I was at a 173~ average for the 50s and 60s, and PT 71 and 69 were 169, PT 70 was 170. I am wondering at what point I should be concerned if my scores don't go back up to 170+. I am mostly concerned because I am only about 5 weeks out and am hoping thats enough time to feel confident for a 170 again...
Yes +1 to the aforementioned resources and I want to add that
you shouldn't feel discouraged because you arent doing well in RC based on the experiences you mentioned. I felt the same way as you when I first realized how bad I was bombing RC. Like many of us, you did really well in the style of reading comp that things like English classes and the SAT test us on, even the GRE. But the difference is the LSAT is much less testing on those things, and more so on the argument and reasoning structure. Thats why there is usually an adjustment in approach that has to be made. Once that clicks in your head, and both Nicole's strategy and the Trainer will solidify this approach, I promise you will see improvement!
@ Just a side question as I lurk, great advice by the way. I know you have rocked various LSAT and done extensive PTing, are 4 section PT's not a problem? I know i should do as many as possible with 5 sections but I work full time and currently PT 3x a week so I usually do one of those at 4 sections. Your thoughts and experience?
Do you have access to the course content? I seem to remember some logic diagramming drills. But I would just recommend drilling those question types if they are giving you a hard time. I will also note that ideally you should get to a place where you are doing most logic diagramming in your head, for LR and not LG of course. I do very little diagramming in LR, and of course everyone is different but I think true mastery of logic will mean you can internalize the logic. But drilling those question types will be your best method, especially ones like Parallel reasoning that tend to have lots of conditional relationships.
I thought of it this way: If the witnesses mentioned are less inclined to be swayed by the questioning, then that would mean when Lawyer 1 is trying to mess them up they would not be influenced. Hence, less inaccuracies. When lawyer 2 is trying to get witnesses to correct their statements, the witnesses mentioned also don't budge. So, while everyone else's inaccuracies were corrected, the witnesses who weren't influenced did not change their answers and therefore ended up with the most inaccuracies.
I just took this prep test yesterday! Here was my thought process on the test, I actually almost went with C until I chose A because:
Jacksons passing Sarah's number along would not be hard and would be helpful to Sarah.
They did not lead Sarah to believe they would do this.
Jacksons not passing Sarah's number along would not be wrong.
Jacksons passing Sarah's number along would be laudable.
A: Always laudable to do something helpful to someone (Giving sarah's number is helpful and therefore laudable)
Not giving Sarah's number is: [Wrong --> Led Sarah to believe they would]
This is basically the contrapositive of stimulus: Jackson's didn't lead Sarah to believe they would --> Not wrong
I eliminated C because of the very last part, "not wrong to do so." The not wrong part relates to the stimulus in terms of whether or not Jackson's led Sarah to believe they would pass her number, and this is not part of the principle in C. The first part of the sentence is not sufficient to say whether or not it is wrong, only that it is laudable.
I hope this helps!
If you have time at the end of each section, meaning timing is not a problem, and you are still missing a lot, I would think that you still need to work more on your fundamentals. I personally feel accuracy comes before timing, so maybe you need to slow yourself down and hone in your understanding. This may mean that you will run out of time on sections, but if you are accuracy is high then timing comes with practice.
Like allergic mentioned, it would be helpful to know what you typically score for each section to give more specific help.
You are definitely not alone, first of all. LR has been my strong suit for a long time, I was averaging -2 for both sections and would often hit a perfect score on a section. So I was definitely having a confidence crisis when I went -8 for LR on PT 72. I will echo @ and agree that a more thorough than usual BR is your best bet. Also, if you see a trend in the ones you are missing or hesitating on, dont be afraid to review the curriculum. For example I was struggling on Strengthen questions for some reason and I went back and redid the whole lesson on that question type. Sometimes we need that back to the basics. I was as freaked as you and just made these tweaks, and Im back at the same performance level on LR as I was for the 50s/60s.
As far as the longer question stems, is this leading to problems with your timing or just accuracy? I didnt really notice that with the 70s personally, although you may be right. Also remember that one or even two PTs dont say as much as we think they do. For example I hit a major low when i scored 168 on PT 72, but literally the next week I took PT 73 and scored 175. Some tests just exploit our weaknesses more than others. Don't let the scary rep the 70s have get too into your head, like I did at first, just keep taking them and learning from them, I bet your scores will bounce back asap!
@.hopkins Thanks once again!
@.hopkins Thank you so much for the recommendations, I have been lurking on here for a bit and you are so awesome! Should I take every PT with 5 sections?
New to 7Sage discussions, but I love how everyone seems very helpful and genuine. I am currently studying for the Dec test, and wanted some opinions on what is going to be more beneficial in these last 2 months and a half.
I currently am PT'ing around 168-169 average, BR around 173-175. My goal for the exam is in the 170-172 range. I would probably not retake if I hit 170. But I also know people's average scores tend to drop 2-3 points, so I want to be at about a 174~ average by the end of my PTs.
I am wrapping up a Testmasters course and have gone through most of the LSAT starter kit to supplement areas where I felt TM lacked (a lot lol). As of now, my main focus is drilling problem areas and PT'ing. I currently have PT 29-38, and like 25 more modern PTs (52+range). I also have the Cambridge packets for all LG PT 1-38, and for Weaken, Flaw, and NA since those are my weak areas. I want to look into some sort of prep for RC, because I do tend to miss avg 5 for this section, but not sure which packet or prep method is best for this.
Now that I am more wise in terms of LSAT prep, I realize that doing PT's 38 and below can be good practice for timing and comfortability but because I am drilling with those older problems my scores are always inflated for the older tests. like 179-180 range haha, which is inconsistent with my scores for newer exams that I have taken through TM. So would it be worth it to buy a few more PT's to avoid having to PT with the older exams?
Is my time better spent drilling or taking more PTs? I currently have like 30 PTs scheduled between now and the Dec test date.
As far as my time available to devote to LSAT, I currently work about 25-30 hours a week and that will increase to 35+ around mid-October.
Opinions and thoughts, thanks!
Im sorry for misunderstanding! Yes you definitely will. For LR specifically, drilling Flaw questions helped me a ton with my elimination skills (I currently average -3 for both LR sections). It allows you to get really familiar with all of the flaws you see in the LSAT in general, so you will be more confidently able to eliminate more AC's by recognizing the flaws.
To quote @.hopkins, your only job on the LSAT is to eliminate 4 wrong AC's for every question. It's much more effective to find what's wrong with AC's then to look for the one that looks right. Obviously there are some very easy questions that are exceptions and in LG the right answer can often jump out. But for LR and RC, POE is what you want to focus on, imo anyway.
@ A friend of mine suggested a golden ticket, and it's worked wonders for me. HIGHLIGHTER baby. As the trainer notes, "let the main points right the way!"
You seem to have had a lot of success with highlighting, a technique you don't hear often. I am definitely going to give it a shot! Question, do you do all of RC with the highlighter? Including any "m.p" notations, and going through the questions?
Also, I just got the Trainer and started the RC lessons, and I am feeling like its going to be a big help.
@.hopkins and others who want to hear Nicole's words of wisdom on RC-- we should all decide on a good time to do a Skype call so Nicole only has to explain it all once :) I saw your message Nicole, and unfortunately Friday (tomorrow) I am going to be traveling out of town right after work. Is next week an option? If I know more ahead of time, I can move my schedule around and be a lot more flexible. Let me know!
I am scoring consistently in the LR and LG sections of my PT's, usually -3 total for LR and -0 for LG save some dumb mistakes on occasion that have diminished now that my timing is doing amazing after drilling nearly all LG for 1-38.
BUT- my reading comp just isn't improving nor is it consistent. Sometimes I do pretty well, like -2,-3 and other times I ruin my entire score with like an -8. I am just looking for any guidance that any of you used that led to improvement. Timing and accuracy are both issues for me, I can't seem to get a good internal clock for RC and regularly run out of time.
I know that practice, practice, practice is key but any specific strategies are welcome. I just ordered the Trainer solely for the reading comp lessons because Im that desperate.
Like I said, any tips or strategies that helped you are welcome.
What miss @.hopkins said and I'll add that if you are dead set on December, I would focus on PT'ing the very newest tests, the 60s and 70s since you really can only get ~13 more PTs with BR in. I am also taking the December exam and am taking the 60s and 70s i have left and even retaking a couple of the 70s because they are subtly different and take some adjustment, imo.
I was able to identify the structure of this argument more by realizing that the conclusion tries to negate a relationship (Sentence 1) by showing a "counterexample" that is actually a necessary without the sufficient--not suff w/o necessary. So treating perception and art as though they are necessary conditions instead of sufficient. I could be totally off, but I identified that in both the stimulus and the right answer.
@: Thank you so much for responding, I feel a lot better about the 4 section tests I have in my schedule. I also really like the advice on meditation, look forward to implementing that.