Which is better for drilling: Harder LR sections or LR sections from newer tests?

september

7Sage shows that LR from 60s is on average easier than from the 40s - 50s. The 40s to 50s seem to be have 5 star difficulty sections, but I know that the 60s have trickier questions despite their lower difficulty. I am trying to get as close to -0 as possible.

I am missing around -5/-4 per section, and I will only be doing sections I have already taken before. So there is no worry about wasting fresh PTs.

Which should I use for drills?

Alex

@september said:
7Sage shows that LR from 60s is on average easier than from the 40s - 50s. The 40s to 50s seem to be have 5 star difficulty sections, but I know that the 60s have trickier questions despite their lower difficulty. I am trying to get as close to -0 as possible.

Which should I use for drills?

Where are you at in your prep? How many are you missing per section now?

I would probably drill the 40s - 50s and save the 60s for full timed exams.

september

@"Alex Divine" I am missing around -5/-4 per section, and I will only be doing sections I have already taken before. So there is no worry about wasting fresh PTs. I will add this to the main body to avoid confusion.

Alex

@september said:
@"Alex Divine" I am missing around -5/-4 per section, and I will only be doing sections I have already taken before. So there is no worry about wasting fresh PTs. I will add this to the main body to avoid confusion.

Oh ok.... In that case, honestly, I would mix them up. Do some from both 50s series and 60s series. Make sure you are writing out explanations and really doing a good job with your blind review. At the end of review, ask yourself how can you avoid making the same mistake in the future. Perhaps there are skills that you could refresh on or ways you can read better to get that score down.

Also, check out Manhattan LSAT LR. That book actually helped me out quite a bit getting my score down to below -4.

september

@"Alex Divine" I've read the Manhattan. I will be more careful while doing my review of explanations.

Alex

@september said:
@"Alex Divine" I've read the Manhattan. I will be more careful while doing my review of explanations.

That sounds like a good plan to me. Also, return to the CC as well. JY's approach is pretty similar to MLSAT. I just tend to learn better by reading for LR I think and better visually for LG. Which does kind of make sense. The LSAT Trainer is also pretty highly recommended for LR as well.

What type of questions are you missing most of? Inference? Assumption, etc?

september

Recently, I've been missing NA and MSS in half my drills. In the other half it seems to be Flaw and RRE.

I will go over the Trainer soon.

Alex

@september said:
Recently, I've been missing NA and MSS in half my drills. In the other half it seems to be Flaw and RRE.

I will go over the Trainer soon.

For those types of questions I would honestly review the CC on here and use 7Sage. The Trainer is good too, but I think MLSAT does a better job of specifically helping figure out how to improve on certain question types whereas the Trainer retrains how you think about certain question types. I hope that makes sense. lol

september

It does. I will look through both. Thanks!

Alex

@september said:
It does. I will look through both. Thanks!

If you're just focusing on LR, I can't recommend MLSAT enough. They have a great process for attacking almost any LR question type. It got me from missing -8 to -3 within about a month. Their approach focuses on strategy on not just how to solve the questions, but strategies about hoe to eliminate and really figure out the questions in a complex way that still makes sense to those who aren't LSAT experts.

september

I have read MLSAT before. I will go through it again before drilling.