Is the cold diagnostic test actually easier than most of the PTs?

GrumpySnail

Okay, here’s the thing: I scored 162 (-18) on the June 2007 LSAT two weeks ago (a decent score for cold diag, isn’t it?), and I wasn’t even trying that hard. I got a -8 on RC, -7 on LR, and -3 on LG within the imposed time limit. I have never taken a LSAT and knew absolutely nothing about it before.
In fact, after taking the official cold diag test, I figured that LSAT is not as hard as everyone has been telling me. I came to believe that I can aim at a 175 in June and crack Harvard with my 3.63 UGPA and my fabulous PS (Yes, I have a compelling story to tell, and literally ALL the sample PS that I read were not as good as mine).
So after watching a few tutorials on 7sage, I aimed straight at the “most difficult LG/RC/LR sections ever” rated by students last week. Well, I was devastated, and I realized that I have definitely overestimated my intelligence and underestimated the difficulty of the test. The worst record was that I got -12 on RC, -8 on one LR section alone, and it took me over 30 minutes to figure out the dinosaur game. I always find standardized tests easy (I am not a native speaker of English but I got 163 on GRE verbal without studying AT ALL), but not this time.
I have not taken many PTs by now because I went straight from the cold diag to the most difficult sections in LSAT history, and I have no idea about the average difficulty of the tests in recent years. Passages such as Eileen Gray is daunting, but I know it is considered to be one of the most difficult RC passages that ever to appear.
So, may I ask if anyone who scored around 160 on the cold diag test ever felt the same as I did? Is the cold diag test really easier than most of the PTs?
I guess I would have to know this before making proper adjustments to my study plan. Thank you for your comments in advance.

Paul Caint

Soooo I actually thought it was harder. I think it just depends on what your innate skillsets are.

GrumpySnail

@"Paul Caint" said:
Soooo I actually thought it was harder. I think it just depends on what your innate skillsets are.

Thanks for the reply Paul. Which section was the most difficult part for you? I think the RC and the LG are just SUPER easy. I was even left with 2 mins on the RC when I finished, and I was suprise to find that the last game in LG is actually 5 stars - I thought it was a 2 or 3. LR is pretty fair, but I never find LR difficult whatsoever.

FixedDice

Compared to other PTs with comparative passages, I am inclined to think that it is on the easier side.

LindsMitch

I don’t really think it is harder. I scored a 159. While I haven’t taken a significant number of PTs since then and have actually stopped taking them entirely while I’m drilling/redoing CC, all the ones I have taken have been in the 162-166 range with with one 168.

I don’t think it’s an accurate representation of how you’ll do on the test as a whole if you just judge your ability based off the super/notoriously hard passages, LR questions, and games. They are notorious for a reason, in that they stand out in their level of difficulty, even for seasoned studiers and test takers. Don’t be too down on yourself about not being able to kill these sections just yet, perfectly normal, especially given the fact that you’ve just jumped into them without any real prep or strategy. Sounds like you have some natural inclination to perform well on this test. To me, all the more reason why you should devote yourself to proper prep so you can really maximize your score and potential.

GrumpySnail

@FixedDice said:
Compared to other PTs with comparative passages, I am inclined to think that it is on the easier side.

Exactly what I thought. Which "average" PT would you recommend?

GrumpySnail

@LindsMitch said:
I don’t really think it is harder. I scored a 159. While I haven’t taken a significant number of PTs since then and have actually stopped taking them entirely while I’m drilling/redoing CC, all the ones I have taken have been in the 162-166 range with with one 168.

I don’t think it’s an accurate representation of how you’ll do on the test as a whole if you just judge your ability based off the super/notoriously hard passages, LR questions, and games. They are notorious for a reason, in that they stand out in their level of difficulty, even for seasoned studiers and test takers. Don’t be too down on yourself about not being able to kill these sections just yet, perfectly normal, especially given the fact that you’ve just jumped into them without any real prep or strategy. Sounds like you have some natural inclination to perform well on this test. To me, all the more reason why you should devote yourself to proper prep so you can really maximize your score and potential.

Thanks for your comments Lind! That was really helpful. I have just purchased the powerscore trilogy and the starter course from 7sage - I am now starting from scratch. One of my greatest weaknesses is that I tend to lose confidence in myself immediately when I don't do well on any section, and I will also become arrogant when I crack a section with a fairly decent score. I guess I just need to find out a way to overcome such negative mindset before actually taking the test in June.

westcoastbestcoast

to actually get a 175 on the exam, your PT average should be in the high 170s. I do believe that you can score into the 170s, but don't jump too ahead of yourself and assume that the 175 will come easily. I believe @"Seeking Perfection" had a higher diagnostic than yourself but came up short for the 175 in his first take. After meticulous practice in the LG section, he was able to bring his 172 to a 180. Don't take too much stock into your diagnostic, and keep drilling your problem areas.

Ohnoeshalpme

If you go to the LSAT analytics tab, you can see the passage and game difficulty. It ranks a question, and a passage (or game for LG) from 1-5 difficulty.

I can say that a 162 is an extremely rare (and high) diagnostic score. A -3 on LG is actually unheard of. Many of the students who take a diagnostic miss half of the LG questions alone. What this means, however, is that you'll most likely miss out on that big score increase that comes from fool-proofing logic games. More often than not, when you hear about big improvements on the LSAT, this is usually where the majority of the points came from. You, therefore, are going to skip past the "easy points" and be left grinding through the 160's. Progress in the 160's is slower, and it inevitably slows down even more once you get to the high 160's. A 175 is totally do-able, but just remember that the higher your score goes, the more you have to work to improve.

Don't freak out because you thought the hardest questions are hard. That makes you a human being. You can expect the difficulty to fluctuate a little bit from test-to-test but the same general challenges still appear in each test.

FixedDice

@wenjuan_xu said:
Exactly what I thought. Which "average" PT would you recommend?

I unfortunately do not have difficulty levels of individual PTs in my head. PTs 52-61 perhaps?

I agree with @LindsMitch, by the way.

NotMyName

Agree with Linds.

I'd advise you against getting too caught up in specific sections because there are greater differences within PTs than between PTs. The test writers seem to maintain a consistent level of difficulty across PTs (it's a standardized test after all), so a PT with a particularly, notoriously difficult section likely makes up for it with an easier section in the same PT and/or with a slight curve (the raw to scaled score conversions vary by test).

You're starting from an advantageous point based on your diagnostic and your best course of action IMO would be to start with the CC and fool proof LG.

GrumpySnail

@westcoastbestcoast said:
to actually get a 175 on the exam, your PT average should be in the high 170s. I do believe that you can score into the 170s, but don't jump too ahead of yourself and assume that the 175 will come easily. I believe @"Seeking Perfection" had a higher diagnostic than yourself but came up short for the 175 in his first take. After meticulous practice in the LG section, he was able to bring his 172 to a 180. Don't take too much stock into your diagnostic, and keep drilling your problem areas.

Thanks for the advice. I took 3 PT this week and I think they are in the 160-165 range, which means I will need extensive trainings to get over 170. I should not take it for granted....

GrumpySnail

@Ohnoeshalpme said:
If you go to the LSAT analytics tab, you can see the passage and game difficulty. It ranks a question, and a passage (or game for LG) from 1-5 difficulty.

I can say that a 162 is an extremely rare (and high) diagnostic score. A -3 on LG is actually unheard of. Many of the students who take a diagnostic miss half of the LG questions alone. What this means, however, is that you'll most likely miss out on that big score increase that comes from fool-proofing logic games. More often than not, when you hear about big improvements on the LSAT, this is usually where the majority of the points came from. You, therefore, are going to skip past the "easy points" and be left grinding through the 160's. Progress in the 160's is slower, and it inevitably slows down even more once you get to the high 160's. A 175 is totally do-able, but just remember that the higher your score goes, the more you have to work to improve.

Don't freak out because you thought the hardest questions are hard. That makes you a human being. You can expect the difficulty to fluctuate a little bit from test-to-test but the same general challenges still appear in each test.

To be honest, LG was not bad for me at all. I used to study Olypmic math in primary school (yes yes yes, a typical Asian thing) despite that I suck at math now. I would say LG was like a more advanced version of the problems that appeared in the contests that I participated 15 years ago, lol
I also took some intro level philosophy+logic courses in my junior year, and I got straight As on them. For this reason, I am VERY GOOD at conditional game - it took me less than 7 minutes to crack the CD puzzle with a -1, which is often cited at the hardest game ever. I didn't even draw a diagram for this game because I was able to visualize everything in my brain.
I actually find half of the "hardest games" fairly easy, such as Hannah, the dogs, and computer virus. The ones that I found to be EXTREMELY hard are lizard and snakes, dinosours, as well as bus seats, which all took me more than 20 minutes to finish. Like everyone says, it just has to do with my innate skill sets. I am by no means a genius....
Also, I do have a friend who scored a -1 in LG on her initial cold diag test, and she majored in both math and CS.
I think you are absolutely right about the "easy points". I should not take 160s for granted, let alone 170s. I am setting a more realistic goal for myself: 165+ in June and 173+ in Sep. I think this is totally achievable if I study hard. Thank you for your comments!

GrumpySnail

@jkatz1488 said:
Agree with Linds.

I'd advise you against getting too caught up in specific sections because there are greater differences within PTs than between PTs. The test writers seem to maintain a consistent level of difficulty across PTs (it's a standardized test after all), so a PT with a particularly, notoriously difficult section likely makes up for it with an easier section in the same PT and/or with a slight curve (the raw to scaled score conversions vary by test).

You're starting from an advantageous point based on your diagnostic and your best course of action IMO would be to start with the CC and fool proof LG.

Thank you Katz. It seems that doing PTs is the best way to figure out my weaknesses. I will start doing it now

NotMyName

Thank you Katz. It seems that doing PTs is the best way to figure out my weaknesses. I will start doing it now

Be careful not to burn through too many PTs. Sounds like you've taken 4-5 at this point? Have you been reviewing them? I'm scoring around 167 now and take a PT/timed section about every 10 days. The time between is spend reviewing a PT/timed section and drilling weaknesses.

Seeking Perfection

@GrumpySnail said:

@Ohnoeshalpme said:
If you go to the LSAT analytics tab, you can see the passage and game difficulty. It ranks a question, and a passage (or game for LG) from 1-5 difficulty.

I can say that a 162 is an extremely rare (and high) diagnostic score. A -3 on LG is actually unheard of. Many of the students who take a diagnostic miss half of the LG questions alone. What this means, however, is that you'll most likely miss out on that big score increase that comes from fool-proofing logic games. More often than not, when you hear about big improvements on the LSAT, this is usually where the majority of the points came from. You, therefore, are going to skip past the "easy points" and be left grinding through the 160's. Progress in the 160's is slower, and it inevitably slows down even more once you get to the high 160's. A 175 is totally do-able, but just remember that the higher your score goes, the more you have to work to improve.

Don't freak out because you thought the hardest questions are hard. That makes you a human being. You can expect the difficulty to fluctuate a little bit from test-to-test but the same general challenges still appear in each test.

To be honest, LG was not bad for me at all. I used to study Olypmic math in primary school (yes yes yes, a typical Asian thing) despite that I suck at math now. I would say LG was like a more advanced version of the problems that appeared in the contests that I participated 15 years ago, lol
I also took some intro level philosophy+logic courses in my junior year, and I got straight As on them. For this reason, I am VERY GOOD at conditional game - it took me less than 7 minutes to crack the CD puzzle with a -1, which is often cited at the hardest game ever. I didn't even draw a diagram for this game because I was able to visualize everything in my brain.
I actually find half of the "hardest games" fairly easy, such as Hannah, the dogs, and computer virus. The ones that I found to be EXTREMELY hard are lizard and snakes, dinosours, as well as bus seats, which all took me more than 20 minutes to finish. Like everyone says, it just has to do with my innate skill sets. I am by no means a genius....
Also, I do have a friend who scored a -1 in LG on her initial cold diag test, and she majored in both math and CS.
I think you are absolutely right about the "easy points". I should not take 160s for granted, let alone 170s. I am setting a more realistic goal for myself: 165+ in June and 173+ in Sep. I think this is totally achievable if I study hard. Thank you for your comments!

Hey, I was mentioned here so I figured I would give a little advice. I started with a PT of 168, got a 172 after a couple weeks of practice(mostly PTs with non-blind review) and then foolproofed and blind reviewed my way to a 180. My breakdown started out different than yours about -0 to -3 RC, -0 to -2 for each LR and missing the rest on logic games.

That said it sounds to me like you shouldn't totally neglect foolproofing. You should figure out the game types you are struggling a little with, maybe grouping games? and try and foolproof those along with any you run into trouble with on PTs. They are basically like math in that if you get good at them, it is the section that is easiest to know 100 percent you got them right. If you are starting out that good you ought to get a -0 on games by June.

RC and LR are harder to improve on which is why I was lucky to both have a high diagnostic and have it be high in the right places. You only got one of these two dramatically lucky LSAT advantages so you will likely have to work a little harder. I recommend carefully going through the core curriculum to help these sections. It helped me a little even though I was already hardly missing questions in them. Lots of times in these sections you correctly identify and know the answer right away, but can't prove it out slowly and methodically. That's nice to have, but only works as long as it works. The core curriculum gives you the ability to prove the solutions to questions you are unsure of using conditional logic which you mentioned already having some familiarity with. This is good when checking and on those fairly rare questions when you have no clue to start with. I think it does a really good job of this with LR and a decent job of this with RC. In RC I found time management to matter more.

westcoastbestcoast

Hey @"Seeking Perfection" . Im curious. Do you know what helped you get a high LR and RC diagnostic? Were you an avid reader and did you take philosophy courses? Or were you a naturally talented test taker?

@"Seeking Perfection" said:

@GrumpySnail said:

@Ohnoeshalpme said:
If you go to the LSAT analytics tab, you can see the passage and game difficulty. It ranks a question, and a passage (or game for LG) from 1-5 difficulty.

I can say that a 162 is an extremely rare (and high) diagnostic score. A -3 on LG is actually unheard of. Many of the students who take a diagnostic miss half of the LG questions alone. What this means, however, is that you'll most likely miss out on that big score increase that comes from fool-proofing logic games. More often than not, when you hear about big improvements on the LSAT, this is usually where the majority of the points came from. You, therefore, are going to skip past the "easy points" and be left grinding through the 160's. Progress in the 160's is slower, and it inevitably slows down even more once you get to the high 160's. A 175 is totally do-able, but just remember that the higher your score goes, the more you have to work to improve.

Don't freak out because you thought the hardest questions are hard. That makes you a human being. You can expect the difficulty to fluctuate a little bit from test-to-test but the same general challenges still appear in each test.

To be honest, LG was not bad for me at all. I used to study Olypmic math in primary school (yes yes yes, a typical Asian thing) despite that I suck at math now. I would say LG was like a more advanced version of the problems that appeared in the contests that I participated 15 years ago, lol
I also took some intro level philosophy+logic courses in my junior year, and I got straight As on them. For this reason, I am VERY GOOD at conditional game - it took me less than 7 minutes to crack the CD puzzle with a -1, which is often cited at the hardest game ever. I didn't even draw a diagram for this game because I was able to visualize everything in my brain.
I actually find half of the "hardest games" fairly easy, such as Hannah, the dogs, and computer virus. The ones that I found to be EXTREMELY hard are lizard and snakes, dinosours, as well as bus seats, which all took me more than 20 minutes to finish. Like everyone says, it just has to do with my innate skill sets. I am by no means a genius....
Also, I do have a friend who scored a -1 in LG on her initial cold diag test, and she majored in both math and CS.
I think you are absolutely right about the "easy points". I should not take 160s for granted, let alone 170s. I am setting a more realistic goal for myself: 165+ in June and 173+ in Sep. I think this is totally achievable if I study hard. Thank you for your comments!

Hey, I was mentioned here so I figured I would give a little advice. I started with a PT of 168, got a 172 after a couple weeks of practice(mostly PTs with non-blind review) and then foolproofed and blind reviewed my way to a 180. My breakdown started out different than yours about -0 to -3 RC, -0 to -2 for each LR and missing the rest on logic games.

That said it sounds to me like you shouldn't totally neglect foolproofing. You should figure out the game types you are struggling a little with, maybe grouping games? and try and foolproof those along with any you run into trouble with on PTs. They are basically like math in that if you get good at them, it is the section that is easiest to know 100 percent you got them right. If you are starting out that good you ought to get a -0 on games by June.

RC and LR are harder to improve on which is why I was lucky to both have a high diagnostic and have it be high in the right places. You only got one of these two dramatically lucky LSAT advantages so you will likely have to work a little harder. I recommend carefully going through the core curriculum to help these sections. It helped me a little even though I was already hardly missing questions in them. Lots of times in these sections you correctly identify and know the answer right away, but can't prove it out slowly and methodically. That's nice to have, but only works as long as it works. The core curriculum gives you the ability to prove the solutions to questions you are unsure of using conditional logic which you mentioned already having some familiarity with. This is good when checking and on those fairly rare questions when you have no clue to start with. I think it does a really good job of this with LR and a decent job of this with RC. In RC I found time management to matter more.

---

westcoastbestcoast

@GrumpySnail it seems like you are very talented in mathematics. What made you decide to go to law school instead of pursuing a career in computer science, finance or anything quant related?

Leah M B

@jkatz1488 said:
Agree with Linds.

I'd advise you against getting too caught up in specific sections because there are greater differences within PTs than between PTs. The test writers seem to maintain a consistent level of difficulty across PTs (it's a standardized test after all), so a PT with a particularly, notoriously difficult section likely makes up for it with an easier section in the same PT and/or with a slight curve (the raw to scaled score conversions vary by test).

You're starting from an advantageous point based on your diagnostic and your best course of action IMO would be to start with the CC and fool proof LG.

Was basically going to make this same comment. I really found that there is no harder or easier LSAT, some have harder individual sections that are balanced by easier other sections. Tests may appear harder to a person for one reason or another though, generally because it will be more difficult in your own particular weakness. For me, I will always have a much lower overall score on a test with a high difficulty RC section, since that is my weakness. I pretty consistently score in the upper 160s, but was lucky on my actual test day to get an LSAT that had easier RC and more difficult LG, since I am strong-ish in LG and weaker in RC. A test with the opposite set up would crush me.

That said, the test has changed a bit over the years. I don't think it's any easier or more difficult, but the questions have a slightly different feel on the newer tests. As someone else mentioned though, don't burn through all your PTs before you do the core curriculum. At this point, you should pause on taking tests and working through questions and just work through the course.

Good luck, and welcome to the community!

LindsMitch

@GrumpySnail said:

@LindsMitch said:
I don’t really think it is harder. I scored a 159. While I haven’t taken a significant number of PTs since then and have actually stopped taking them entirely while I’m drilling/redoing CC, all the ones I have taken have been in the 162-166 range with with one 168.

I don’t think it’s an accurate representation of how you’ll do on the test as a whole if you just judge your ability based off the super/notoriously hard passages, LR questions, and games. They are notorious for a reason, in that they stand out in their level of difficulty, even for seasoned studiers and test takers. Don’t be too down on yourself about not being able to kill these sections just yet, perfectly normal, especially given the fact that you’ve just jumped into them without any real prep or strategy. Sounds like you have some natural inclination to perform well on this test. To me, all the more reason why you should devote yourself to proper prep so you can really maximize your score and potential.

Thanks for your comments Lind! That was really helpful. I have just purchased the powerscore trilogy and the starter course from 7sage - I am now starting from scratch. One of my greatest weaknesses is that I tend to lose confidence in myself immediately when I don't do well on any section, and I will also become arrogant when I crack a section with a fairly decent score. I guess I just need to find out a way to overcome such negative mindset before actually taking the test in June.

Yeah I feel you there, this test can really do a number on your confidence if you let it. As bizarre as it may sound, try not to give the test that kind of power. I have kind of gotten to the point where I try to just take everything in stride. I know that I am not going to be satisfied until I get a 170+ no matter how long it takes...so any little failure along the way is only a temporary frustration and ultimately will not matter when I achieve my goal.

Sometimes I feel like I am both an active participant in my studying, as well as an unbiased observer. So when things go wrong, it becomes easier for me to say "Hm, how interesting. An unexpected -7 in LR. How did this happen?" Take the emotion out of it and it becomes much less stressful. You can channel that energy into figuring out your weaknesses and how to best spend your time. Same kind of concepts you learn in meditation.

GrumpySnail

@jkatz1488 said:

Thank you Katz. It seems that doing PTs is the best way to figure out my weaknesses. I will start doing it now

Be careful not to burn through too many PTs. Sounds like you've taken 4-5 at this point? Have you been reviewing them? I'm scoring around 167 now and take a PT/timed section about every 10 days. The time between is spend reviewing a PT/timed section and drilling weaknesses.

I have done 4 PTs in the 10- 20 range. Since I just began studying for LSAT 10 days ago, I have no idea what is the right way to review my answers... I mean, whenever I look closely at the questions that I missed, I will always understand why I missed them. My understanding is that in this case I will just need to keep praticing to improve my test-taking speed, right? I think LSAT is an easy test in nature (even easier than the GRE); it is the time limit that makes it super difficult! I will have to figure out how to do effective drills, too.

GrumpySnail

@"Leah M B" said:

@jkatz1488 said:
Agree with Linds.

I'd advise you against getting too caught up in specific sections because there are greater differences within PTs than between PTs. The test writers seem to maintain a consistent level of difficulty across PTs (it's a standardized test after all), so a PT with a particularly, notoriously difficult section likely makes up for it with an easier section in the same PT and/or with a slight curve (the raw to scaled score conversions vary by test).

You're starting from an advantageous point based on your diagnostic and your best course of action IMO would be to start with the CC and fool proof LG.

Was basically going to make this same comment. I really found that there is no harder or easier LSAT, some have harder individual sections that are balanced by easier other sections. Tests may appear harder to a person for one reason or another though, generally because it will be more difficult in your own particular weakness. For me, I will always have a much lower overall score on a test with a high difficulty RC section, since that is my weakness. I pretty consistently score in the upper 160s, but was lucky on my actual test day to get an LSAT that had easier RC and more difficult LG, since I am strong-ish in LG and weaker in RC. A test with the opposite set up would crush me.

That said, the test has changed a bit over the years. I don't think it's any easier or more difficult, but the questions have a slightly different feel on the newer tests. As someone else mentioned though, don't burn through all your PTs before you do the core curriculum. At this point, you should pause on taking tests and working through questions and just work through the course.

Good luck, and welcome to the community!

Thanks Leah! We share the same first name You are right, I should start watching the core curriculum before burning out my PTs. Maybe I could do both at the same time.

GrumpySnail

@westcoastbestcoast said:
@GrumpySnail it seems like you are very talented in mathematics. What made you decide to go to law school instead of pursuing a career in computer science, finance or anything quant related?

Oh no! I am by no means a math genius! I used to be very good at math when I was a kid, but I ended up hating math because my father as a math professor pushed me really hard on math. I came to the U.S. at the age of 15, and after that I have never taken any math-related courses. I scored a 161 on GRE Q, and my undergradute majors are social sciences related. I choose law school to increase my competitiveness in the labor market as an international student; You know, I will never be able to get the H1B with a philosophy degree

In my opinion the skills that LG require is completely different from the quantitative skills. I don't know how many people will agree with me, but my quantitative skill is definitely well below average especially compare to my Asian peers....

westcoastbestcoast

Haha @GrumpySnail I can sympathize with you. I got near perfect on Critical Reading in the SAT and high 700s for the Writing section but my math section is what prevented me from getting a 2300. All my other friends had perfect scores on Math. I'm Korean btw haha

@GrumpySnail said:

@westcoastbestcoast said:
@GrumpySnail it seems like you are very talented in mathematics. What made you decide to go to law school instead of pursuing a career in computer science, finance or anything quant related?

Oh no! I am by no means a math genius! I used to be very good at math when I was a kid, but I ended up hating math because my father as a math professor pushed me really hard on math. I came to the U.S. at the age of 15, and after that I have never taken any math-related courses. I scored a 161 on GRE Q, and my undergradute majors are social sciences related. I choose law school to increase my conpetitiveness in the labor market as an international student; you know, I will never be able to get an H1B with a philosophy degree

In my opinion the skills that LG require is completely different from quantitative skills. I don't know how many people will agree with me, but my quantitative skill is definitely well below average especially compare to my Asian peers....

GrumpySnail

@"Seeking Perfection" said:

@GrumpySnail said:

@Ohnoeshalpme said:
If you go to the LSAT analytics tab, you can see the passage and game difficulty. It ranks a question, and a passage (or game for LG) from 1-5 difficulty.

I can say that a 162 is an extremely rare (and high) diagnostic score. A -3 on LG is actually unheard of. Many of the students who take a diagnostic miss half of the LG questions alone. What this means, however, is that you'll most likely miss out on that big score increase that comes from fool-proofing logic games. More often than not, when you hear about big improvements on the LSAT, this is usually where the majority of the points came from. You, therefore, are going to skip past the "easy points" and be left grinding through the 160's. Progress in the 160's is slower, and it inevitably slows down even more once you get to the high 160's. A 175 is totally do-able, but just remember that the higher your score goes, the more you have to work to improve.

Don't freak out because you thought the hardest questions are hard. That makes you a human being. You can expect the difficulty to fluctuate a little bit from test-to-test but the same general challenges still appear in each test.

To be honest, LG was not bad for me at all. I used to study Olypmic math in primary school (yes yes yes, a typical Asian thing) despite that I suck at math now. I would say LG was like a more advanced version of the problems that appeared in the contests that I participated 15 years ago, lol
I also took some intro level philosophy+logic courses in my junior year, and I got straight As on them. For this reason, I am VERY GOOD at conditional game - it took me less than 7 minutes to crack the CD puzzle with a -1, which is often cited at the hardest game ever. I didn't even draw a diagram for this game because I was able to visualize everything in my brain.
I actually find half of the "hardest games" fairly easy, such as Hannah, the dogs, and computer virus. The ones that I found to be EXTREMELY hard are lizard and snakes, dinosours, as well as bus seats, which all took me more than 20 minutes to finish. Like everyone says, it just has to do with my innate skill sets. I am by no means a genius....
Also, I do have a friend who scored a -1 in LG on her initial cold diag test, and she majored in both math and CS.
I think you are absolutely right about the "easy points". I should not take 160s for granted, let alone 170s. I am setting a more realistic goal for myself: 165+ in June and 173+ in Sep. I think this is totally achievable if I study hard. Thank you for your comments!

Hey, I was mentioned here so I figured I would give a little advice. I started with a PT of 168, got a 172 after a couple weeks of practice(mostly PTs with non-blind review) and then foolproofed and blind reviewed my way to a 180. My breakdown started out different than yours about -0 to -3 RC, -0 to -2 for each LR and missing the rest on logic games.

That said it sounds to me like you shouldn't totally neglect foolproofing. You should figure out the game types you are struggling a little with, maybe grouping games? and try and foolproof those along with any you run into trouble with on PTs. They are basically like math in that if you get good at them, it is the section that is easiest to know 100 percent you got them right. If you are starting out that good you ought to get a -0 on games by June.

RC and LR are harder to improve on which is why I was lucky to both have a high diagnostic and have it be high in the right places. You only got one of these two dramatically lucky LSAT advantages so you will likely have to work a little harder. I recommend carefully going through the core curriculum to help these sections. It helped me a little even though I was already hardly missing questions in them. Lots of times in these sections you correctly identify and know the answer right away, but can't prove it out slowly and methodically. That's nice to have, but only works as long as it works. The core curriculum gives you the ability to prove the solutions to questions you are unsure of using conditional logic which you mentioned already having some familiarity with. This is good when checking and on those fairly rare questions when you have no clue to start with. I think it does a really good job of this with LR and a decent job of this with RC. In RC I found time management to matter more.

Hi there! Thank you for your detailed comments. I read everything carefully and I do have a few questions in mind. I don't have time to spill them out right now but I will get back to you later tonight (if you are still here). Thanks again for your generous advice!

GrumpySnail

@westcoastbestcoast said:
Haha @GrumpySnail I can sympathize with you. I got near perfect on Critical Reading in the SAT and high 700s for the Writing section but my math section is what prevented me from getting a 2300. All my other friends had perfect scores on Math. I'm Korean btw haha

@GrumpySnail said:

@westcoastbestcoast said:
@GrumpySnail it seems like you are very talented in mathematics. What made you decide to go to law school instead of pursuing a career in computer science, finance or anything quant related?

Oh no! I am by no means a math genius! I used to be very good at math when I was a kid, but I ended up hating math because my father as a math professor pushed me really hard on math. I came to the U.S. at the age of 15, and after that I have never taken any math-related courses. I scored a 161 on GRE Q, and my undergradute majors are social sciences related. I choose law school to increase my conpetitiveness in the labor market as an international student; you know, I will never be able to get an H1B with a philosophy degree

In my opinion the skills that LG require is completely different from quantitative skills. I don't know how many people will agree with me, but my quantitative skill is definitely well below average especially compare to my Asian peers....

Haha! Same here! I got 2050 on sat with a 640 on math. My friends have been telling me that I am the shame of my race lololol

westcoastbestcoast

@GrumpySnail Its ok we will fufill our destiny by being good lawyers

@GrumpySnail said:

@westcoastbestcoast said:
Haha @GrumpySnail I can sympathize with you. I got near perfect on Critical Reading in the SAT and high 700s for the Writing section but my math section is what prevented me from getting a 2300. All my other friends had perfect scores on Math. I'm Korean btw haha

@GrumpySnail said:

@westcoastbestcoast said:
@GrumpySnail it seems like you are very talented in mathematics. What made you decide to go to law school instead of pursuing a career in computer science, finance or anything quant related?

Oh no! I am by no means a math genius! I used to be very good at math when I was a kid, but I ended up hating math because my father as a math professor pushed me really hard on math. I came to the U.S. at the age of 15, and after that I have never taken any math-related courses. I scored a 161 on GRE Q, and my undergradute majors are social sciences related. I choose law school to increase my conpetitiveness in the labor market as an international student; you know, I will never be able to get an H1B with a philosophy degree

In my opinion the skills that LG require is completely different from quantitative skills. I don't know how many people will agree with me, but my quantitative skill is definitely well below average especially compare to my Asian peers....

Haha! Same here! I got 2050 on sat with a 640 on math. My friends have been telling me that I am the shame of my race lololol

Seeking Perfection

@westcoastbestcoast said:
Hey @"Seeking Perfection" . Im curious. Do you know what helped you get a high LR and RC diagnostic? Were you an avid reader and did you take philosophy courses? Or were you a naturally talented test taker?

I don't know why exactly, but I have my guesses.

I am a naturally good test taker, though maybe not quite as good as on the LSAT 2300/2400 SAT 34/36 ACT. I'm also naturally a very fast reader.

Both my twin sister and I were reading before kindergarden and read somewhere around a hundered pages of a normal fiction novel an hour. Some of that is likely nature and some of it learning to read young. But, it made it easy to love reading and so we definitely both became avid readers reading hundereds of books a year especially from 3rd/4th grade or so through early high school. In late high school and college both of us have read less and studied a lot more, but in the sumner we revert to our norm of reading close to a book a day on average.

As far as philosophy courses, one of my majors deals with philosophy and I have taken 3 actual philosophy courses in college. My other major is Econ. I don't think these made a huge difference. I think I would have scored similarly on the LSAT out of high school.

The final thing I believe mattered was that my family played a game where we critiqued advertisements based on their logical shortcomings for fun my whole life. I loved doing this from a young age.

Ideally don't quote this, I might edit out personalish details later.

westcoastbestcoast

@"Seeking Perfection" Wow! Thanks for the details haha. Your family's game of critiquing advertisements sounds ingenious and is definitely something I will have to do when I have kids.

GrumpySnail

@"Seeking Perfection"
Hey! I am back as promised and I hope you are still here with us. May I ask you some questions regarding the test-prep strategy? It would be super helpful if you as a 180 genius could share your experience with me!

1) I can see that you are inherently good at RC due to your innate skill sets (so jealous man!), but you also mentioned that time management would be the key to crack RC. I totally agree with you as I am convinced that RC is actually ALL ABOUT time management; LSAT is not difficult per se but the stirct time limit has made it beyond terrifying. What do you think will be an effective way to manage our time when working on RC? I haven't gone over the core curriculum yet (I will soon by the next week), so you don't have to answer this if it has already been mentioned in the lecture. In addition, do you usually take notes when reading the passage, and would you have time to go back and review the details when you are answering the questions?
Here is what I would do: I normally spend 1.5-2 min on each passage and I almost NEVER go back to confirm the details when reviewing the questions. I am not a suuuuper fast reader but I do have pretty good memory, so what I have been doing is that I would just memorize everything after I finished reading for the first time. However, I find that I will keep missing the detail-related questions (actually those are pretty much the ONLY type of questions that I miss in RC! I never miss any main idea or comparsion questions so far with my 5 PTs taken) for failing to recall every detail. But if I ever go back to check my answer, I will run out of time (2-3 mins for each passage, which is totally unaffordable). What do you think I should do with this? Should I try to improve my memory, or should I work on improving my detail-searching skill and speed?

2) As I've metioned, I would always understand (almost immediately) why I lose points on my missed questions during my reviewal process as soon as I see the correct answer. I think the only reason that I missed them might be the lack of time (I don't have time to think it over during the test). In this case, what would you recommend me to do other than keep praticing with the PTs? Should I do blind review only instead of checking the answer keys immediately after taking a PT?

Thank you for sharing!

Seeking Perfection

@GrumpySnail said:
@"Seeking Perfection"
Hey! I am back as promised and I hope you are still here with us. May I ask you some questions regarding the test-prep strategy? It would be super helpful if you as a 180 genius could share your experience with me!

1) I can see that you are inherently good at RC due to your innate skill sets (so jealous man!), but you also mentioned that time management would be the key to crack RC. I totally agree with you as I am convinced that RC is actually ALL ABOUT time management; LSAT is not difficult per se but the stirct time limit has made it beyond terrifying. What do you think will be an effective way to manage our time when working on RC? I haven't gone over the core curriculum yet (I will soon by the next week), so you don't have to answer this if it has already been mentioned in the lecture. In addition, do you usually take notes when reading the passage, and would you have time to go back and review the details when you are answering the questions?
Here is what I would do: I normally spend 1.5-2 min on each passage and I almost NEVER go back to confirm the details when reviewing the questions. I am not a suuuuper fast reader but I do have pretty good memory, so what I have been doing is that I would just memorize everything after I finished reading for the first time. However, I find that I will keep missing the detail-related questions (actually those are pretty much the ONLY type of questions that I miss in RC! I never miss any main idea or comparsion questions so far with my 5 PTs taken) for failing to recall every detail. But if I ever go back to check my answer, I will run out of time (2-3 mins for each passage, which is totally unaffordable). What do you think I should do with this? Should I try to improve my memory, or should I work on improving my detail-searching skill and speed?

2) As I've metioned, I would always understand (almost immediately) why I lose points on my missed questions during my reviewal process as soon as I see the correct answer. I think the only reason that I missed them might be the lack of time (I don't have time to think it over during the test). In this case, what would you recommend me to do other than keep praticing with the PTs? Should I do blind review only instead of checking the answer keys immediately after taking a PT?

Thank you for sharing!

1. On reading comprehension, I never took notes, but definitely did return to the text during detailed oriented questions. I sort of used my reading speed as a crutch. I didn't necessarily have the structure exactly memorized so often wasted time scanning through to find the right information.

I think slower readers often benefit from a more memory focussed method where they carefully memorize the structure of the passage on their first read through. This enables them to go right to the correct portion when consulting the text for a specific question. However, it's impossible or nearly impossible to memorize everything so you want to try to focus on memorizing the structure and how each paragraph and maybe even sentences works together rather than the content within them. I used this technique a little(it may be called the 7sage memory method?) to try to save time if I was running behind, but never wrote out my summaries the way some do.

1. Blind review is indispensable. If you are not blind reviewing you are giving a lot up. There are likely several correct methods of reasoning to get to the right answer on every question. The only way to know if one is right is if it regularly predicts the correct answer.

What you are doing if you don't blind review is starting with the answer and constructing a reason that explains it. But you don't have a good way to find out if that reason is right. You could consult an explanation, but it might explain it differently than you thought it through. That doesn't tell you that you are wrong. There could be two or more right ways to get to the answer. But it doesn't tell you that you are right. You could ask someone, but you shouldn't have to do that for every question you miss.

The only way to test whether your reasoning is sound is to examine the question without knowing the correct answer or any of the incorrect answers and build an explanation for why the answer is whatever it is. Then when you check, you know that most likely if you get it right it is because your reasoning is right. You could get it right by accident, but hopefully if that happens a future PT uncovers your misunderstanding. If you after blind review get an answer wrong, you know your reasoning was fundamentally flawed and can confront it.

It is sort of like the scientific method. You can't make your hypothesis after the results. You thoroughly study the evidence, make your hypothesis, test it with your results, and then come to the conclusion that your hypothesis was either right or wrong. If you rush through the considering the evidence and making the hypothesis part(by only doing it timed), it isn't scientific, and it is far less likely that we take away the right conclusion.

Now of course you do have to get good at making your guesses quickly for the actual test by practicing timed, but there is no reason not to improve on that reasoning in a thorough blind review.

I too didn't blind review when I was first PTing, but that was a mistake.

TLDR
Try memorizing the structure in reading comp and rereading just the appropriate parts.

Definitely always blind review no matter how much you want to know ypur score right away. The agony is practice for the horrifying ly long wait for year real score.

GrumpySnail

@"Seeking Perfection" said:

@GrumpySnail said:
@"Seeking Perfection"
Hey! I am back as promised and I hope you are still here with us. May I ask you some questions regarding the test-prep strategy? It would be super helpful if you as a 180 genius could share your experience with me!

1) I can see that you are inherently good at RC due to your innate skill sets (so jealous man!), but you also mentioned that time management would be the key to crack RC. I totally agree with you as I am convinced that RC is actually ALL ABOUT time management; LSAT is not difficult per se but the stirct time limit has made it beyond terrifying. What do you think will be an effective way to manage our time when working on RC? I haven't gone over the core curriculum yet (I will soon by the next week), so you don't have to answer this if it has already been mentioned in the lecture. In addition, do you usually take notes when reading the passage, and would you have time to go back and review the details when you are answering the questions?
Here is what I would do: I normally spend 1.5-2 min on each passage and I almost NEVER go back to confirm the details when reviewing the questions. I am not a suuuuper fast reader but I do have pretty good memory, so what I have been doing is that I would just memorize everything after I finished reading for the first time. However, I find that I will keep missing the detail-related questions (actually those are pretty much the ONLY type of questions that I miss in RC! I never miss any main idea or comparsion questions so far with my 5 PTs taken) for failing to recall every detail. But if I ever go back to check my answer, I will run out of time (2-3 mins for each passage, which is totally unaffordable). What do you think I should do with this? Should I try to improve my memory, or should I work on improving my detail-searching skill and speed?

2) As I've metioned, I would always understand (almost immediately) why I lose points on my missed questions during my reviewal process as soon as I see the correct answer. I think the only reason that I missed them might be the lack of time (I don't have time to think it over during the test). In this case, what would you recommend me to do other than keep praticing with the PTs? Should I do blind review only instead of checking the answer keys immediately after taking a PT?

Thank you for sharing!

1. On reading comprehension, I never took notes, but definitely did return to the text during detailed oriented questions. I sort of used my reading speed as a crutch. I didn't necessarily have the structure exactly memorized so often wasted time scanning through to find the right information.

I think slower readers often benefit from a more memory focussed method where they carefully memorize the structure of the passage on their first read through. This enables them to go right to the correct portion when consulting the text for a specific question. However, it's impossible or nearly impossible to memorize everything so you want to try to focus on memorizing the structure and how each paragraph and maybe even sentences works together rather than the content within them. I used this technique a little(it may be called the 7sage memory method?) to try to save time if I was running behind, but never wrote out my summaries the way some do.

1. Blind review is indispensable. If you are not blind reviewing you are giving a lot up. There are likely several correct methods of reasoning to get to the right answer on every question. The only way to know if one is right is if it regularly predicts the correct answer.

What you are doing if you don't blind review is starting with the answer and constructing a reason that explains it. But you don't have a good way to find out if that reason is right. You could consult an explanation, but it might explain it differently than you thought it through. That doesn't tell you that you are wrong. There could be two or more right ways to get to the answer. But it doesn't tell you that you are right. You could ask someone, but you shouldn't have to do that for every question you miss.

The only way to test whether your reasoning is sound is to examine the question without knowing the correct answer or any of the incorrect answers and build an explanation for why the answer is whatever it is. Then when you check, you know that most likely if you get it right it is because your reasoning is right. You could get it right by accident, but hopefully if that happens a future PT uncovers your misunderstanding. If you after blind review get an answer wrong, you know your reasoning was fundamentally flawed and can confront it.

It is sort of like the scientific method. You can't make your hypothesis after the results. You thoroughly study the evidence, make your hypothesis, test it with your results, and then come to the conclusion that your hypothesis was either right or wrong. If you rush through the considering the evidence and making the hypothesis part(by only doing it timed), it isn't scientific, and it is far less likely that we take away the right conclusion.

Now of course you do have to get good at making your guesses quickly for the actual test by practicing timed, but there is no reason not to improve on that reasoning in a thorough blind review.

I too didn't blind review when I was first PTing, but that was a mistake.

TLDR
Try memorizing the structure in reading comp and rereading just the appropriate parts.

Definitely always blind review no matter how much you want to know your score right away. The agony is practice for the horrifying ly long wait for year real score.

Wow, thank you for your advices! I will definitely start blind reviewing my PTs now; Luckily I still have dozen of them to waste. Everyone has been telling me that bilnd review is very important, but I wasn't really convinced at first. Now it seems that it IS the most effective approach after all.
I did memorize the structure of the paragraphs when I was reading, and that is also why I am almost always able to answer the not detail related questions correctly. I never miss the main idea questions so far, not even for once. I do have the ability to effectively summarize everything about an article, but the detail-related questions seem to be my greastest weaknesses.
My plan is to make notes to help me promptly locate the details - I never waste my time on the sentences after "for example" when I was taking the GRE. I think I will do just the same for LSAT.