It's more of just a routine I've learned to follow to stay actively engaged in reading the passages. I treat each passage kind of like unboxing a jigsaw puzzle for the first time. The pieces are scattered and disheveled, some flipped upside down and others backward. The idea is that as you read the passage, you start flipping over the pieces (viewpoints, advocates and evidence...) and organizing them in order to connect them correctly to one another. Once you have all the pieces identified then you can properly connect them to each other to form the full picture of the scale. Each sentence in a passage serves as a puzzle piece that is used to create the whole picture.

What I enjoy about envisioning it this way is that even if I am unsure of exactly how a particular sentence or two fits in to the overall puzzle, I can "infer" what that piece should look like based on the pieces I have assembled around that gap. For instance, if a question asks "the primary purpose of the first sentence of the second paragraph is most likely to..." and that happens to be something I just couldnt wrap my head around, I can look at the context surrounding it and apply that logic to the bigger picture and more times than not, arrive at the correct answer.

The questions are all designed to test:

-your understanding of the individual "puzzle pieces" (detail questions like "the author mentions all these about X, except..."),

-your understanding of how they relate to the full picture that they come together to create (inference, authors tone, function)

-the full picture (Main point, passage purpose, global inference).

ALL the questions are finding different ways to confirm the same thing: did you put the puzzle together correctly?

this might not work for anyone else but me so my apologies for the overkill rant ahead of time. I hope that if this isn't your system, that it will, at least, push you closer to narrowing down what is. good luck!

Have you seen the "scale" that Manhattan uses in RC? I think that might clarify what I was trying to get across in a better manner...

PT65.3.2:

http://www.manhattanlsat.com/forums/download/file.php?id=685&sid=518447d3a5241de3561621767ea25ccb

In short you write or visualize the scale at the end of your passage read like this:

V1--------------|--------------V2

-------E1.1----|----E2.1

-------E1.2----|----E2.2

_____________|______________

A1-------------|-------- A2

-Author |

V1 and V2 represent the different views relating to a central subject of the passage. If it's a phenomenon observed and a hypothesis is introduced to explain it, then that would be your V1. If another comes up then that's V2. Anyone that you can flesh out of the passage that agrees with that hypothesis in any way would be A1. When that hypothesis (V1) is supported through an example or analogy or anything in the passage then that will be E1. Thinking about the scale while I read helps me to address the point of contention, polarize the sides of the point clearly and see where (if at all) the author resides. Where the author resides is always important because that will clue you in on the author's purpose for writing the passage. It will always relate back to the central issue that divides the scale up between the different viewpoints of the passage.

Annotating with the V/E/A helps me to keep a quick and loose organization of the passage as I read and to help guide me back in to the right part of the passage if the question calls for it. For example "The critics referred to in paragraph two would most likely agree to which of the following claims about post-modern abstract paintings as described in the passage" I would quickly be able to ID the critics in question looking back at the passage for an A1 or A2 in the margin around the second paragraph, match that to the (V)iewpoint on the scale and the corresponding (E)vidence and then apply that to the question.

Get an 8 or 12 ounce cup and drink lots of water. If you are like me, it will force you to get up and refill your tiny cup at least once an hour and give your body a break from being sedentary for 8 hours at a time. It's hard not to let the time pass but it's worth it to get up hourly and walk around for 5 minutes and give your mind and eyes a breather. Good luck studying!

Things such as URM status (under-represented minority), your personal statement, when you apply during the app cycle and letters of recommendation are all material considerations that make predicting your chances within a certain range pretty difficult.

There are a few "what are my chances"-predictors out there floating around but it's still all based on the same historic numbers sourced from the same data as the above sites... Try those out but it goes without saying, don't rely exclusively on these numbers. They are based on prior admissions and circumstances change from cycle to cycle. For instance the economic issue of the surplus of recent graduate lawyers to jobs available and the social issue of schools touting a more "diverse" environment these days (whatever that means) skew acceptance distributions in different ways.

http://lawschoolnumbers.com/lsat-prep/lsat-score-predictors

Hope that helps!

Great RC write-up's at the LSATblog:

" rel="nofollow">http://lsatblog.blogspot.com/p/lsat-reading-comprehension-tips.html

http://lsatblog.blogspot.com/2009/07/new-lsat-reading-comprehension-tips.html

Hopefully that will point you in the right direction.

Also Top-law-school forums. Pretty much anything anyone has ever had a question on in regards to the LSAT has been asked and (mostly) answered.

Repeat old passages.. Trust me, a once through on any part of the LSAT is not enough. Just pick a number 1-70 and repeat the RC section or google "hardest LSAT reading comp" and do those or just pick up any random test and repeat the section.

One of my biggest problems was decision paralysis... I had too many options and I wouldnt just pick something because I was afraid of not picking the best possible option. Dont worry about it, the idea is to work as much within the LSAT as possible. Grab any old practice test and run with it!

@ there is a great article on the lsatblog about that kind of notation that was a game-changer for me. He basically advocates one simple set of annotations to keep track of in the margins:

V1 viewpoint 1 (ex. traditional theory)

V2 viewpoint 2 (new theory)

[sometimes V3, etc -> authors view differing from the other two..]

A1 advocates of V1

A2 advocates of V2

E1 evidence of V1 (support of any kind)

E2 evidence of V2

Whenever you see any of these mark them down each time. And he also suggests (which i try to do as well) is to translate V1 and A1 in to a descriptive word using "V1'ist"

Passage 56.1 -> Novelists V Folktalists.. It kind of helps you visualize the passage and possibly keep you a bit more engaged...

Of course, there are certain passages that this may not be the best approach but it's a solid guideline to base a concise system of annotations on

You know you are doing it right when you start noticing a prior inference in a new game as you are working through it. That's the idea here... the templates are all shades of the same basic game forms and elements therefore the inferences overlap often. ID'ing the inferences and applying their implications is the purpose to repeating these games (sometimes 10 or 15 times over the course of your studies). However you need to make that happen, do it. The modern games embody this idea perfectly. You see similar rules and inferences quite often as the games get a bit more abstract and open-ended.

What I do is repeat the games right after I initially take them and review them. Then I try to take them over again the next day. If I still see the inference and I am finishing in good time and go -0, I move on. If I dont, I repeat the entire process. The Fool Proof method essentially.. The ones that I feel are of more value or I struggled on significantly (dinosaur in-out, left-right side of the bus hybrid game, etc), I make note of and I review them periodically after I've "mastered" them through the process to make sure I'm still sharp on those inferences. Hope this helps!

also for what it's worth... shorthand for me to what I have noted above as passage structure would be:

P1 obs + V1

P2 V2 + char V2

P3 C&C V1V2

P4 V2 supp + author=V2

I see why you would pre-read but I think that the reasons why you would are also encapsulated in ID'ing the main point, structure and purpose of the passage... Pretty much every question you are looking for through the pre-read is a function of the purpose/MP.

If you have time, maybe consider taking one passage and just reading it for structure. Do it untimed and focus in on organization of the overall passage as well as within the paragraphs. See if you can ID the purpose of what the author is trying to convey, the main point and the passage scope. Write down what you think those are as BRIEFLY as possible and also write out a quick abstract summary of each paragraphs organization:

P1 observation+view 1,

P2 new view+characteristics of new view,

P3 compare&contrast V1 V2,

P4 support why author likes V2.

Use just keywords to boil it down. Then approach the questions in the set and answer as many as you can based on those elements only. Dont refer back to the passage for anything. I'm betting that a majority of the questions except 1 or 2 at most can be answered off of that information alone. You might not get them all right as you work out the kinks of this system but as you get better at doing this process. You will notice you go back to the passage substantially less and even when you have to, you know exactly where to look and youve probably already eliminated 2-3 questions because they dont match the MP/scope/purpose you have already identified. This holds true for virtually all passages. The idea is that you do this process enough that you commit it to your short term memory and dont have to write it down and the process is sped up to allow for adequate timing.

See if that process (untimed) makes the questions any easier for you compared to reading them upfront and then answering them. I'd be curious to hear what your results are.

48 hours a week on the 7Sage course is absolutely a recipe for burnout, stress, and inefficiency when all other aspects are considered. If your other two summer courses take up 6 hours of your week each (super conservative estimate) then you are already at 60 hours a week on studying. This does not include life's errands and tasks like laundry, exercise, eating, showering, commuting, etc...

I would highly consider spreading the studying process out over a time frame that's more manageable. Your score and quality of life will have much more potential for a positive upswing that way.

Also, if you plan to use a supplement then consider The LSAT Trainer or Manhattan LR. I've tried Powerscore, Kaplan and Nova... nothing came close. The LSATTrainer increased my average by 8 points. I worked off their 12 week schedule.

I am sitting for the Dec exam... I live/study downtown at UHD along with a few other spots nearby. Let me know if you are ever interested in joining!

I have been doing this balancing act for about a half a year now... I am a financial analyst in an oil company and spend around 50 hours a week in the office. I have been scoring around the 160-165 range but I hope to increase and nail down a more consistent and higher range in the last 7-8 weeks of my studies. I purchased the LSAT Trainer and I have to say that had it not been for this book and all the supplementals he suggests, I would not feel this confident nor organized. I have been able to carve out around 10-12 hours during the week and 6-8 hours during the weekend for the last 6 months. I have 2 weeks left in my schedule to complete the trainer and feel confident that my scores will only keep going up as I refine my skillset.

I have virtually no social life anymore though and I havent been able to travel like I used to, but in the end this is a small price to pay for a potentially massive upgrade in the quality of my own life so I just keep that in the back of my mind when things get overwhelming at times. It's all a means to an end.

What I would suggest, like Mike Kim of the Trainer, is to focus on training your subconscious through habits. I've been making it a routine to go home, work out/run, make a sandwich and pour some water and sit at my computer desk and start reading the Trainer or reviewing prior drills. At this point i dont even think about it, my body just knows to do it and that makes it much easier to drudge through it day-to-day. Like first starting to wake up at 6am. It sucks so hard to do for the first 2 weeks or so but then it becomes no big deal and you just do it. Same thing with study habits. It's not impossible to study and work full time but it takes an immense amount of discipline to balance it efficiently and to get the most out of your days in your personal, professional and academic life. Just keep in mind that this is a sacrifice that is intended to change the rest of your life for the better. If it's not worth the hardship then find something else that is. Hope this helps anyone..

You need to include time in to your analysis. Is there any section you are not finishing up in 35 minutes? Do you skip questions or attempt them all within the timeframe? Are you blind reviewing afterward? Results? My best advice to you is NOT to burn through material without adequately wearing those problems out. Redo those problems that you have marked as giving you some sort of problem over and over and over mechanically (I have redone some problems upward of 5 times and still learned something new each time) so that when you see other problems that are similar, you will recognize certain cues or quarks about them that wont have you stumbling. A lot of LR questions are shades of the same questions: same topics, same logic, different task or opposite point of view taken in the conclusion. You'll start seeing overlap and have the ability to apply strategies from other similar questions to these as well and shave off some time and increase your accuracy.

Sandraaaa, the negation test is not supposed to be used on ALL 5 answer choices. It's better served to confirm the right AC after initial answer choice eliminations. there's typically 6 steps I go through on most question types including NA types (per the LSATTrainer):

1. ID task

2. ID conclusion

3. ID support

4. ID gap (if you don't ID immediately then move straight in to the AC's as long as you have 2 and 3 correct)

5. FIRST round eliminations

Work wrong to right and use process of elimination.

at least 2 (if not 4) AC's will fall out at this step. These questions will have NO bearing on the logical flow of the argument. These answers are usually ones that are too strong (Most, always, everyone...), are simply observational (Most X who live in other city also have Y) or explain something that is not the focus of the conclusion (People with X choose Y BECAUSE...)

6. SECOND round eliminations & Confirm right AC

This is the step that you apply the negation test at with any remaining choices (generally should NOT be more than 2 choices). Once negated, confirm with the stimulus.

If you have 5 NA questions in 1 section and it takes you 5 seconds to negate each AC, then you could potentially save 1:15 seconds worth of time per LR section by only negating 2 AC's per question... That's crucial for picking up more points or locking in the points you already have.

TL;DR

Underline the support, bracket the conclusion and look specifically for AC's that have no bearing (scope, irrelevant, observational) to the core of the argument (Support + Conclusion). That should be 2-4 ACs eliminated easy. Then scan modifiers and see which sound too strong and eliminate if there is a problem with degree. Then with the remaining 1-2 ACs, negate and confirm the right AC.

Hope this helps!