35 minutes isn't enough!

holmesvc

Hello! I'm having a really hard time answering all the questions within 35 minutes. I tend to run out of time during RC and sometimes, LG. I score significantly better when I blind review and I know I could do a lot better if I just had maybe 5 more minutes with every section. I honestly feel capable enough to answer each question type but I tend to get them wrong because I feel rushed. During BR, I realize that if I wasn't so rushed, I would have gotten a lot more questions correct.
Any advice on how you manage your time during your PTs or how to not let the clock give you anxiety? This is single-handily the reason why I've always done so bad with exams. Thanks

Lsatgamestrong

following this to get tips too!

Scott Milam

@holmesvc

If you are struggling with timing and need to close the gap between your BR and actual score, the key question to answer is "Where am I spending my time?"

Most users with timing issues have at least a few questions where they misspent their time. Look in your analytics for questions with long green or red tails (i.e. questions where you stuck around after picking your answer). Also look for hard questions that you spent several minutes on. These are all places where time was spent inefficiently.

Next, I'd look at how long it is taking you to complete the first half of each section of the test. The first two games on LG, two passage on RC and first 15 questions of LR are generally more formulaic, and thus easier, than the rest of those sections. I encourage my students to finish these in ~15 min, leave ~20 min for the back half of the section. If you are taking longer than that, drilling easy questions/games/passages for speed is the way to go.

Of course, this is all very general advice! If you'd like more help, you might consider speaking to one of our tutors. We specifically train them to address timing issues, and they'd be able to go over your analytics with a fine-toothed comb and give you individualized advice. You can book a consult with one here if you're interested:

https://calendly.com/7sage-tutoring/7sage-tutoring-free-consultation?utm_source=FCA_A&month=2023-06

Cant Get Right

There's a lot I could say about this, but let's start with a pop quiz:

You do a problem set of 10 questions. You are fairly aggressive and end the drill with exactly 90% confidence on each answer you chose. I grade the section for you and inform you that you missed one question in the set. I also tell you that I know for certain that if you had only spent an extra 30 seconds on the one you missed, you would certainly have corrected your mistake and answered it correctly.

How much additional time would it have taken you to have answered all 10 questions correctly?

chloe.donnelly

I feel the same. It's frustrating because if I had 5-7 more minutes on each section, I would probably get a really high score. I can answer most questions correctly when I have a little more time, and I even meditated for 20 minutes before the last time I took the LSAT and I did worse than the first time. The time limit seems somewhat arbitrary to me. If you can actually do it, it shouldn't matter if it takes you 5-10 minutes longer than someone else. I get that lawyers bill by increments of 6/10 minutes, but speed is something that improves with time and practice. I think the key, at least for LR/RC is ability to speed read well.

Cant Get Right

@"Cant Get Right" said:
You do a problem set of 10 questions. You are fairly aggressive and end the drill with exactly 90% confidence on each answer you chose. I grade the section for you and inform you that you missed one question in the set. I also tell you that I know for certain that if you had only spent an extra 30 seconds on the one you missed, you would certainly have corrected your mistake and answered it correctly.

How much additional time would it have taken you to have answered all 10 questions correctly?

The correct answer is 5 minutes.

And it's really important to understand why.

When we say "35 minutes isn't enough," what do we really mean? What isn't it enough for? Typically, what students mean is that it isn't enough to do everything they'd like to do. Well, I don't get to do everything I'd like to do. In RC, I'd really like to be able to return to the passage to confirm my answers. But I don't get to. On LG, I'd really like to prove out my answers. But I don't get to. On LR, I'd really like to crack open all the curve breakers to figure out exactly what the underlying structural flaw is. But I don't get to.

So returning to the question above. Do I get to fix that one error? No. Why not? Why does it cost 5 minutes, not 30 seconds? Because I have no idea which question is wrong. To invest the 30 seconds it'll take to correct the one error, I have to make the same investment every time I am similarly situated. And as much as I would like, I don't get to. When I'm 90% confident, I have to be content and move on. Even if I know I'm wrong every once in awhile.

So if 35 minutes isn't enough for everything we'd like to do, what is it enough for? It's enough for exactly 35 minutes worth of work. What matters is the work you choose to do and the work you choose not to do. If you choose to spend 30 seconds to confirm every time you're 90% confident you have a correct answer, you are actively choosing not to spend that time elsewhere. The question is one of prioritizing the work you choose to invest your time into. Make good, disciplined investments, and I promise you that 35 minutes is plenty of time.

@"chloe.donnelly" said:
I think the key, at least for LR/RC is ability to speed read well.

This is a very common misconception, but speed-reading is an extremely destructive practice. In rushing, you sacrifice comprehension. And compromised comprehension will not result in success. I am a strong reader; not a fast reader. On average, for example, I spend 4 minutes reading each RC passage. That leaves me about 42 seconds per question. Because I comprehended the passage, this is enough. If you have crappy comprehension of the reading, it is only right and fair that you have a crappy score on a test designed to evaluate how well you understood the thing you just read. If you could reliably score well with poor comprehension, the test would be deeply flawed. And the test is not deeply flawed. I'm working with a student right now who was averaging -10 on RC when he came to me. He was speed-reading, resulting in about 1:45-2:00 average passage "read" time. It was clear he was a reasonably strong reader. We adjusted his time management strategy, prioritized comprehension, and he scored -1 on his very first RC after our session. And as big an upswing as this result is, it is a mundane outcome for reasonably strong readers who are speed-reading. I see this over and over and over and over. Don't speed read.