Thanks for posting your thoughts. I should look over my old tests tonight.
I hope the curve is on the bigger side-still thinking of cancelling my score. I was more nervous then I thought I would be and finally when I got in the grove my watch went off during RC and soon after that there was some music playing outside (what a bummer test day--given all the prep work).
Mine was 1-LR, 2-RC, 3-LR, 4-LR, 5-LG
Sounds like your advisor gave you some really bad advice. Keep it positive!
I would write a strong essay about your current (college-level performance) and many positive personal attributes (juggling time constraints jobs and still succeeding to a very high level-- very impressive to me and others) that will contribute to your passion/success to becoming/being a lawyer. The best predictor of high performance is past high performance! I am always so surprised to meet students who have never held a job(s) and consequently are very poor with working with others (e.g. difficult clients, ect.) and handling stress presented at work in balancing difficult time challenges and priorities.
thanks.
Thanks for your reply. I am generally bubbling the last 1-2 Qs on the fourth passage when the timer runs out. No extra time. I felt a large sense control, and accordingly a calm after taking a peak and knowing what was ahead on that PT that day, but I can see this working against me too. Had the peaking of passage 4 revealed something else it might have had more anxiety/lack of focus effect on the Qs I was currently working on.
I will try to get more efficient. Thank you for the push!
During a PT, does anyone skim the RC passages before you start? If so, do you find it helpful as far finding a pacing strategy through the RC section.
I noticed when I skimmed the upcoming passage 4 - to confirm the number of Qs, I was more confident about spending time on the hard passage 3 that I was working on.
I probably should have cancelled. It was definitely was not my best day, as I failed to finish the game section. I might be in the same boat :(
A/B passages seem to have more abstract Qs and Answer choices.
For example:
(1) capture the meaning of the author A and B on how they would describe something
(2) two titles that are representative of A and B
(3) generic relationship between the A and B passages
(4) how does the evidence A relate B
LOL! I know what you are feeling. Keep in mind this is only a test and one you can re-write without too much penalty from most law schools. It is not like you are awaiting a medical diagnosis.
I think LR is a more predictable section than RC. So, if I were you I would
1st priority redo all the LR ones you missed. Then do like ~10- untimed LR sections to hone your skills and switching your brain between the different question types and gaining confidence.
2nd priority do a bunch of RC passages and redo them again until you link/find the structure of the passage. I think the harder part of RC (in comparison to LR Qs) -is that the question stems are longer and complicated. It helps, to categorize, when possible generally as (identification- passage must state the AC), (inference-what you can be concluded from the passage) and be able to isolate the arguments as you do in LR.
I think when you hone your LR skills this will help your RC at the same time. So, by working on LR you will also help improve your RC in certain aspects as well. Good luck!
Thanks! I will take a look at it :)
For me, the introduction of the comparative reading passage made completing the RC more difficult. I think it is introduced around or about PT 50-60?
If anyone has advice on tackling the comparative reading passage I would love hearing your input.
I am like you. I remember the question and video too well. Do a lot of different (yet similar) games. This should have the same overall effect and it will build your confidence and intuition (in attacking the game in the abstract--knowing where the constraints are in the game set-up, or with particular variables that maybe have two rules affecting them, or where two different variables actually are functioning the same in the game). This ultimately allows you to make the inference in your head, instead of writing it all out, maybe just a part and consequently making you faster at solving the problems. Also, as J-Y mentions you have to write the rules, and link/manipulate them by second nature, that is to say, without much pause or hesitation- if they are giving you a lot of pause or hesitation- then you need more practice (meaning that you have not memorized/understood all of their general allowances in a given game set-up, grouping, sequencing, in/out ect ).
A correct evaluate Answer choice (AC) is one that in the most extreme case (e.g. all of the time, 110%, a billion ) the AC -- strengths the argument. And when you put it in the other opposite extreme condition (e.g. almost never, 0.1%, 1) the AC ---weakens the argument.
DEC 2013 LSAT curve of -14 for a 170, -29 for a 160, and -46 for a 150.
Its always about making the existing premises somehow more related to drawing the conclusion.
(1) Add more strength/support to believe one/or more stated premise in the passage
(2) Exclude a possible gap (assumption) in a stated premise in the passage, so that the premise is now stronger by knowing the gap is closed.
Being well read is great of course. But you can't control what is given to you on test day. So be comfortable with dissecting and defining the many horrible RC structures. In this way, redoing RC passages is helpful. I agree with the statement "I think a lot of it has to do with just not feeling confident [about the material in the passage]" --I think "reading for structure" on these types of passages specifically gives you this LSAT RC confidence.
Like JY says, every thing brought up in the passage is connected in some way, connecting it reveals the structure and makes the passage more clear to you. In a unknown domain, with lots of fuzzy words and fuzzy ideas being passed around, attack the structure, by paraphrasing major ideas/topics as they come up, for example if major ideas/topics (1),(2), ect --notice what other concepts, views are being associated with major ideas/topics (1),(2) to get more clarity, be mindful of views presented (for/against), and what the author is trying to convince you of (looking for the key words that signal a turn in position: But, However, Yet, Even if- to defog the fuzzy words and ideas, and who has what position-.
J-Y tutorial videos of paraphrasing are lengthy and entertaining (not what you would do on an actual exam) but it works. When your brain paraphrases quickly and efficiently -to deal with the fuzzy words/ideas in their "base" terms, it gives you a solid enough idea how to connect the mess coming up and revealing the crappiest of structures to you.
I think it is also helpful to listen to NPR commentary. There are a lot of bad arguments presented on talk radio and it reminds me a lot of LSAT RC passages. Sometimes stuff is oddly presented, you are unclear in the domain which is being discussed,there are random tangents, but in all that mess, the question is..what can be understood as the fundamental positions being stated.. poorly or adeptly.
Full disclosure, I don't "rock" RC by any means but I have gotten much better.
i am a working mom so in general i do 4 sections. i do 5 sections on occasion and i don't see much difference expect when I do 2 reading comp sections. if you are going to doing 5 sections for stamina purposes, i would do 2 reading comps (or whatever section you are worst at so you see more variety and gain more confidence with your worst section).
I had the same problem. Really I think it comes down to being bad at quickly dealing with abstract language (because they almost always use abstract language in the ACs). I got significantly better by eliminating obviously wrong ACs and by attacking the abstract language as JY does in his explanations.
I think it is best to really understand passage A and then use that information to compare and contrast to B (just as J-Y says in general reading comp):
For example, after understanding A ...when reading passage B ask:
How is passage B related to passage A (general thrust): that is, is it merely more background to A, is it against or supporting A, is it tangential/supplemental information to A in one particular area presented in A, When reading ask if a particular statement or position presented in B in agreement/against A?, ect.
My friend did it in three months 165- 176. Yes, and he did by games!