@ said:

7Sage has the best drilling materials by far, but if you're looking for a substitute in a pinch you can check out the Powerscore Drill By Type books.

Where on the 7sage site are the 7sage drilling resources? I tried looking and couldn't find them. I'll see what powerscore has to offer.

What are your stats? How long have you been studying ?

I have to thank you all immensely for your questions. I do the harder games usually a little to a lot faster than the recommended time and the easier games a little over. I think it all balances out in the end. I'm having pretty good success recently finishing all games in 35 minutes unless I approach a misc. type game and sometimes I panic. But, hey at least I'm self aware to know that is my issue. Cheers to all of you taking it on Saturday. I thought I was going to do it, but I'm bowing out from it.

I am in a similar situation and wondering the same thing. My BR score on LG is -5 on avg. While my actual score is -15 which is really horrible. Clearly a timing issue. I have the preptest 61-71 book and have been fool-proofing every single game in there (40 games in all). My big struggle is closing the BR gap and the actual gap before the test. If I can do that I won't have to take it again in December due to my LR and RC being in an acceptable zone for me.

@ said:

@ said:

Hello all,

My first question is about writing an addendum or two. I got an unusually very very low GPA my second semester of freshman year. about .5 below my usual GPA. Should I write an addendum? Also I always took 5 or 6 classes a semester and my GPA is a little lower than it could have been. Is that grounds for an addendum? I also graduated a semester early from University. Will law schools look at that favorably?

Also I have been getting the stock emails from law schools...but a few have been from pretty good schools. I know they send them out to the masses. Even still should this give me hope or should I brush it aside?

I forwarded my transcript to LSAC and they received it. It occurred to me that I should get a copy myself so I can make sure there aren't any errors in it. If I find an error what should i do?

Thanks in advance for your time in answering my questions!

Hey!

So it depends on the reason for the low GPA. However, just taking 5 or 6 classes certainly isn't grounds for writing an addendum.

Graduating a semester early probably won't have any affect on your application. It certainly won't hurt though.

Stock emails are very common. Have you taken the LSAT yet?

If you find any errors, email or call the LSAC. While they are super uncommon, there have definitely been people who have found errors on their transcripts. Always worth triple checking!

Thanks for replying Daniel. I did not think just taking 5 or 6 classes would be grounds for an addendum. I was wondering however if the fact that the school signed me an advisor for the first semester freshman year but I I didn't have him the second semester. And then fall semester of my next year it popped back up after the adjustment period. The advisor basically helped keep me on track and helped with homework.

I have taken the LSAT and I'm going to take it February. I was way below my potential on one section due to nerves about doing poorly on what later turned out to be the experimental section.

I feel like graduation early shows that I'm a finisher and I like to achieve. Is there a way to illuminate that in the application?

Thanks so much - Caleb

fell for the trap even though I was bouncing between A and C. Ugh.

Some ducks DO like to swim ok :/

@ said:

Hi @

My advice is to wait and take in February if you're not feeling ready for the December test. BUT -- work on getting your applications completed before then. I'd still submit the applications by Thanksgiving if you can (or at the latest just after the LSAT in those first few weeks of December). I know that it means you'd be submitting applications without knowing your score, but if at that point you're feeling more confident about your score, better to get the apps in before January. The schools will begin processing your application when they receive it, and it will remain incomplete until they receive your score. But at least once they receive the score your application is ready to be forwarded to committee for review. If you wait until after the February to apply, you're delaying the processing of the application by at least a few weeks. Plus it is right after the holiday break - many admissions offices are closed for the week from Christmas to New Year's - so there is always a ton of applications and mail when they return, so the processing time is even longer than it is in November.

Bottom line: better to apply with your best application in February than with a weaker application in January. The benefit of the higher LSAT score and overall stronger application will outweigh the benefit of an earlier application with a lower LSAT score, at least for the schools that take February test scores. The main issue to note is that many schools do not accept February scores. So make sure to ask the schools if they will take a February score. So absolutely make sure the schools you're interested in accept February scores. If not, you may have to reconsider your timeline.

Keep your options open for December. You have until the night before to withdraw and yeah, it sucks to lose out on 180 bucks but you don't want to take it if you're not feeling ready. Many people claim that it can make for good practice to sit for the test. And while I agree, I don't know if I'd recommend sitting for it if you're more than a few points from your target score on recent PTs.

Hope this helps! :)

I am in a similar situation and this advice is tremendous! I am wondering how I submit my application without sending my September score? I looked over the schools I want to apply to and all but 1 very reach school does not accept February LSAT scores. And you know what? I'm fine not applying to that school if it means getting a higher score on the LSAT. I will also keep my options open for December. Getting all my applications submitted and having just to send my LSAT score would be a big amount of stress off of my shoulders. Combined with your helpful answers on other posts. I have made a decision I am happy with. Settling for a lower score even if I'm done with the LSAT by December would feel like wasting the year or so I've been studying for this test. Thanks again!

@ said:

Advice on what specifically to do to reach the goal of -3/-5 by test day is a bit difficult because we are treading a strategic fine line. Ideally, you want both interaction with newer sets but you don't want to burn the newer sets in haste. With that being said, I advise against the following, but will dispense it nonetheless.

If your goal is to maximize your points on LG in a short amount of time, you should consider the following:

-Take timed sets 36-58, save the rest for a possible retake, the newer sets are not drastically different from this range.

-Skip rule substitution questions: these questions should be answered in my estimation when you are already trending close to perfect on the rest of the section. If your goal is to maximize points in a short amount of time: skip these questions, pick a letter and move on.

-Get really good at the "easier" games of the set: your points have to come from somewhere and it makes sense for them to come from the easier games.

-Be comfortable moving around the section by skipping the hard games: check out PT 77 for an example of this, skipping in my estimation is key here.

-Get really good at one or more of the following: in and out, grouping or double layer sequencing. To the extent permitted by the time constraint become an expert in one specific game type. The reason for this is that you might luck out and the hard game of the set might play to your strength. Again, you are leaving a lot to chance here. Once you have picked your specialty, drill every single one of those games from PT 1 through PT 58 individually throughout the day.

-Consider getting a tutor, speak to that person 2-3 times per week for insider strategy and tips.

The above list is not exhaustive and not ideal, but is tailored to maximize points in a short amount of time. Trying this has its drawbacks. One might experience burn out and not retain the ideal amount of information. The key here is to maximize points.

I hope this helps

David

David I am the same boat as @ and this is some extremely helpful advice. I am going to go back and fool-proof the easiest games of 1-20. Sub-equivalence questions aren't that hard in my mind after I watched JY's including/excluding videos. I took ptest 77 and naturally skipped game 3 as it is ridiculous and had to watch the explanation after word. Do you think it's worth fool-proofing that game? I have been doing 10-17 LG per day and I think it's really helping. Thanks a lot!

@ said:

@ said:

Yeah I think part of the problem here is that all the gains you really make are in review, not the PT itself. Not just doing BR, but even after BR and you see what you got wrong and where you incorrectly changed your answers (GAH I know how frustrating that is - been there) but going back again and review the question in depth. Say you got it right and then changed it during BR - go back and really dig in, figure out why it was right and the other answer was wrong, what made you make that choice and why. Parse the language and the trap answer choices to see why the right one was right, and the others were not. It's tedious, but that is definitely where the actual improvement happens. Otherwise you just kind of run through doing bad habits over and over. You might eventually correct them, but it'll take longer that way.

@

It is actually sort of a benefit of blind review that you get some questions wrong in blind review and right on the actual test. It means that you didn't actually know how to get the right answer and instead had to rely on an educated guess. Since there is always a right answer, ideally you will always know the answer with nearly100 percent certainty. If you didn't blind review(or never changed your answers in blind review) it would be harder to discover what you don't know.

I'm not sure if you have the ultimate package or not, but it might be a good idea since, if I'm not mistaken, it comes with explanations of all the LR and RC questions in all the tests. So you go through the blind revkew process described by @ and then also check your newly gained understanding agaist the correct rational. The ultimate package is not strictly necessary to excel on the test. I only ever bought the starter package since I mostly just needed to improve on games, but when re-reviewing LR after my blind review, I would occassionally seek out a third party explanation of a question to make sure I was not just justifying the correct answer using bogus logic.

I assume on your blind review of logic games you don't experience this phenomenon of doing worse than your initial PT. Once you know the methods all games are solvable eventually so your blind review of logic games should be a -0. Then it's just a long struggle to figure out how to do that in 35 minutes.

You mentioned doing better than expected on the logic games section of the September test. That's good, but the logic games section of the September test was one of the easier logic games sections in the history of the test. It also featured one of the harder reading comp sections. For me this was an answered prayer (reading complex passages is a strength and logic games were why I was retaking). But, I would caution against thinking scores on those sections from September are good indicators of where you are in your prep.

Defense of Foolproofing:

Finally, you said you are not sure if foolproofing helped you. As long as you are missing more than 1 or 2 questions per game section on average, it is my belief that foolproofing is indispensable. Here is why.

First it works. It works everytime for everyone. It sometimes works slowly. It sometimes works really slowly. It sometimes works so slowly that you can't tell it's working, but it always works. And if you give it enough time it will work for you.

How do I know it works? Ask people on this website their section breakdown sometime. You will notice that there is a significant cluster of people who average between -0 and -1 on logic games. There won't be anywhere near as many people who say that about RC or LR. And almost without fail these people with perfect LG section acerages now bombed their first LG section. They bridged the gap with foolproofing.

How else do I know it works? It started to work for me. My first test I did not complete the logic games section. Then I discovered foolproofing and three months of prep later missed 1 (a stupid misreading error) on the actual Septemver test. It wasn't just the easy games in September either. On the most recent 20 PTs I averaged -2 on games (pedestrian by this site's standards, but pretty good).

Why does it matter that it works? It's just 6ish questions your missing on it. The thing is that until you perfect it, logic games isn't just your average number of missed questions. It's an unnecessary source of stress. One hard game comes along and you are -6 if you identify and skip it. Two hard games and you might be -12. That's what test day disasters are made of. On LR if you run into an abnormally hard question or two, they count for one point each. On RC you will be able to wrestle the answers to some of the questions out of even the most confusing passage. But if you hit a game or two you can't solve you will be guessing nearly blindly. That's stressful.

Foolproofing takes that stress away and that relaxes you for the other sections. When a game is going smoothly it isn't particularly strenuous. That means if you can foolproof games, you just got a 35 minute break from the stress of the test, free points, and ditch the source of the most volatility in your score. The first time I got a perfect games section on a PT was also the first and only PT where I got a 180. That was 5 points higher than my previous best and 7 higher than my median at the time. Those 7 points didn't all come from games. They came because games were the second section of the test and the rest of the test I was relaxed.

Don't give up on foolproofing, but it does take time.

Thanks for your response and reaching out! I am starting to see that it was a huge folly to not have done the blind review system with more of my practice tests. I have started going over my old LR sections from those tests and seeing why I got the questions wrong on those sections then re-doing them the day after with good results!

In regards to the September test I was actually surprised I got such a low score considering my RC and LG scores. I did really well on both but absolutely terrible on one LR section and poorly on a second. It is actually a really great indicator of how well I am doing in general. I got a 155 on it and a 155 was my average going into the test, and I'm only averaging a 1.5 points above 155 right now.

It's completely true what you're saying about the LG. I actually only really started studying the LG section in June. I procrastinated on starting to learn it since I had read it was the most learnable section. I did not realize how much time it takes, despite being the most learnable section. I do notice how a shaky LG section actually sucks the performance out of the following section. Usually if I run into a hard LG section the LR section following I will miss an extra 3-5 questions based on decreased confidence. I'm going to keep up studying and persisting, especially with the LG.

@ said:

You definitely can get that score you want! You should do and blind review and take at least 30 tests in my opinion before you can have a gauge of where you really stand as far as LSAT aptitude. Finishing the core curriculum is great, but really the LSAT is all about practicing and applying what you learned and it is designed to be a hard test. Remember on any given test half of those who take it score a 150 or below. when you blind review do you sit there and think about each question until you get to the right answer or do you just pick one and look at the answer? Also for games, and reading comp, every time I blind review a test I completely redo these sections just for practice, and I have seen good results. It usually takes me a good 5 hours to completely blind review a test and usually I won't miss more than 4, but back to you. If you have only blind reviewed 3 exams, that is not enough to see the gains, and quality over quantity is the key. I started over a year ago at a 148 as well. I went through mike kim's LSAT trainer, Manhattan Prep for RC and LR, and Powerscore for games, before I even started taking exams or heard of 7sage. 7sage was hands down the best tool but I came in with a basic foundation from all of the other hours of time with the questions. I have taken 50 exams at this point and being a slow reader, generally bad test taker, and inclined to silly mistakes, my lowest scores on a bad day are low 160's. The point is, you definitely can get to where you want to be, but if you are looking for a 167, remember that is approximately the top 5-7 percent of test takers. You don't need to be a genius to beat this test, but you need to be willing to work at it. Now ask yourself if you have out worked at least 93% of test takers and that will be a good gauge as to why your score is where it is, and the amount of time it will take to get it to where you want it to be.

When I blind review ( I really hate blind reviewing) I look at all the options and ask myself which answer is best and why. Part of why I stopped is I would occasionally get worse on a section after the BR. My initial intuition is just better most of the time and if I fret over it I loose points. Loosing points after fretting on an answer has lost me points when I look over answers if I finish on an LR section, I'll circle one the one I think is right, and then change it when I come back and my original intuition was the right one. On one preptest I actually lost 4 points changing answers after going back within the 35 minutes. Somehow, this week, I just thought of going back to my tests and re-doing LR section that I've done poorly on to do better on almost in a fool-proof fashion since the whole test is often so cookie cutter. My potential is almost there, but I just have to reach it consistently. My highest scores on each section are -4 LR,-5 LR, -5 RC -6 LG. I do not have the data to know if I have out-worked 93% of the LSAT test takers but I do know that I have worked really really hard on it (at least 300 hours).

@ said:

@ said:

@ said:

I don't think another course would be helpful sense it seems like you have already learned the basics. What you have been doing since you've finished the CC? Have you been fool proofing games and drilling your weaknesses? I don't think taking PTs are a very effective way of improving if you aren't doing ample review and drilling of the weaknesses that the PTs are exposing.

What section(s) are you having issues on?

I am having trouble on all of them I think. Right now over my last 5 ptests my averages are LR -8.2, LG -7.6, and RC- 9. Since I finished the CC in July I did all of the LG in the starter pack, all of the LG in the preptest 62-71 book multiple times and all of the LG in preptest 1-20. Yet I am still averaging a -7.6 on them. This is only after the LSAT in September though. Before the LSAT in September I was averaging I was -12.3 on LG and a 153.5 on PTs. Since the LG were hurting me so much I honestly spending most of time trying to improve that section. I was trying to do the fool-proof method but I don't actually think it helped me that much. I actually scored my highest on the LG ever until recently on the September LSAT. Before the September LSAT I was averaging higher on the RC. I really think I need a drastic change in the way I am studying since it isn't helping that much. One really big folly I have had is a lack of discipline in doing the BR. I've only Br'd 3/19 of the PTests I've done. I'm not sure what is to be done before December if anything can be. I have plenty of time in my schedule to study so I am the littlest bit hopeful. Overall, I have gone from a 148 lowest score to a 160 highest score which is good, but I KNOW I can do better than this. Thanks for your help!

You absolutely have to sit for it in 3 weeks, huh?

Well, if that's where you're at it seems that fool proofing logic games is the next step. You need to do a little more than what you've done so far. Try to see if you can pick up the PT52-61 PTs to work on. Or if you can get your hands on some of the earlier tests, those can also be very helpful for drilling games too.

Going from a 148 to a 160 is already an incredible achievement. So be proud and keep hammering away :)

I guess I do not have to sit for the test in three weeks. I guess I should take the February test? I absolutely want to apply this cycle. I am really worried about money and acceptance if I take the February test. I know people who have been studying for the test for much less time than I have been and have been scoring 10 points higher than I am. I am wondering if my basics aren't as grounded as they should be. I'm wondering if I'm just slow at learning the LG's and should instead try to improve the LR section with the three weeks I have left. I guess I should stop taking as many Ptests and focus on drilling. I just want to see results, I've given this test so much.

@ said:

I don't think another course would be helpful sense it seems like you have already learned the basics. What you have been doing since you've finished the CC? Have you been fool proofing games and drilling your weaknesses? I don't think taking PTs are a very effective way of improving if you aren't doing ample review and drilling of the weaknesses that the PTs are exposing.

What section(s) are you having issues on?

I am having trouble on all of them I think. Right now over my last 5 ptests my averages are LR -8.2, LG -7.6, and RC- 9. Since I finished the CC in July I did all of the LG in the starter pack, all of the LG in the preptest 62-71 book multiple times and all of the LG in preptest 1-20. Yet I am still averaging a -7.6 on them. This is only after the LSAT in September though. Before the LSAT in September I was averaging I was -12.3 on LG and a 153.5 on PTs. Since the LG were hurting me so much I honestly spending most of time trying to improve that section. I was trying to do the fool-proof method but I don't actually think it helped me that much. I actually scored my highest on the LG ever until recently on the September LSAT. Before the September LSAT I was averaging higher on the RC. I really think I need a drastic change in the way I am studying since it isn't helping that much. One really big folly I have had is a lack of discipline in doing the BR. I've only Br'd 3/19 of the PTests I've done. I'm not sure what is to be done before December if anything can be. I have plenty of time in my schedule to study so I am the littlest bit hopeful. Overall, I have gone from a 148 lowest score to a 160 highest score which is good, but I KNOW I can do better than this. Thanks for your help!

I would love to see a blog post on things to help people keep a good perspective!

@ said:

I understand that fool proofing requires -0 on the LG. However, I am not trying to hit perfection just -4 so I changed it to fit my goals. Perhaps that wasn't a good idea. I do need to do more LG. Is there book you know of that has LG 1-35 that I could go through? I need to get some more practice in. Thanks!

I didn't modify the Fool Proof strategy and after fool proofing 40+ games I am at -4. A good rule of thumb on this test is to prepare as if you are striving for 180, otherwise you can fall victim to a false floor as you may have done.

I recommend upgrading the 7Sage package to get access to those games and PTs. I'm not being paid to say that. With 7Sage, you get digital copies of the entire PT which makes things easier. If money is an issue, you can always search amazon for the LGs.

Thank you! That's more what I was getting at. Since you've fool proofed around the same amount of games as I have and are seeing way better results than I am I wonder what I'n doing wrong. My friend who I am studying with hasn't fool proofed at all and is getting -0 on the sections. My intuition says that there is perhaps a better way than fool proofing for me to learn the games and that one doesn't necessarily need to fool proof all games 1-35 as suggested.

@ said:

Fool proofing requires that you do a game until you get -0 on it well under 7Sage's recommended time. So a 7 minute recommended time game should be done around 4 minutes going -0.

Also, fool proofing from only 40 games is simply inadequate. The recommended starting point for fool proofing is PTs 1-35, which would be 140 games.

It took me about 3 months and over 600 game attempts to start approaching a consistent -0 on timed sections.

I think you just need to do way more LG.

I understand that fool proofing requires -0 on the LG. However, I am not trying to hit perfection just -4 so I changed it to fit my goals. Perhaps that wasn't a good idea. I do need to do more LG. Is there book you know of that has LG 1-35 that I could go through? I need to get some more practice in. Thanks!

@ said:

I feel like in some of the prep tests, especially in the early ones, the first LR section is objectively easier than the second. I noticed the second has many more "EXCEPT" questions and difficult Parallel Method of Reasoning ones. The key is always of course, more LR drilling :smile:

Actually these are preptests 79-81. Also some of the second LR are actually easier so I've ruled out that possibility.

@ said:

I had the same thing happen: -4 and -10. I looked at the types of questions I got wrong and realized that almost all of them were the same type of question. Was there a pattern for you?

That's a good hypothesis. I'll look over that. Thanks for the idea!

@ said:

Not sure that the evidence supports this, but could it be that its a stamina issue?

It could quite be a stamina issue. I'm going to look into that.

@ said:

Is there a pattern, i.e., are you always doing better on the first?

On 3/5 that has been the case. For instance today, section 1 I got -4 and section 3 I got -10. I cannot say a pattern is there, but it is starting to emerge. If I had gotten -4 on both sections or even -4 and -6 I would have been really quite okay with my score. Given the test is in December I need to remedy this problem ASAP.

Yes if the degree will help, and if I should write an addendum! Sorry for the horribly phrased question...to much coffee right now.

Thank you all for your recommendations I really appreciate them! I'll give them a try!

I wish I had scene to set it up like a LG I could have gotten it right then!