One day I jotted down "How many do you NEED?" on the front of an envelope. I was asking myself how many LSAT's I really needed to understand the general structure of an LSAT. The reason I need to answer this is because I am debating two different ways of taking practice tests. The first way is the way I've heard JY advocate, which is , as I understand it, circle questions you don't feel 100% sure on and come back to them until you understand how they work (or something like that).. the blind review. I did this and realized there were many questions I THOUGHT i had gotten right and so hadn't circled but had gotten wrong. I only found out such a question was wrong once I had graded the test, and so already knew the answer and so lost the ability to find it myself...
Because of that problem, I decided to just blind review the whole thing, and the logic games section I did, well, over and over again on clean sheets. After I did that, I wanted to see how it would feel to take the LSAT again. I knew that it wouldn't give me an accurate score, but I felt like it would be a good exercise in what it would feel like to perform at a very high level, to maybe learn how quick you need to be in the actual scenario etc.
So yea, took LSAT, blind reviewed whole LSAT, then took LSAT again. That took me a solid week. So this story is a long-winded means for a question I have... Is it better for me to take the WHOLE test 3 times (The second being a blind review), or is it better to merely take the circled questions again and move on to the next test?
If it's better to take the test 3 times, then that makes me think that I might do better to closely study a small number of LSATs, instead of quickly studying a large number of LSATs.
My intuition says closer and slower is always better, but I just wanted to get some perspective....
Thanks for your ear and please respond!
Comments