Redacted

10000019

Redacted

Alex

@USER123456 said:
This is a daunting section, for me, because I have little foundation. I didn't even know the definition of a verb when I started the series. I'm doing poorly on the quizzes for Grammar, and I think I'd really need to start from square 1 (elementary basics) to master this section.

I've taken one practice exam (P. 57), and got -4 on the RC. I took this to mean I'm decent at understanding language. I'm tempted to skim through the Grammar section without taking the time to master the material. Is that going to bite me in the ass when it comes to LR? Will it come up in later series?

Thanks for reading,
HC

I mean, I suppose you can still succeed without mastering the grammar section. Heck, I know people who have scored in the 160s who didn't learn much in the way of conditional logic and that's arguably one of the most important skills needed to succeed on this exam. I guess it all comes down to what you define as "succeeding" on this exam.

If you can go -4 on RC, then you understand the language well enough!

That said, I think the 2 hour course on Grammar is well worth understanding. You might be stuck at -4 if you don't take the time to learn the grammar section. Things like referential phrasing is big when it comes to both RC and LR.

10000019

@"Alex Divine" said:

@USER123456 said:
This is a daunting section, for me, because I have little foundation. I didn't even know the definition of a verb when I started the series. I'm doing poorly on the quizzes for Grammar, and I think I'd really need to start from square 1 (elementary basics) to master this section.

I've taken one practice exam (P. 57), and got -4 on the RC. I took this to mean I'm decent at understanding language. I'm tempted to skim through the Grammar section without taking the time to master the material. Is that going to bite me in the ass when it comes to LR? Will it come up in later series?

Thanks for reading,
HC

I mean, I suppose you can still succeed without mastering the grammar section. Heck, I know people who have scored in the 160s who didn't learn much in the way of conditional logic and that's arguably one of the most important skills needed to succeed on this exam. I guess it all comes down to what you define as "succeeding" on this exam.

If you can go -4 on RC, then you understand the language well enough!

That said, I think the 2 hour course on Grammar is well worth understanding. You might be stuck at -4 if you don't take the time to learn the grammar section. Things like referential phrasing is big when it comes to both RC and LR.

@"Alex Divine" Thanks for your reply, and apologies for the late reply. The section took me a lot longer than 2 hours, but I decided to finish it. I didn't walk away with a 100% understanding, but I got enough where I haven't been confused in the later lessons.

sillllyxo

Studying for the LSAT for a long time and the grammar section was very helpful.

nessa.k13.0

Hi @USER123456 !
Not learning the grammar lessons is going to work against you--big time. I don't think you need to know the dictionary definition of a verb so much as you need to understand its function in a sentence. If you need to memorize the definition of a verb in order to comprehend what it does in a sentence, then memorize that definition. Otherwise, seek to understand the function of a verb and how to recognize them first. The lessons on grammar are going to help you understand the function of parts of speech in stimuli.

I think you're going to run into a lot of trouble with a poor understanding of LSAT grammar---especially in LR. With RC, say you get an abstract passage where you don't understand subject matter, if you can't parse sentences well, you're killing your chances of being able to answer questions based on the structure. Don't take -4 on RC from 1 PT to mean you don't need the grammar lesson. What if you understood those passages because of the reasoning structures, the vocabulary, or because you understood the subject matter? Will you have the same understanding and same content on the rest of the PTs you take and ultimately on test day? I don't think you will.

On the June test I had 3 LR sections and all of them had a higher proportion of intense af and convoluted referential phrasing and superfluous clauses. The LR sections aren't as conditional logic heavy as they used to be on earlier tests. A way the LSAT makes stimuli more difficult now is by making the arguments harder to understand. If you don't parse out superfluous words quickly and if you can't easily identify the main subjects/verbs in ridiculous sentences, then the test will punish you a lot for that.

Why not take the time to learn the grammar and mitigate the weaknesses that you know you have? There will be fun surprises to challenge you on test day. Let those things that are less in your control be your main challenge. Reading your post made me think about the grammar on the June test--they really had some fun playing with the use of language. I would have been royaly effed had I not been comfortable with grammar.