How to Score a 160?

Alex

In my tenure on 7Sage and TLS it has always seemed like a 160 is seen as the minimum respectable score. I receive many messages a month about people asking me what it takes to hit the 160 mark. I get that it's not a 180, but it seems to be a score a lot of people are chasing. Perhaps they will continue to improve, but it still seems to be this benchmark that people generally strive to hit.

I thought it might be a good idea to start a thread where those who have scored a 160+ can give tips and advice on what skills, materials, and practices one should focus on to reach that score.

Disclaimer: I believe everyone should aim for a 180. Period. However, there are tons of people out there just aiming for a 160-165 range and I think it would be helpful to put together a thread with tips advice geared towards hitting that range.

AnthonyScalia

I think foolproofing Logic Games and generously skipping on LR makes a 160 reasonable for anyone. Missing 26 questions gives you the freedom to miss every single difficult question in LR (18 questions between both sections based on this data https://www.powerscore.com/lsat/help/lr_individual-question-difficulty.cfm) plus another 8 questions on RC.

Worst case scenario, let's say you foolproof LG but still get -3. If you randomly guess the same letter for all the "difficult" LR questions, you should get 3.6 of them correct. Conservatively, let's say you get 3 so you're -15 between both LRs. You can then still get eight questions wrong on RC, which is more than reasonable after basic prep with passage structure.

The bottom line is that once you foolproof LG, there are enough points on the test to earn a 160 without getting any difficult questions correct. Become very comfortable with the basics in LR and RC, and you won't need mastery to get a good score: passable understanding of these will be adequate for the 160s.

sjiang666

Agree! There is always Survivorship bias in many forums. People who get higher scores are more willing to talk about their scores/study experience/questions. But the silent people could make up majority of us and actually need more help.

I am not in the stage where I have done a lot of PTs, so maybe I am not in a good spot to talk about it yet. But here are some of my thoughts:

In order to get 160, you can have 27-29 questions wrong. If you totally guess 1 passage RC and get 1 question right from your guess (-6), and get 1 wrong on each of the passage you actually did, this would results a -9 from RC. Get -5 on each of the LR sections, -10. Now you have a space of -8--10 on LG, which means you can skip a whole game if that helps you to do well on the rest of the three.

The way that people plan for 170+ and 160+ is different in how they spend the "room of making errors". If you aim at 170+, you are almost fighting with every errors in every section you make. In this way you need to be pretty good on all three sections.

However, if you aim at 160+, you are allowed to have 1- 2 bad sections. LR is specially important then. LR alone have 2 sections. LR= RC+LG. So I would say start with LR, make sure you go though CC carefully, do problem sets, then do timed sections before you jump into PT.

I also think LR is kind of like the basic. Improvement in LR helps me in RC and LG as well, especially in RC. So it worth for you to invest your time and energy.

Disclaimer: I believe everyone should aim for a 180. Period.

BTW I totally agree with @"Alex Divine" on this. But if you are in 140/150, don't worry, many high scorers were there once, and there is always a way. Lets get 160 first.

Finger crossed for the others opinions.

Alex

@sjiang666 said:
Agree! There is always Survivorship bias in many forums. People who get higher scores are more willing to talk about their scores/study experience/questions. But the silent people could make up majority of us and actually need more help.

I am not in the stage where I have done a lot of PTs, so maybe I am not in a good spot to talk about it yet. But here are some of my thoughts:

In order to get 160, you can have 27-29 questions wrong. If you totally guess 1 passage RC and get 1 question right from your guess (-6), and get 1 wrong on each of the passage you actually did, this would results a -9 from RC. Get -5 on each of the LR sections, -10. Now you have a space of -8--10 on LG, which means you can skip a whole game if that helps you to do well on the rest of the three.

The way that people plan for 170+ and 160+ is different in how they spend the "room of making errors". If you aim at 170+, you are almost fighting with every errors in every section you make. In this way you need to be pretty good on all three sections.

However, if you aim at 160+, you are allowed to have 1- 2 bad sections. LR is specially important then. LR alone have 2 sections. LR= RC+LG. So I would say start with LR, make sure you go though CC carefully, do problem sets, then do timed sections before you jump into PT.

I also think LR is kind of like the basic. Improvement in LR helps me in RC and LG as well, especially in RC. So it worth for you to invest your time and energy.

Disclaimer: I believe everyone should aim for a 180. Period.

BTW I totally agree with @"Alex Divine" on this. But if you are in 140/150, don't worry, many high scorers were there once, and there is always a way. Lets get 160 first.

Finger crossed for the others opinions.

Absolutely! I started at a measly 153 or so and worked my way to the 160 mark by mastering the basic fundamentals. Especially learning how to diagram, understanding basic conditional logic, and some good ol' fashion drilling.

ajcrowel

I agree with In my own tutoring expirence being

@Anthony_Mahmud said:
I think foolproofing Logic Games and generously skipping on LR makes a 160 reasonable for anyone. Missing 26 questions gives you the freedom to miss every single difficult question in LR (18 questions between both sections based on this data https://www.powerscore.com/lsat/help/lr_individual-question-difficulty.cfm) plus another 8 questions on RC.

Worst case scenario, let's say you foolproof LG but still get -3. If you randomly guess the same letter for all the "difficult" LR questions, you should get 3.6 of them correct. Conservatively, let's say you get 3 so you're -15 between both LRs. You can then still get eight questions wrong on RC, which is more than reasonable after basic prep with passage structure.

The bottom line is that once you foolproof LG, there are enough points on the test to earn a 160 without getting any difficult questions correct. Become very comfortable with the basics in LR and RC, and you won't need mastery to get a good score: passable understanding of these will be adequate for the 160s.

THIS!!!

Additionally, in my own tutoring expirence I think students below that threshold generally receive big gains by being able to quickly identify argument conclusions and argument support for those conclusions.

Sami

Honestly revisit Core-curriculum and do drills!

Having a lower score than 160 implies you still have a lot to learn in your fundamentals. Doing PT's is a good way to check if you have mastered the fundamentals but you certainly want to space them out as far apart as possible till you feel you have drilled a lot of your weaknesses out. I think I did two PT's before I hit a 160. But I had done 3 months of hard core core-curriculum and drills and I practically had the Powerscore LR bible memorized.

In conjunction with doing Core curriculum and drills you want to write everything down. Break down each argument in a drill. Do it untimed but make that review 100%.! This is a slow and agonizing process. But when you train for something first you want to force yourself to mechanically get in the habit of thinking the right way. For example, when I first started to learn to play water polo I had to sit on the side of the pool each day and get my legs to get in the habit of treading water a certain way. That's all I did for a week or two for an hour! Then I had to force myself to tread water for 10 min, then increase it to 20 min, then 30 min. Then I had to practice just passing the ball for hours, then defense, and finally the rules of the game. Only after that was I allowed to start playing the game and improve my game.

Did each person have to go through what I went through to learn the game?
Nope. Some people were way ahead of me and knew how to tread water, pass the ball etc. But I didn't so I had to mechanically learn. Similarly not each person will need to know the basics. Some people are familiar with the formal logic aspect of LSAT and need a quick LSAT course and are good to go. Unlike them, I needed to learn all my fundamentals because I did not know it prior to studying for LSAT. My untimed diagnostic was a 155, I think my timed diagnostic would have been in 140s. Each part had to be learnt mechanically for hours at an end before I could do it fast without thinking about it. Your brain works similarly when you first encounter LSAT. It is not used to the new way of thinking. Forcing yourself to write everything down trains your brain to think that way. With time you will not need to write it down and your brain will automatically think that way fast. But it needs to go slow first and do it correctly at that speed for hours before it becomes automatic and fast.

Alex

Awesome stuff so far here guys! I think this is going to be a great thread!

doyouevenLSAT

@Sami said:I practically had the Powerscore LR bible memorized.

did you memorize the the general tips for the types of questions? Also, did you do all their drills in conjunction with 7sage?

I am currently memorizing all the fundamentals of both 7sages conditional reasoning, and logic with this book's content as well.

I am aiming for 170, but i truly only need a 165 to secure the school i want.

Sami

@MichaelTheArchAngel said:

@Sami said:I practically had the Powerscore LR bible memorized.

did you memorize the the general tips for the types of questions? Also, did you do all their drills in conjunction with 7sage?

I am currently memorizing all the fundamentals of both 7sages conditional reasoning, and logic with this book's content as well.

A lot of it was memorizing argument flaws, indicators, argument forms etc. But I started out with Powerscore first because did not see that 7sage already had all of these lessons neatly bundled in quizzes. I used to make my own quizzes based on my notes on each chapter, then I used to scan them in to the computer and had them as a file. I kept them there till I decided to go through 7sage which I had had since the inception and I realized the curriculum already had all of these things plus more. So use the core-curriculum for that. They are all there.

doyouevenLSAT

@Sami said:

thanks, yea they are fairly similar.

studysands

@Sami
Thanks for your tips! I can always count on you and the 7Sage community for good advice!
So last week I finished CC and I have done 2 untimed PTs (I know I shouldn't be doing untimed but I really needed a motivational boost that my hardcore 3 months of CC and my lack of summer plans is going somewhere). I got 159 untimed which was by far the best grade I have ever gotten (I started with a 139 timed...it has been a rough path for me rip). I am doing the Sept LSAT just so I won't be putting all eggs in one basket because I get really bad test anxiety. I am prepared to do Dec and Feb as well and more if needed (recently changed the rule about 3 in 2 years). I'm Canadian and most Canadian law schools take the highest mark so I am not too worried about my possibly poor mark for Sept (I know I'm not ready). My goal is to get 160+. I am okay with getting 155-160 for Sept and move my way up in Dec and Feb, respectively, to a final mark between 164-168. Moving forward, would you suggest that I do Intensive Drilling and TIMED PTs (with BR)? I want to work on my timing (especially because I get anxiety under intense stress) and to check whether I am getting the fundamentals right with PT. How many PTs should I do a week with Drilling would you suggest?

RGiggi13

I love this thread!

I've found that everything goes a little better for me when I'm sure about the stuff that I get to and worry less about getting to everything; in other words, if I go about a section with a plan to be solid on 20ish questions and be alright with not getting to the rest, I'm less likely to have one or more disaster sections on the test. The first page or two of a section can be a big determiner for me--if I'm methodical about how I go through those questions and decide that I won't be frustrated by how much time has passed, sections tend to go a lot better than when I rush through these and make sloppy mistakes because I'm worried about making it to the "low hanging fruit" that may or may not be located in question #24. For me, the start sets the tone, and generally that tone leads to more time for the rest of the section anyway.

sandy180

@Sami said:
Honestly revisit Core-curriculum and do drills!

Having a lower score than 160 implies you still have a lot to learn in your fundamentals. Doing PT's is a good way to check if you have mastered the fundamentals but you certainly want to space them out as far apart as possible till you feel you have drilled a lot of your weaknesses out. I think I did two PT's before I hit a 160. But I had done 3 months of hard core core-curriculum and drills and I practically had the Powerscore LR bible memorized.

In conjunction with doing Core curriculum and drills you want to write everything down. Break down each argument in a drill. Do it untimed but make that review 100%.! This is a slow and agonizing process. But when you train for something first you want to force yourself to mechanically get in the habit of thinking the right way. For example, when I first started to learn to play water polo I had to sit on the side of the pool each day and get my legs to get in the habit of treading water a certain way. That's all I did for a week or two for an hour! Then I had to force myself to tread water for 10 min, then increase it to 20 min, then 30 min. Then I had to practice just passing the ball for hours, then defense, and finally the rules of the game. Only after that was I allowed to start playing the game and improve my game.

Did each person have to go through what I went through to learn the game?
Nope. Some people were way ahead of me and knew how to tread water, pass the ball etc. But I didn't so I had to mechanically learn. Similarly not each person will need to know the basics. Some people are familiar with the formal logic aspect of LSAT and need a quick LSAT course and are good to go. Unlike them, I needed to learn all my fundamentals because I did not know it prior to studying for LSAT. My untimed diagnostic was a 155, I think my timed diagnostic would have been in 140s. Each part had to be learnt mechanically for hours at an end before I could do it fast without thinking about it. Your brain works similarly when you first encounter LSAT. It is not used to the new way of thinking. Forcing yourself to write everything down trains your brain to think that way. With time you will not need to write it down and your brain will automatically think that way fast. But it needs to go slow first and do it correctly at that speed for hours before it becomes automatic and fast.

You will not get better advice than this! Bravo and AGREED.

destinytfreeman

Is there a statistic on the LSAC's most commonly used answer choice? I've always heard C, but does this hold up on the LSAT?

Alex

@destinytfreeman said:
Is there a statistic on the LSAC's most commonly used answer choice? I've always heard C, but does this hold up on the LSAT?

https://www.powerscore.com/lsat/help/guessing.cfm