Can an Lsat play to your strengths? or is it formulated in a way where nobody has an advantage?

Mooseontheloose

Is it possible that you could do better on an lsat just because you understand certain topics better than others and those were the ones being tested heavily on the day of? For example, If I am good at SA and there were plenty of those tested or if I struggle with science RC passages and they weren't tested?

Is that just pure luck?

Cant Get Right

Sure. There are two RC passages drawn from books I’ve actaually read. I knocked those out -0 really fast which further strengthened those sections by giving me more time and confidence on the remaining passages. LR is highly dynamic and tests a lot of different skills, but sometimes things fall just right. Generally, you should expect things to even out though. The best way for a section to align to your strengths is by eliminating all your weaknesses.

Sami

@Mooseontheloose said:
Is it possible that you could do better on an lsat just because you understand certain topics better than others and those were the ones being tested heavily on the day of? For example, If I am good at SA and there were plenty of those tested or if I struggle with science RC passages and they weren't tested?

Yeah that can happen. Knowledge about a complex topic takes a lot of difficulty out of LSAT. JY actually recommends getting familiar with aspects of science and literature to do better in RC.

Is that just pure luck?

Kind of. But you can also prepare for it by watching YouTube videos on RC passage topics or finding reading material about it.

But you can only prepare so much. You will still have to know how to parse passages that are difficult just in case.

_oshun1_

@"Cant Get Right" said:
Sure. There are two RC passages drawn from books I’ve actaually read. I knocked those out -0 really fast which further strengthened those sections by giving me more time and confidence on the remaining passages. LR is highly dynamic and tests a lot of different skills, but sometimes things fall just right. Generally, you should expect things to even out though. The best way for a section to align to your strengths is by eliminating all your weaknesses.

Just curious, what were the books? I wonder if there’s an RC book list out there somewhere

Cant Get Right

@"surfy surf" said:
Just curious, what were the books? I wonder if there’s an RC book list out there somewhere

Cosmos by Carl Sagan and Culture and Imperialism by Edward Said. Both excellent reads.

At the end of each test there’s something like a bibliography, so if there isn’t a list already, it would be easy enough to compile one.

westcoastbestcoast

Besides rc and having a well read background in the sciences and arts, having a tendency to be logical and have overall good common sense. Especially for the newer LR it did seem like some of the questions tested your general logic skills not just mere diagramming or conditional logic.

Seeking Perfection

You can also definitely get lucky with section difficulty. I wanted a fairly easy Games section for my retake since they still occasionally threw me off. I got it, but with a supposedly really hard RC section. That was great for me since I'm naturally good at RC and logic games was a comparative weakness. It was bad for people who had thoroughly drilled games to the point where they were really good at them, but were still trying to perfect reading comp.

There willalso always be game types you find easier and since there are only 4 games on the LSAT sometimes it is bound to draw more heavilly from your favorite game types than others.

studyingandrestudying

Yes, there's a "section difficulty balancing" factor that you'll see as you do more tests and a score band of about 6 points that can fluctuate.

cstrobel

@Mooseontheloose
Absolutely, but it probably wouldn't make for a dramatic swing.
For example, when I took the LSAT this February it seemed like there were fewer hard PSA and PF questions. Those were consistently the most difficult for me. But I lucked out given that I feel like I did well on the other kinds of LR.
If you are good are the hardest of certain question types then you can probably score a point or two if you get an exam that plays to your strengths. But probably not much more than that.

stepharizona

I would say a test can play to your strengths or be kryptonite.

I felt like the Feb test played to my strengths and so did the June test, but I had my experimental RC from 2015, which would have seemed like an advantage but through me for an entire loop. I was in such disbelief or "predicting" the next passage or was entirely distracted and put forth my worst RC performance ever on a test (oh the irony).

Mooseontheloose

@"Cant Get Right" said:
Sure. There are two RC passages drawn from books I’ve actaually read. I knocked those out -0 really fast which further strengthened those sections by giving me more time and confidence on the remaining passages. LR is highly dynamic and tests a lot of different skills, but sometimes things fall just right. Generally, you should expect things to even out though. The best way for a section to align to your strengths is by eliminating all your weaknesses.

Wow! are you an avid reader? otherwise the chances of something like that are close to nothing. I agree with your last sentence.

Mooseontheloose

@cstrobel said:
@Mooseontheloose
Absolutely, but it probably wouldn't make for a dramatic swing.
For example, when I took the LSAT this February it seemed like there were fewer hard PSA and PF questions. Those were consistently the most difficult for me. But I lucked out given that I feel like I did well on the other kinds of LR.

I wrote the February test as well and I breezed through the LR even though around 80% of the time a question bogs me down and I end up not finishing in time, which wasn't the case here. I guess the point of this thread was to figure out whether something like that is possible or is it all in my head. I agree with you, PSA and PF were at a minimum while there plenty of weakening/strengthening type questions which I usually do okay at.

Mooseontheloose

@stepharizona said:
I would say a test can play to your strengths or be kryptonite.

I felt like the Feb test played to my strengths and so did the June test, but I had my experimental RC from 2015, which would have seemed like an advantage but through me for an entire loop. I was in such disbelief or "predicting" the next passage or was entirely distracted and put forth my worst RC performance ever on a test (of the irony).

I rewrote in February after writing in December for the first time and that's exactly how I felt. Feb test came naturally to me, and that could be in part due to calmer nerves and having gone through the motions before but the material felt like it was aligned to my strengths in comparison to December.

I don't know what I would if an experimental section reappeared on my lsat, probably just panic and freeze!

Hope you attain your desired lsat score from the Feb sitting!

Cant Get Right

@Mooseontheloose said:
Wow! are you an avid reader? otherwise the chances of something like that are close to nothing. I agree with your last sentence.

I am an avid and cross discipline reader, yes, haha, but these two books would have been hard for me not to have come across. If you’re a nonscientist interested in science, Carl Sagan is your guy. Edward Said is not quite as widely known, but is still a very famous and important thinker who happens to come from my academic field. Both died in the 1990’s, but it would be the equivalent today of seeing passages by Neil DeGrasse Tyson and Noam Chomsky, something like that.