Hi all!
I'm looking for someone who wants to communicate regularly about progress/questions--someone who will keep me on track and motivated. I work full time so most communication would have to happen online, but I can guarantee that I'll be a reliable partner!
For context, I've been studying for about a year. I'm planning on taking the August test.
Hey guys,
I just finished the CC, and my first two timed tests have been above a 170 (first one 173, and second one 176 with BR: 180), which is really encouraging! I'm trying to follow @"Cant Get Right"'s post-CC strategy, which advocates a first phase of just getting comfortable with the material, and then a second phase of timing/execution strategies once you feel comfortable with the material. The thing is, even though I'm breaking 170, I'm still feeling VERY uncomfortable and uncertain about a LOT of questions during the test, and my scores have come as a genuine surprise. I honestly feel like I'm flying by the seat of my pants on almost every section, and have a tough time identifying the relevant concepts for each question. It feels like I'm working off of intuition rather than complete understanding.
My question is whether, given this information, I should move on to execution strategies or whether it would be wiser to spend more time trying to understand and re-learn some of the material?
Yes, I also struggle with these! I think the things that help me the most are:
Move from wrong to right. Find answers that are totally unsupported/actively refuted by the text, and eliminate them immediately.
Stick to "provable" language. Strong words like "must" or "always," etc. are hard to prove, and should therefore be red flags.
Hope this is helpful!
Hey! About a month ago I instituted a system wherein I started typing up "post PT reviews." For each of the questions that I missed or marked as difficult in a PT, I would write down why I found it challenging and why I missed it or why I avoided missing it. Then, I would compile advice on the question from JY's videos, and from online forums. I would print out this document, and re-read it every day until I took my next PT. This has really helped me see the patterns in my errors on the test, and also helped me work out the structure of the test. Once I started doing it, I saw an immediate 5 point score jump--most of which came from LR.
I hope that makes sense! PM me if you have more questions.
Hey! I was in the same position as you. I followed this method (https://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=224488), and I get a 174 on an off day. Just got a 180 right before my August test. So I def would recommend!
Someone posted a step-by-step guide on the forum about this about a week ago. I can't find the exact post, but if you find it it might help answer your question!
This is a great reminder to keep pushing, even when you get good at the games. Thank you!
Have you tried slowing down during your actual timed run? An approach that Mike Kim recommends is going slow enough to thoroughly eliminate any of the "loser" answers (i.e., answers that you can easily show are wrong) and then coming back to confirm the right answer. Sometimes I find that I've decided an answer is correct without checking the other ones, and it might be helpful to try to minimize that bias by forcing yourself to have an "elimination" mentality rather than a "selection" mentality.
Totally agree with both of the posts above. I would also say: make it a habit to come back to the questions that you missed over and over again so you really can make insights about the questions you're missing. You should be looking to understand not only your mistake, but the way that the question/answer/trap answers were structured, and what major structural takeaways you can carry to other tests.
Hey guys! I've been studying for the LSAT for about a year, and am planning to take in August. A month ago, I began averaging near my goal score. I scored 6 PTs in a row at about that range, and then suddenly, I saw a 4 point drop. I thought it may be a fluke at first, but I have now scored 5 tests in a row below my average from last month. I don't feel burnt out, I haven't changed my approach at all, and so I'm not sure how to diagnose/resolve this issue.
Has anyone had a similar experience? If so, please let me know what approach worked for you.
@ said:
Hi there,
I love teaching reading comp - one major tip is focus on question types. I'm amazed at how few courses have question types for RC. And if they do, they often don't emphasize mastering them.
Think about it - question types are fundamental to how we learn LR - ideally we can ID the question type, then hit the ground running by jumping into a specific technique for that Question Type.
Doing the same for RC makes us more efficient and effective.
Can you elaborate on what those question types are? I've found it difficult to isolate by question type in the same way I would on LR, and even more difficult to drill question types/come up with a consistent strategy to approach them. Thanks in advance!
Hey! Kind of in the same boat, and I PM'd a few people on here that had scored 177+. I heard from many people that they had seen score variations before the actual test. So I wouldn't worry too much about it.
Hi! The best resource is: https://classic.7sage.com/discussion/#/discussion/2737/logic-games-attack-strategy
@ said:
I spend more time on the passage but sometimes do spend a little extra time waffling between answer choices. My last PT I finished the section with about 2 minutes to spare but I had a lot of flagged questions--and ultimately ended up getting a lot of them wrong. When I BRed, it was easy for me to select the right answer but just wasn't able to under timed conditions.
My personal philosophy is that understanding/proficiency > timing strategies. I would say to go back to those questions that you flagged and identify:
(a) Why you flagged them in the first place: Was their something about them that confused you? Is there a common trend between all the ones that you flagged?
(b) What made the right answer unattractive and the wrong answers attractive?
(c) How did your reading of the passage impact your understanding of the question?
(d) What approach did you take in the moment to resolving your confusion on the question? Did you prephrase? Go back to the passage? Work based off of your memory?
I think once you can isolate what led you to choosing the wrong answers, you can start working on habits, tailored to your specific issues, that will lead you to the right answer faster.
This post has a great review method for RC: http://www.thelsattrainer.com/lsat-reading-comprehension.html
Hope that helps!
Do you know where you're spending the majority of your time? Are you taking longer on passages, or on the questions themselves?
Hey! I would say focus on the 70s and 80s, because they're the most recent and they have some unique elements/difficulties that you won't see in the earlier tests. I would also be familiar with the 60s, because I think some of the Flex exams they administered in June and July were drawn from the 60s.
This blog post has a detailed description of how to get the most out of your RC review! http://www.thelsattrainer.com/lsat-reading-comprehension.html
Yes! There are. I think something like 90% of recent games are sequencing/grouping, but there are misc. games that can really throw you if you're not ready.
Hey! I usually do a section of another test before I start my actual test. Then I use that PT over the course of four tests. At the end of the fourth test, you have an additional PT complete! Let me know if that makes sense.
I haven't been in your position re: retakes, but I once saw a good post on the Top Law Schools forum about this. The general advice of the post seemed to be: really dig deep into your stats (i.e., the 7Sage analytics page), and hone in on what your problem areas are exactly. Then spend a TON of time drilling those areas.
I would say just from reading your post, you probably could double down on LG. I think there's a difference between usually going -1 and -2 versus always going -1 with 5 minutes left on the board. I would say having an excellent grasp of LG is important to ensuring consistently high scores (at least that has been true in my experience).
Hope this helps!
Hey guys! I started a groupme: https://groupme.com/join_group/60578308/0P28eEp4
The biologist says "If the forest continues to disappear at its present pace, the koala will approach extinction." This diagrams to Forest Disappears --> Koala Extinction.
The politician says "So all that is needed to save the koala is to stop deforestation." This diagrams to /Forest Disappearance --> /Koala Extinction. The contrapositive of this is Koala Extinction --> Forest Disappearance.
Basically, the politician reverses the conditional statement used by the biologist. This means that if the koalas go extinct (i.e., the sufficient condition is met), then it must be true that the forest disappeared. Whereas the biologist believes that if the koalas go extinct (i.e., the necessary condition is met), then we know nothing about what happens to the forest.
I think the best way to think about this question is in terms of Must Be True, Could be True, and Must be False. For something to be "consistent" it can be either a Must Be True or Could Be True answer. For something to be inconsistent, it Must be False. So we're looking for something that Must Be True or Could Be True in the biologist's world, and Must Be False in the politician's world.
Answer choice explanations:
(A) "Deforestation continues and the koala becomes extinct"
- Biologist: This Must Be True under the biologist's claims. The sufficient (Forest Disappears) is
met, and the Necessary (Koalas Go Extinct) is therefore triggered.
- Politician: This Could Be True under the politicians claims. The sufficient condition (/Forest
Disappearance) is not met, so the rule falls away, and then anything can happen!
(B) "Deforestation is stopped and the Koala goes Extinct"
- Biologist: This could be true under the biologists' claims. The sufficient condition (Forest
Disappears) is not met, so the rule falls away, and then anything can happen!
- Politician: This must be false under under the politician's claims. The sufficient condition
(/Forest Disappearance) is met, and therefore it MUST be true, in the politician's world, that
the necessary (/Koalas Go Extinct) is met.
(C) "Reforestation begins and the koala survives"
- Biologist: This could be true under the biologists' claims. The sufficient condition (Forest
Disappears) is not met, so the rule falls away, and then anything can happen!
- Politician: This must be true under under the politician's claims. The sufficient condition
(/Forest Disappears) is met, and therefore it MUST be true, in the politician's world, that the
necessary (/Koalas Go Extinct) is met.
(D) "Deforestation is slowed and the Koala Survives"
- Biologist: This could be true under the biologists' claims. The sufficient condition (Forest
Disappears) is not met, so the rule falls away, and then anything can happen!
- Politician: The politician doesn't say anything about deforestation slowing, so this could be
true under his/her claims.
(E) "Deforestation is slowed and the koala approaches extinction"
- Biologist: This could be true under the biologists' claims. The sufficient condition (Forest
Disappears) is not met, so the rule falls away, and then anything can happen!
- Politician: The politician doesn't say anything about deforestation slowing, so this could be
true under his/her claims.
B is right because it is the only one that is both consistent with the biologist's claims (in that it could be true), and inconsistent with the politician's claims (in that it must be false).
Hope this helps!
I not only BR every question I found challenging/missed on a PT, but I also type out explanations for each question. I gather these explanations from 3-4 different websites. Then, I print out my explanations and review them every day for a week, taking notes in the margins to ensure I'm engaged. As soon as I started doing this, my PT scores jumped by about 5 points, and I saw particularly big jumps in LR. I highly recommend this method!
I would be down to start a group! Does anyone have an idea of how to go about that?
Definitely interested!