@ LSAT 01....throwback.

It appears that you and I got different prephases. I prephased that they disagree about whether or not owners have the wright to destroy artwork ONLY because they own it. That's what the second person is refuting.

When I did this under timed conditions the nature of choice A initially threw me way off but on a second run through I realized that it was clearly correct.

@

HLS takes a much larger class so if you are above both 75ths, you are about as close to a lock as possible because there simply aren't that many people in the world who have a 175+ LSAT.

YLS accepts a class about 1/3 the size of that of HLS. From what I've heard/seen, softs matter much more there than at most other law schools. That said, they won't admit only people that have lived in a Haiti for a year building shelter and kids of US senators and Presidents. They admit plenty of people that have worked their way through college delivering pizzas. So, you should still have a very solid shot there.

I don't know much about Stanford.

@

Have you memorized all of the main types of flaws? Your trouble with NA and Flaw questions suggests to me that maybe you're reading WITH the argument as opposed to reading to pick it apart. Let me expound...

When I read the stimulus, I'm looking for anything that I could say to discredit the argument. By the end of the stimulus, I usually have the answer choice in my head for NA questions. This happens a lot with flaws too but a bit less. Flaws are usually just missing an element.

Are there any particular types of flaws that you have trouble finding? Since these two question types are very prevalent, you could probably get into the -5 range if you really mastered them.

As for the time, worry about mastering your identification of premises and conclusions and assessing the arguments as you read them and time will eventually become a non-factor.

Hahahahha! This is hilarious. I think we've all been there. Of course, yours are after having taken the test but it's all relative.

While I was starting to do new game types i.e. double layer sequencing or more often those crazy, most difficult of all time games, I used to dream about them. I still dream of aggressively tracking the conclusions and the premises in the argument for LR. So, it seems I don't really dream about scores just yet (I'm sitting in September) but I'm sure that's coming.

RC is currently haunting me. It's bad. I just keep thinking that the only thing that stands between me and the option of a 200k a year job in three years is RC....it's not literally like that...but kind of. You probably experienced the same during your prep.

@

I don't know how I found this. I think I just saw it while I was in my "I want to keep studying but my brain is fried for the day" mode. I always surf the 7sage boards at that time haha

Yeah, I agree. It can be kind of messed up to 'learn as you go' in crim law given what's on the line. I'm also not sure about exactly which type of crim law I want to be. I mean, a good LSAT score could easily have me at a V100 doing white collar...wouldn't be mad at that money.

At the end of the day, I'm very glib. I know what my strengths are. From experience, the more I have to articulate and the more I can get in front of people, the better I do. I excel at strategizing and poking holes in arguments. I can make an argument myself, but I'm much better at tearing down the arguments of others. Sounds weird, I don't know if this is common. Both of those lend very well to crim law.

I mean, either way, it's about that money.

I agree with everything that you've all said. There are some serious risks involved, it's undeniable. Another fear I have is that working for someone else I won't get the opportunity to get the kinds of cases that will give me a strong reputation, and well, that can't happen. I view that as a huge risk also.

@ brought up an interesting point as to whether it would be ethical, given that I'd have no experience. I see your point. However, at some point I will have my first case, solo or at a firm. You're saying that basically the supervision of senior attorneys/partners would make it ethical? I can understand that.

Mistakes are 100% inevitable. Luckily, I have a few years to figure it out. A family friend is actually a very prominent, well known crim defense lawyer in NYC. I will be working with him during at least my 1L summer. But, he frequently appears on MSNBC and stuff as 'legal expert' and he is involved in many other businesses...so it's like a circus there. I'm not sure how much I'll actually learn there about practicing criminal law. He actually founded his firm shortly after working with the DA and had to hang coats at night during the early days.

You always have to bet on yourself but there's fearless and then there's reckless...

It's certainly possible. The difference between a 158 and a 162 is about 5 questions. If I were you, I'd focus on getting that score to a 165. If you have the intelligence to get yourself in with the State Senate on any level, you can get very, very good at LR and LG.

@

That's exactly right. The subtleties in the answer choices are what hurt me because, unlike LR, there are many more subtleties to track and remember. I did RC for PT 29 today and got -6 but I wasn't timed. Again, the subtleties hurt me. I will to the blind review this afternoon :). Thank you so much for your help!

@

Okay :). Today I did PT 58. I apologize, when I posted this morning I was so rattled that I wasn't even thinking. To be honest, there are A LOT of issues when it comes to RC. I tend to do very well on passage 1, maybe -1 or so. The other two passages that aren't comparative reading typically destroy me to the tune of -3 or -4 per passage. It's awful. I read the passage, I know all of the important details (viewpoints, theories, statistics, etc.) and I feel like I know the main point but then when faced with the question I will get down to two or three and it seems like either one could be said to be the main point and it wouldn't be incorrect. The same thing happens with purpose questions. For instance, paragraph three does 3 of the five things listed as the potential purpose and quite effectively. So how the **** am I supposed to know?

My attitude gets to this point during the RC section because I get very, very annoyed with passages 2-4 (typically). The questions seem so abstract and frankly irrelevant that I just get angry. This is it's own separate issue.

It just seems to me that the questions don't really test what I know about the passage. I don't know how common this is. But, I read the passage with so much attention and effort and when I get to the questions none of what I've forced myself the remember is tested.

I'm not a great abstract thinker. I see the facts, I process the facts and I apply the facts. These sections seem to require a lot of abstract thought i.e. comparing what is presented in the passage to another paragraph and having the choose which one is most analogous.

I have no problem doing this with LR because of the amount of material that we're required to retain. With RC, it goes out the window.

I don't really know what to do. I've read all the advice in the world but none of it seems to help me. I'm willing to do whatever is necessary to get to a consistent -5 or so but I can't think of anything that will make that possible..

@

So, I definitely lied because I did a timed section today and -11. I can't believe this and frankly I'm just aggravated with this. I dominate LR and LG and get knocked out with RC. At this moment I just don't know how to read to answer the questions that they ask...

Usually main point and more concrete questions I have no problems..unless the question is insane...like most of them. I'm at a loss with this. The speed and comprehension of the words are no problem I just CANNOT, for the life of me, figure out how to read something in such a way that I will be able to answer those types of questions.

Looks like you've gotten some really good advice above so I'll try not to repeat. I've noticed with flaw questions in particular that the flaw can sometimes be 'concealed'. I mean, sometimes you'll read something and it seems totally fine and then you see it's a flaw question and you're like why?? :neutral:

For example: A child cannot have a social healthy social life if they don't spend sufficient time outside playing with their friends. Joey plays videos games at least 5 hours a week so he doesn't have a healthy social life.

Flaw: Asserts that because one spend 5 hours with another activity that they necessarily do not spend enough time outside playing with their friends without justification.

Did you get that? It's a little bit more subtle and you kind of have to be on your toes to catch it. If you are, this problem should be cake. Sometimes you just have to get used to reading the material.

They hate each other. If I see Alan, no Chris. If I see Chris, Alan stayed home to watch Netflix.

@ @ @

Hey friends,

So, today is a much better day. I took your advice and slowed down a lot, made the necessary connections as I actively read and it helped A TON! I did an untimed section...maybe PT 55? I'm not positive. Anyway, -5. But, it was a solid -5. I wasn't afraid to check my answers whereas yesterday I had that face of the grossed out emoji when it came time to check RC.

I had much, much more control. I was definitely over time but not by an insane amount. I live by the "slow is smooth, smooth is fast" philosophy. With time, I will be in complete control and within the time limits. I went through this same process with games and LR...well I'm still in the process but you know what I mean.

It's my understanding that RC is very difficult in the 50s so I'm pretty content with that. I also enjoyed the passages, actually. I read about the cakewalk dance and drilling oils...my entire body was vibrating with anticipation.

Thanks again for your help :).

@ said:

@ said:

@ If that's your goal, I would master conditionality to the point you can do it in your sleep and learn to detect causality with ease. Those were the two most important aspects for me to improving LR.

About a month ago I was just drilling specific question types every day. That helped a lot. Once I finished CC, I immediately started doing simulated sections. In my opinion, once you start doing full LR sections, you learn so much about the test. I can sense when a difficult question is coming, when I get that tricky question it's easy to point out which choices are wrong because they're just tricks...could be true in a must be true...etc.

Just keep at it. If you master LR, I bet your games performance will go through the roof too.

Thank you! This is very comprehensive advice. Additional thanks for starting this thread.

My pleasure 7sage fam.

Thank you very much for the feedback everyone! @ I will definitely try to slow down a bit and take the passage in bite size pieces...then with each paragraph, I will connect and see how it works with the other paragraphs of the passage. It is a process to learn exactly 'how' to read these passages. It seems like I need to spend more time up front with each paragraph in order to make sure I got the message, the importance of said paragraph and how it interacts within the structure of the passage as a whole while holding the specific details of the passage in my mind which has never been a problem.

The questions that I do get wrong tend to be "purpose (paragraph or authors purpose)", analogy questions i.r. "which of the following is most analogous to x in the passage" and that's about it. I'm quite comfortable with anything that deals with the facts presented in the passage.

@ said:

@ said:

Hey all,

So I just took PT 53 and scored a 169. Hoooray, right? Not quite. I scored a -1 in LG, -2 between both LR sections and a -9 in RC. Yes, a -9!!!!!!!

I don't know exactly what my problem is with RC. Maybe I just hate it and I know that I hate it so my mindset isn't right or maybe I just don't understand the questions. I understand what it's asking, but I've just read so much dense material in 2 minutes so to then answer a densely worded question with 4 answer choices that are all eerily similar in 40 seconds seems like a lot...

Anyone else gone through something like this? How did you beat RC? I know that you track the viewpoints, arguments, tone, structure etc.

Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated as I am at my wits end with RC...

Yeah, I'm pretty inconsistent on RC myself. It used to be my best section and slowly became my worse. I went from like -2 on the older tests to -6/-7 on the newer, so I have felt the rage, haha.

The only things I can think that helped me get better (beyond tons of practice) was reading more carefully and trusting myself more so I wasn't using my time looking back. And I guess knowing when to look back and when to just trust the ghost memories in my head. Try spending between 3-4 minutes reading the passage. 2 minutes means you're reading too fast and spending too little time on the passage.

What also helped me was not getting bored. Yes, it can be that simple. The difference between when I would get bored to now when I force myself to be interested is a few points.

I was missing -8 for the longest time just because I was getting bored. And perhaps "bored" isn't the best word choice because sometimes I'm just uninterested or apathetic about the passage. As soon as I realized that the LSAC is just trying to do that so I lose focus, I began to see it as some sick competition to stay interested. Now I sort of look at it as a learning experience. Like, ok, I'm reading this to learn something new that I will be tested on.... Let do this! I essentially began treating RC like a memory competition against the LSAC. As crazy as it sounds this got me down to the -5 range.

Hey Alex,

Thanks for the feedback. I like your method of looking at it like a competition. It's interesting and it may help me focus on something other than the fact that I'd rather do anything other than mean about philosophic anarchism. Good stuff.

Another thing you touched on is my biggest problem, the lack of certainty. In LG I know with completely certainty that my answer is correct. It is the same way with LR 9/10...but with RC...I'm like 'well...I'm picking this one. Good luck everyone else!'. It's bad. Very, very rarely do I pick an answer in RC with absolute confidence. Do you experience that also?

To be honest I haven't practiced RC too much. I did a few sections during this past spring semester in my free time and scored like -2, -3. So I wasn't too worried about it. Sounds similar to your situation. I mean, with my scores on the other sections, I'm really not too worried. I just don't like feeling defeated by anything :neutral:

@ said:

Are you me?! I have this exact same issue. LR sits around -3 a section, LG is typically -1 and then RC....-8! every time! I am interested to see what answers you get here.

Lol I guess so but I'm very rattled about it. Games are fun. I genuinely enjoy them. LR is fun, I love reading the ridiculous arguments and tearing them down (this is how I look at most questions) but these passages are mind-numbingly boring. Who cares about the fact that spiders fight in different ways depending on whether or not the grassland is desirable...

My first section of the test was an experimental LG so gotta love using all that energy before it even counts.

Bombed RC. Had it 4th and literally blacked out. If I got -15 I'll be happy...that bad. Also blacked out on the first LR but bounced back with I believe near perfect 26 question LR and LG.

Beads and gold was a strengthen except question right? And homophones was an NA?

@

How long of a break do you recommend? That's another problem I have. I never know when to stop and take a break. I work myself to the bone. Now that you say that, part of my regression is probably exhausted. I haven't had the same energy levels lately with games or LR. I took the day off yesterday but this morning I still felt exhausted after a PT on Saturday.

@ said:

I sympathize with your plight, but it seems to me that there might be a "patience" issue here. You have posted several times in the past few weeks about your RC struggles, and from the continued frustration, it appears to me that you'd like to see major results in just a few weeks. I mean, there are people who spend months on end getting better at individual sections. The LSAT is a beast of a test, and there are no real shortcuts. For many, it's a long slog, with ups and downs, peaks and valleys, elation and frustration, and multiple takes. At the end of the day, your score is really good as is, and if you are willing to put in a tremendous amount of time into RC, I'm sure you would considerably improve, and bring your score even higher, to the highest echelon of test takers.

Thanks a lot. I definitely have not very patient with this since I picked up LR and LG fairly quickly, I started to panic when RC was just at a stand still. I guess, tbh anything 165 or above would be perfectly fine with me because I am not interested in biglaw at all and would have several very strong TT options right in my backyard. I'm just looking for a more respectable RC score because well, who wants to feel like they've been defeated by words on a page...

@

I don't annotate very much at all so I didn't really love Nicole's method. I've tried so many of these methods that my score has actually gone down in RC. The problem is that it was -8 before...so I don't want to go back to that. I need to just keep working at it until I find something that works for me but that feels almost impossible at this point...even when I read the passage and feel really confident sometimes I still end up with -3 on that passage alone. It's maddening and I get so frustrated that I don't even feel like doing games or LR.

For me, annotating a lot wastes too much time. I do box the viewpoints though. Sometimes I'll write the purpose of a paragraph next to it if it's really obvious. However, I constantly fall into trap answer choices and don't really know how to prevent it given the time limits and the fact that I'm doing everything I need to be doing...

For example when I get a question that asks why the author used a certain phrase...I get that wrong about 9/10 times.

How do you get all of the questions done in time while looking back at the passage for a few questions per passage? There's no way that there's time to check every single answer with the passage....you would only get done 1.5 passages in 35 minutes.

Maybe I'm focusing too much on trying to remember so many little details that it's hurting my ability to grasp the main points and the big picture...what exactly do you focus on remembering? Do you focus on the specific elements that you know are most likely to be tested?

I just watched about 10 minutes and it seems like it could help! I'm going to watch in full tomorrow! Thanks

@

Ive seen a jump at the beginning but just lately I see the dropoff.

Since finishing the CC I've just been doing PTs and drilling games at times.