting more 3, 4, and 5 star questions correct. P.S. Getting good at identifying where arguments have holes is a skill that translates to nearly every major question type. For the most part, I approach every question that contains premises and a conclusion as if it’s a flaw question, and pivot once I know the exact task the stem is asking of me.
3. DO NOT IGNORE READING COMPREHENSION. This is a big one. It's no secret that RC sucks. At least at first it sucks. Once you get better at it, it sucks a little less than at the start. But I hate to break it to you... It's a fairly substantial part of your score (1/3rd to be exact). If you ever want to achieve the upper echelon of scores, you have to make sure your RC skills are at least comparable to your LR skills. The larger the discrepancy between the two, the harder it will be to break out of whatever score plateau you’re in. I always found that whenever I was stuck in a score range, whether it was trying to break into the low 160’s, and then from there trying to break into the 170’s, my breakthroughs always coincided with improving my RC skills. In fact, you'll find that the more RC you do, it actually can help you get better at certain types of LR questions including MSS and MBT questions.
4. RC passages are arguments, not stories. I used to read RC passages as if I was reading a novel. That isn’t the correct way to approach these. These are arguments. You don’t have to be as critical of these passages as you do LR arguments because for the most part, RC passages aren’t inherently flawed. Additionally, the question stems don’t require you to pick these apart. However, as you actively read and interact with the passage, there are certain non-negotiables that you have to at least have a sense of after reading the passage:
I: Who believes what?
II: What was the main point?
III: What was the purpose of what I just read?
IV: What was the passage’s argumentative structure?
V: What are some inferences that jumped out to me?
If you can have a feel for those 5 things as you read, your accuracy will jump, and your ability to answer questions quickly will improve.
5. Understanding why wrong answers are wrong is just as important as understanding why right answers are right. I will concede that of course the most crucial aspect of the LSAT is understanding how to arrive at the right answer. Duh. But here me out here. The longer you study for the LSAT, the more you’ll recognize that questions use the same recycled answer choices over and over again, and just modify them slightly to match the topic of the argument. For example, on flaw questions, its very likely that you will see an answer choice that states a part to whole or whole to part flaw, or equivocation. You’ll usually always see one that suggests ad hominem as well (attacking the author not the argument). Most of the time, these recycled answers are incorrect. But this is where this tip becomes useful. Understand why these answer choices don’t apply to the stimulus. Literally verbalize it, and then verbalize what the stimulus would have to look like for these answer choices to be correct. That way, when a flaw question comes up that is actually demonstrating a part to whole or ad hominem flaw etc., you’ve built a model in your head to be able to instantly recognize it.
6. This is a skill-based test, not an intelligence-based test. Every now and then, you’ll encounter a genius who was in speech and debate their whole lives and got a 173 diagnostic. Congrats. For us people who did not grow up practicing argumentation skills 24/7, this is not the case. There is a misconception about the LSAT that you either have it or you don’t. That’s just not true. For most high scorers, the score they earned is not so much an indication of their intelligence, but rather about their work ethic and commitment. No doubt they’re sharp and can think quickly under pressure, but by the same token, there’s also no doubt that those skills were developed and improved upon with hard work. The LSAT is a frustrating and isolating test. The people who get to where they want to go are the people who just put their head down the longest, sat out cycles, made sacrifices, and learned from their mistakes. I was a good student; I had a cumulative 4.2 GPA in high school, and got like a 29 or something on the ACT. I went to UC Davis which is a solid UC in Northern California. I didn’t grow up reading a ton, I used ChatGPT in college a good amount. I got a 150 diagnostic on the LSAT. My point is that while all this is respectable for sure, and while I like to consider myself a smart guy, I am far from a natural born genius. I played the hand I was dealt and earned a high 170’s score because I worked at it. Trust me, if I can do it, so can you.
4 comments
Interested!
Hello! I’m interested
Interestedddddd
I'm interested.