@ yeah I think you're right with what you say and not mastering enough games... the question is how many games! I have done every PT and a lot of them I have done twice, so it's not like its a quantity of practice issue, right?

The problem I have with the foolproof method is usually when I redo the game immediately I can nail it, but that seems to go away when the game is a new game (even if it's the same 'type' of game, if that makes sense) and when under timed conditions. So it seems like more of a psychological/comfort issue than a pure technique issue. The questions I get wrong tend to be ones where I could have got it right but maybe snapped at an attractive answer and basically got duped (selected a could be true instead of a must be true, say) or, worse, misread the stimulus.

Honestly I have no idea which test/section, but the one with the artifacts (javelin, pot, etc.) still haunts me. In terms of misc, the one with the clans was a real piece of hell but I can't say I recommend it as a study piece because it seemed pretty unusual.

Forgive me for sounding a bit contrarian and I do not mean to derail the question but I have never quite understood the point of those target times.

Like, I guess it makes sense from the point of view of seeing how quick one's process is compared to someone else of high proficiency, but it seems to me it adds an extra level of totally unnecessary pressure.

Having been working on this for awhile, taken one test (scored 163) and done 130 PT's since June, I have found that my speed in getting through an LG game quite rarely lines up with JY's 'targets'. Sometimes I'll be slower, other times faster, but all that matters to me is that I am able to, quite consistently, get through the entire test with 5+ minutes still on the clock.

Personally, there is only one speed that matters and that is the speed of 'getting through everything comfortably enough to ensure a high degree of accuracy'. Whether that means the first game takes 15 minutes or 5 is kind of irrelevant. It's irrelevant because, in theory and hopefully in reality, having a sufficiently sound grasp of how to diagram and answer the questions basically guarantees in most cases that even if the target time on a couple games is badly breached due to a comprehension error or whatever that the test will still be completed just fine.

I guess I'd be interested to learn more about how these target times are used. Hopefully other responses can do that.

I'm now at a point where I consistently am -0 to -2 on RC even on 'harder' sections and I truly think it's the one that is the most mentally demanding, even more than LG. RC is naturally intimidating because it requires a lot of focus and attention and often the language and subject matter is super arcane and, frankly, dull.

I don't think cramming is the answer for RC (or anything really), however working on good reading skills most definitely is.

(1) Take interest in the subject, as much as you can

(2) Move through the passage efficiently. Efficiently does not mean quickly. It is far better to take 5 minutes to read and understand everything than 1 minute rushing through, only to then have to re-read multiple times for the 'main point question' then multiple times more for the subsequent.

(3) Comprehension is everything -- clue is in the name, I guess! Seriously, though. Passages where I fully understand the point the author is making, their reasoning structure, and the counterarguments invariably make the questions seem not merely easy but often pretty damn impossible to get wrong. Passages where I don't get it are pure hell and luck. It's crazy.

How to avoid hell? If you need to, don't be afraid to re-read the passage. I run into this I would say about 1-2 times per test, where the passage just doesn't make sense to me the first time around. It's okay, just take a breath and read it again. It's so much more important to read it again and make sure you do understand than shake your head and half-ass. You should have time to re-read when necessary (so long as you move efficiently through the other passages which are easier and don't waste any time) and the couple of minutes it takes to re-read a passage are generally made up for by the added understanding.

Below applies to timed PT's (and the real test) only...

Note taking during LR is generally unnecessary IMO. The only time I do it is for more difficult parallel reasoning/flaw questions and that's only because those typically involve the transposition of a formula between two arguments rather than understanding a single argument. Understanding a single argument simply doesn't require notation in any but the most extreme of cases.

Note taking during RC is even more unnecessary IMO. I understand the argument for it, but found it causes more problems than it helps due to the amount of time it takes to summarize a passage in sufficient detail beyond what can quite easily be remembered in one's head.

And saving the most controversial for last...

In general, I think we as students are far too negative and self-critical.

What I mean by that is that, assuming one has been through the core curriculum and, in general, has a good understanding of the fundamentals in play, more often than not the answer that instinctively feels right (once one has carefully read and considered the question) is correct. Not every time, of course, but surprisingly often. Often enough to matter.

I typically PT in the high-ish 160's with being in the low to mid 170's about 1 in 3 tests. In LR and RC particularly, the vast majority of the time when I get answers wrong its because I second guess myself. More often than not, my wrong answers result from when I actually talk myself out of the right answer, simply through thinking 'it couldn't be that simple'. But it can be that simple! Especially when one instinctively just knows.

IMO once one has got through the curriculum, pretty much the entire thing comes down to confidence. Full understanding + Low confidence = 160. Full understanding + High confidence = 175. Burnout and fatigue, stress, hunger, whatever are all so much more important factors than whether one truly understands things. Second guessing becomes a kind of madness. At the higher end, it's mostly a head game, not a matter of endless drilling and studying (although those things can, of course, help with the head game).

-8 on LR without any time pressure at all (BR) speaks to some fundamental lack of understanding of multiple questions types.

I don’t say that to be discouraging or disparaging, just to be honest. It’s not that it’s a “bad” score so much as it’s in the realm of a diagnostic — i.e a “pre-trained” score. If you’re getting -8 on BR, assuming you’re applying yourself fully, I would posit you probably don’t yet fully understand some or all of the following: Lawgic, flaw types, argument parts. Understanding those three to a high degree of competency and accuracy should alone give you enough to get to the region of around -4 or better on BR and certainly better than -10 on timed.

So, basically, rather than trying to get to your BR score, I would go back to basics and work through the core curriculum.

Best of luck.

Lots of different 'tricks', but 'tricks' are no substitute for technique. Quite honestly, you need to focus on not getting hung up on any of the passages.

Common sense says if you must skip a passage, you should skip the ones with fewer (~6) questions attached because they are worth fewer points. So that's one fairly rationally sound approach.

Personally I always start with the sections that look hardest/most unfamiliar in terms of subject matter. Usually science, since I do not have a STEM background and, depending on what sort of science it is, I can get very confused by the weird terminology. So I will usually start on those because that way I am less pressured by the clock and generally 'fresher' so it's a little easier.

I usually finish on the passage that is more familiar. Stuff about writers/artists that appear to be less of an argument between two positions and more a tribute to someone's work or an evaluation of it, things like that. The law stuff is hit-and-miss depending, frankly, on how obscure the law is.

I must stress that any kind of 'cherry picking' needs to be, assuming you intend on answering all the questions incredibly brief. I mean like less than 30 seconds type of brief. Ultimately, the only purpose of skipping is to give yourself an easier time psychologically with the clock. If you take multiple minutes, that is entirely undermined.

AC B says the research focuses on using peptides to bind crystals together.

But, well, does it?

Does the passage actually say that the focus of the research is using peptides to bind crystals together?

Maybe it does, maybe I'm just too tired to see it right now. But I skimmed through and I actually think that's an assumption.

The passage states that one of the researchers was initially discovering abalone and then this whole thing was kind of discovered that way, and they have continued the research into peptide-binding and expanded, etc.

Okay, but wait...does that automatically mean that this is the focus of their research? We don't actually know that. We presume it is the focus because, well, why wouldn't it be? We know this is something they are investigating, the passage does state that. They clearly have some intent toward progressing it. They are clearly engaged. So yeah, there's no doubt it is an area of interest, but does that necessarily make it an item of focus?

I don't think so. Strictly speaking, it's entirely possible (not likely, but possible) this is still a side-gig as part of research into abalone or whatever else. Abalone was initially the focus, could it not still be? Or perhaps consider, it's possible that the research into peptides and microchips is part of some bigger project into, I don't know, cyborg ninjas. That would make sense, I think. So then the cyborgs would be their focus and this would be in line with that, perhaps just one of multiple technologies that are part of the 'focus' on cyborg ninjas, and therefore B could now be totally wrong. Focus implies a rather singular lane of interest -- you can't really focus on multiple things, right?

The use of that one little word and the emphasis it adds to the AC generally, I think pushes it, however marginally, into the bounds of inaccuracy (at least relative to C) because it is adding one, small assumption where it is not needed and establishing a sense of motive which simply is not supported. How do we know this isn't something they are doing on Friday nights while drunk at the bar? We don't.

Answer choice C avoids this semantic trap by staying very close to what is directly stated in the text and going absolutely nowhere beyond it & that is why it is right.

You need to do the curriculum. LR isn’t all that difficult, ninety nine percent of it comes down to figuring out the conclusion and the relationship between conclusion and support. The curriculum will cover everything. All else is practice. I started in June averaging -12 in LR and RC and now average around -2 in both. I attribute all of if to the curriculum and endless practice (have been through all PT’s, currently on second cycle)

I average about -1 to -2 on RC and have achieved -0.

If this approach works for you then great and, depending on score target, a fairly reliable -4/-5 on RC might be good enough, in which case it's maybe a no-brainer. I agree that this is a 'low scorer's'" approach. At the end of the day, if you want to be in 160/170 territory you need to get through everything.

Personally, I have concerns about skipping the comparative passage and then revisiting them in this manner. Mainly because, generally, I find the comparative passage the easier of the four because it's typically very easy to grasp an argument that is only 1-2 paragraphs long instead of one that is 2-4 paragraphs long.

Additionally, the questions in comparative articles tend more often to revolve around structural differences, language choices or others stuff just plain easier to identify. Questions like 'both passages use the following words EXCEPT' are commonplace and easy points as it's a straight word search. Ditto 'Both articles attempt to address the following'. These are really easy questions. For that reason, I would never want to risk dropping points on the comparative passage.

Time is definitely an issue, though. Personally my favored approach, the one I continue to use is:

Spend 30 seconds establishing the subject matter of the four sections. Then begin with the section that contains subject matter that is most unfamiliar to you. In my case, usually anything 'hard science' is harder, anything literary is easier, but a lot of it comes down to whether I just happen to know anything about the subject under discussion. The idea here is to begin with the more difficult passages so you don't feel the time crunch as much and can relax a bit more.

Always start with the passages with the most questions where possible. This is simple common sense. If you aren't 100% sure you'll get through everything in good time, you better make sure you at least get through the passages that will equip you to adequately answer 7/8 questions instead of burning time for a return of 6 questions. Even if this only makes a difference of a point or two, that can be a huge score difference!

Read more. It's a cliche, but it's true. RC is the easiest section if you are a good reader, the hardest if you are not. Reading is a skill, not an arcane ability, and it needs to be ingrained. You should be reading thousands of words daily of material whose language and subject matter is equivalent to that which is on the LSAT. While reading outside of LSAT prep, be conscious to, where practical, employ the same general skills as you would in the LSAT -- consider things like MP, biases, POV, etc.

Rant warning

What pisses me off about the main point question here is the use of the phrase 'CEO's may be legally obligated...'

I may well be totally missing it, but I still don't see where it is stated in the text the obligation on CEO's to raise profits is legally compelled as opposed to, well, a professional expectation.

It was the sole use of the term 'legally' that caused me to go for the second choice, which I was not comfortable with but, again, I just don't see the reasoning. To my understanding, a legal obligation is one that is generally clarified in law. Is there a law that says CEO's have to raise profits? What if the board decides they don't care about profits that year because, uh, they want to make vaccines for pro bono -- is that an illegal request?

Additionally just because CEO's may have been the primary focus through much of the passage, I never sensed the term was used as anything other than a natural stand-in for 'those who steer corporations' in a similar sense to how 'White House' is used geopolitically to represent 'US Government'. The second para seems to suggest that distinction is fairly sound.

@ said:

I think you misunderstand my point as you seem to mischaracterize it somewhat.

By saying I have 'studied everything' I am referring solely to the theory. I mean I have read multiple books, watched every one of the videos, absorbed the 'how to', am generally 100% comfortable with knowing how to answer almost every iteration of almost every question type without really any posing a problem. In short, getting them 'right' isn't an issue. The issue is getting them right consistently under test conditions.

Your suggestion seems to be to practice problem sets of question types that are weakest under test conditions, and then review incorrect answers. That is, if you refer back to my original post, exactly what I am doing, only with the slight caveat that there aren't striking patterns in the question types (so, basically, practice nearly everything). It seems we actually don't disagree much.

It's not arbitrary whether or not you can be focused -- it's a choice. You can, and must, choose your focus and interest level by appropriating the right attitude to the task going in.

Rather than approach RC as a matter of 'I need to be focused' try going in with a more positive perspective. Try going in with the view of learning something new. Most of the time the passages are probably not on subject matter you are familiar of. Simply looking at it as an opportunity to 'learn something' can be all you need to organically 'keep focused'.

Try this: When the passage comes up, read the first line or two, then pause. Tell yourself some version of "Oh awesome, I'm going to learn about....French pastry design!" Then, before you start critiquing the validity and interest of that, quickly remind yourself that this is the first and perhaps the only opportunity you will ever have to learn about French pastry design. Remind yourself that following this exercise you will be smarter than you were starting it. Then start reading. Aim to learn EVERYTHING about it. Because why not?

I don't know if that helps or not, but in my opinion this is necessary. At the end of the day, nobody can teach you how to be interested in something, but I guess if one finds a few passages on some 17th Century Feminist Space Explorer or whatever uninspiring then they're going to have a really tough time with some of the dry stuff they will need to read at law school :)

@ said:

@ said:

if you do not see a pattern in your incorrect LR answers while usually getting -4 you are not looking hard enough.

I didn't say there wasn't a pattern. I said the pattern does not seem to be linked to the categorized question type.

It's perfectly fine, really, it's just more effort. But even then not really.

I have a theory that if rather than one big chunk + a dozen questions about what chunk contains the exact same length and content was simply dissected out into, say, 20 paragraphs of less than 100 words with 1-2 questions for each 'section' (so, essentially, formatted like your typical LR) it would be the absolute easiest section of the game. By far. Why wouldn't it be? There are four main point questions, perhaps a couple of flaw/sufficiency type questions. Everything else is pretty much a word search.

So what? So if the questions are rarely that hard, then its the situation and presentation of the stimulus. Human psychology + our flawed education system has fostered a natural aversion to navigating big blocks of text, especially stuff containing language and ideas that we understand but are unfamiliar with. Dealing with that psychological hurdle, together with the stressors of the clock, create a perfect storm of stress that only makes it harder. More than any other section of the LSAT, this feels like traditional schoolwork and I think that shows in the general aversion.

I average -3/-4 on RC (-1/-2 on BR) but have PT'd with a -0 more than once. When I started I was closer to where you are averaging. This is what helped me:

Train yourself to be interested. Assuming you enjoy reading nonfiction material to an average or above extent -- and if you don't then you probably should not be a lawyer because it's a massive part of the job -- then chances are you're already quite good at 'reading comprehension' in layman's terms. Chances are if I gave you a piece of writing on whatever you are interested in, you would absorb it quite well. Transitioning to absorbing the RC material, then, is mainly about self-discipline not about learning a whole new skill. Take a breath, pretend this isn't the LSAT, and just read. Exactly as you would in your personal life. As you read do your absolute best to engage with the text. Care about the subject matter, no matter how dry. Don't allow your eyeballs to glaze or your mind to wander.

Low resolution first time, high resolution (with highlighter pen) second time. Low Res = reading 'recreationally': Read as you would casually with no particular agenda. Skip nothing, focus on nothing. High Res = re-reading again, this time focusing on the main aspects, particularly those that lend themselves to 'an argument'. This should be sufficient to be able to at least eliminate most wrong AC's on most of the questions. It should at least be enough to get you through the 'main point' and 'author most agree with' type questions without much referencing back to the text.

The hardest aspects of RC, in my view, come down to subtle shades of meaning in the questions and answer choices, and balancing the desire for certainty with the clock. Tunnel vision and panic are real problems on RC. With the couple answers I get wrong now, they are almost always the top-rated in difficulty and even then mostly come down to perceived ambiguity between two terms or falling for the old trick of some/all, often as a result of time pressure, rather than anything to do with intellectual stretching. Pretty much, the stuff I get wrong on RC is stuff I (unfortunately) get wrong across the entire test. It's not an issue of comprehending the passage in any real sense. It's not an issue of the questions being hard in isolation really ever.

I dunno, maybe some of the above is just rambling, but I honestly find RC the best section of the three. I realize almost nobody shares this opinion, but if you can persuade yourself to take an interest in the material most of the questions themselves are no harder than argument labeling and the easier type of LR questions.

I am in the same boat. Consistently score 162+ with my median solidly at 165 (my last four PT’s have been 165) and every now and then I randomly get a 173.

When I get in the 170’s it tends to come down to catching a lucky break in both logic games and reading comprehension as I consistently get less than -5 in LR (usually -4) but LG I average anywhere between -2 to -7 and same with RC. Like OP here, I see very little in terms of pattern with the type of question I get wrong. It tends to come down to relative difficulty of the question itself rather than question type (most of my incorrect questions are 4/5 diamond difficulty) or it’s where I simply rushed and misunderstood something I caught in blind review. It’s extremely rare I encounter a question I cannot get right on BR. Unfortunately this really messes me up on the analytics because even looking at the marginals there is no question type I feel I get much benefit from studying at this point. Like, I know how to spot a parallel flaw. Studying it isn’t the issue.

My theory on this — the only one I have — is that, like OP, this is a matter of practice and, to some extent, of time management.

I have found the tests I do better at tend to be ones where I didn’t run out of time and, just as importantly, didn’t get hung up on a question to the point I had to rush (especially true in LG). Basically looking to work on the speed. This may be an aspect OP would benefit from, though I would be open to correction!

I am currently doing 2 PT’s a day, seven days a week. I actually really enjoy taking PT’s so no sense of burnout here. I have about 40 left and want to do every single PT at least once before Oct. If there’s a better way, like OP, I am all ears!

I always do the science passage first, usually then followed by law. I do these because I find they tend to be subject areas I come into with less foundational knowledge than the humanities.

More crucially, the tone and style of them are just generally less familiar as my bachelors is non-STEM, so typically they take a little bit longer to process. Because they typically take longer, I want to come at them as 'fresh' as possible to try to cut down some of the time.

At the risk of upsetting some of my fellow humanities and literary folks, I find the law and science passages to tend to be a bit more intellectually challenging than, say, literature. They tend to be a bit more grounded in hard facts and numbers and more nuanced. Obviously this is a generalization, but I find it's often really hard to identify things like author views in science passages versus, say, something about a novel or type of literature.

Some argue (convincingly) that deliberating on which passage can be done quicker is self-defeating. That's fair, but we are really only talking a 10-20 second process of identification here. A glance at the first paragraph is typically enough to determine the flavor of the reading material. Personally, I think taking the time can be worth it, if only on a purely psychological level. I have learned the hard way there is a big psychological difference coming into a difficult passage on quantum physics or bioengineering with 10.00 minutes on the clock versus 34:00 minutes.