Discussions

aborges0428418

Joined: Apr 2025
Subscription: Free

LSAT

•

Saturday, Oct 21 2023

aborges0428418

Reading Comp Help/Advice

For background, I've taken the LSAT twice and scored low 160's both times (albeit my second score was significantly lower than my PT averages). For the last 10 PTs, my average score is 169, peaking at a 175. My average performances are -3.4, -2.3, and -5 in LR, LG, and RC respectively.

I know what I need to do to better my LR and LG scores and I've gotten -0 on these sections before. The issue is I have no idea how to approach RC. My best was a -2 and I don't think I can reach -0 with my current tactics. I've gone through all the curriculum and am stuck because I feel like the only way I can improve in RC is by reading faster and being more attentive. I always aim for the big picture and the low resolution summaries slow me down considerably.

If you have a strategy for RC, even if it is unique, I would love to hear it! This is especially true if you have a strategy/strategies for specific question types on RC since I would love a more focused approach.

General · when should I start taking full length practice tests?

aborges0428418

Friday, May 19 2023

If you took the prep test before starting the curriculum for your baseline score, then you don't need to take another PT until you've completed a majority of the curriculum (including RC and LG). If you want to know where you're at- no offense as this applies to everyone including myself- you're probably not where you want to be. Keep studying and once you have some mastery over the material as a whole, you can start taking PT's to see what you need to go back and review. If time is your worry then do some problem sets to see your speed.

P.S. These are my personal thoughts and I'm following this strategy as well. Feel free to disregard and good luck with your studying!

PrepTests ·

PT158.S2.Q24

aborges0428418

Monday, Jun 05 2023

#help

Could you say that E is wrong because it uses OPA as the sufficient condition?

PrepTests ·

PT158.S2.Q12

aborges0428418

Monday, Jun 05 2023

E is poor writing in my opinion. For PSA questions, if the logic works, it's usually what I pick. To have to now watch out for answers because they encompass the conclusion, but don't directly elicit the severity is very annoying. The reason why I say it's poor writing is that the LSAT is supposed to show consistency, yet this is my first time getting a PSA question wrong over a reason like this after having done dozens of these questions. (Yes, I see the flaw in this statement.) Maybe I'm just rationalizing it because I don't like being wrong though.

PrepTests ·

PT158.S3.Q16

aborges0428418

Sunday, Jun 04 2023

The concept of the triple intersection really helps. Diagraming the logic is my most significant hurdle right now.

PrepTests ·

PT157.S3.Q23

aborges0428418

Friday, Jun 02 2023

Reading "deficient" as "problematic" is what helped it click.

PrepTests ·

PT157.S3.Q18

aborges0428418

Friday, Jun 02 2023

I got this question right in the BR, but C is a very annoying answer choice. Needing more help from employees when buying a PC vs. other items doesn't necessarily decrease your profits. The way to make this work is to assume you need to pay more money to schedule more workers or hire more. But why can't the store be okay with the number of employees they already have? If customers need more help in relation to other items, that could mean that a singular customer more needs help, a number so small that the store has no need for additional workers at all. In addition, more help does not mean that the quantity of helpers is increased. It could mean the quality of help is increased. For example, it takes two minutes to help a customer looking for a PC vs. one minute to help a customer looking for another item. Yet again, an insignificant increase. I guess my main issue is that C establishes a very weak relationship. Maybe I'm missing something, but C seems so weak as an explain AC.

PrepTests ·

PT157.S2.Q21

aborges0428418

Friday, Jun 02 2023

#help

Is C wrong because it doesn't show that ALL commitments are morally neutral?

PrepTests ·

PT157.S2.Q15

aborges0428418

Friday, Jun 02 2023

I don't like that the stimulus refers to workers with little training as being more vulnerable to elimination and the AC speaks of workers as a whole having less job security. The only thing that allows this link is the term more implying that highly trained workers are affected by this as well. Nonetheless, the link is unbearably weak. Not reading carefully enough will be my downfall...