Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Sign In Apply for Membership

Categories

Is a 170 possible for me?

OhnoeshalpmeOhnoeshalpme Alum Member ⭐
in General 2531 karma

Hi 7sagers,

So I just had a pretty disappointing performance on LG and I am starting to get worried about my ability to improve my score by September. I spent the last month or so fool-proofing LG and I just took PT 32 timed and scored a -8 in LG. To put that in perspective, I scored a -8 on LG 1 month ago (before i started really fool-proofing). This means that across 25ish PT's worth of games I found no (consistent) improvement. Across the first 30 PT's my best score for a section was -2, but that's very rare for me. On average I'd guess that my LG score is something like -5 for a section. I'm starting to think that I need to start fool-proofing over from the beginning again.

Additionally, despite the fact that I have completed the CC, my LR scores are around -6/-7 per section and my RC is at -10. This puts my PT average, accounting for variance, somewhere between 158 and 161 with a BR score of 172-174. If I want to improve to a 170 by September, what do I need to do to have the best shot? Is a 9-12 point improvement in this situation unrealistic for two months? Should I restart fool-proofing until i'm consistently -3 or better? Should I start working more on RC since i'm losing about 10 points per section in this area? Should I still be taking a PT every Saturday?

I would really appreciate any feedback about similar situations or any advice that you all can give me. I don't expect anyone to answer all of these questions but I'd like to put it out there as this is a pretty big personal let-down.

Thanks

Show Related Discussions

Comments

  • eRetakereRetaker Free Trial Member
    2043 karma

    I wouldn't worry too much. I had the same issues when I fool-proofed from PT 1-40. The Logic Games in the 30s are really really tough so getting the same number wrong in the 30s as you did in the teens and 20s actually means you are improving. If you want to boost your confidence, take the logic games sections from 42-53.

  • keets993keets993 Alum Member ⭐ ⏰ 🍌
    6050 karma

    I think this is common actually? Because you go from foolproofing individual games to doing actual sections. The problem is that with foolproofing you already know how long each game is supposed to take, whether you should split the game board and you don't have to worry about skipping questions because you're just focusing on one game instead of a section dealing with 20+ questions. On top of that, weirdly worded question stems and the tendency to freeze up because of unfamiliarity can affect your timing too. I'd suggest practicing with actual sections from PT1-35.

    As for the other sections it depends on what accounts for that discrepancy between BR score and timed. Is it just a factor of time? Do you use skipping strategies, find yourself spending too long on questions you know you should've skipped, lack of confidence?

  • ebalde1234ebalde1234 Member
    905 karma

    I second the first comment . I was also told the older pts lg sections are actually harder then the newer pts in lg , for rc I was told not to focus on the older pts as the passage difficulty seems to have gone up since then. For rc are you making notations ? Are you reading while looking for the main point , authors attitude , point of views ect ? Are you actively reading ? How much time are you spending reading the passage versus answering the questions . I was reading the passage too fast and then messing up the questions. Are you focusing too much on lg and neglecting rc / lr ? You don’t have to answer these questions on here just something to get the ball rolling . You could also look into a tutor as well to point out your blind spots. Also look into some timing strategies . If you aren’t hitting your target in sept you could always take the lsat in nov (depending on the schools you are applying to ) Also hang in there the lsat plateau sometimes happens , sending you good vibes , don’t beat yourself up about it; you have been putting in lots of work .

  • ebalde1234ebalde1234 Member
    edited June 2018 905 karma

    https://www.kaptest.com/study/lsat/guide-to-lsat-reading-comprehension/ Jys method is the low resolution summaries (you can put a few key words next to the passage while reading ) https://7sage.com/lsat-reading-comprehension-the-memory-method/

  • paulmv.benthempaulmv.benthem Alum Member
    1032 karma

    Sorry to hear you're feeling discouraged...this test is a beast sometimes, and it doesn't take much to start feeling like the wheels are spinning.

    Hitting 170 by September, I suspect, would be a challenge. Not to say that you couldn't, but it would require some very focused attention on how you can keep moving up. Making improvements, though, will require that you be able to identify your weaknesses...

    @Ohnoeshalpme said:
    Additionally, despite the fact that I have completed the CC, my LR scores are around -6/-7 per section and my RC is at -10. This puts my PT average, accounting for variance, somewhere between 158 and 161 with a BR score of 172-174. If I want to improve to a 170 by September, what do I need to do to have the best shot? Is a 9-12 point improvement in this situation unrealistic for two months? Should I restart fool-proofing until i'm consistently -3 or better? Should I start working more on RC since i'm losing about 10 points per section in this area? Should I still be taking a PT every Saturday?

    While each on of these questions is valuable, I don't think asking them is really going to help you move forward unless you have a sense of where the faults are in your current strategy. To illustrate, for a while my RC scores took a dip; after watching some footage of myself doing questions I realized that I had gotten overconfident and I was getting sloppy when it came to pausing after every section to make the connections between each paragraph and the broader argument. I could have just kept going through RC passages, but I would have been making the same error, and thus getting, probably, about the same number of questions wrong per section. I've had the same issues with LR and lacking confidence on diagramming some of the trickier questions that employ a heft amount of conditional logic, and so I decided I just need to return to the CC and do some problem sets where I focused on mapping out the conditional logic, even if I thought I could answer the question without doing so.

    So...when you think about your strategy, are there areas where you think you might be struggling? If you can't think of any off the bat, I'd highly recommend recording yourself while doing questions and analyzing the footage. If you do have some sense of where you might be weak (a particular type of game-setup, perhaps?), then I would focus on addressing those areas.

    Hope this helps! Good luck moving forward!

  • OhnoeshalpmeOhnoeshalpme Alum Member ⭐
    2531 karma

    @"paulmv.benthem" @ebalde1234 @keets993 @eRetaker

    Thank you all for your feedback and for being so encouraging :) As some of you recommend, I'm going to film myself taking PT 47 today. I hope that it reveals some useful information!

  • JohnnyKarateJohnnyKarate Member
    157 karma

    Keep at it. Also, hitting a 170 is a very difficult thing to do. I know it may seem like everyone is hitting at or close to 170, but you have to remember that 170 is top 97.4% percentile of test takers. I have seen people get accepted into Harvard with mid-160's.

    All this to say, I think you can hit 170 with a ton of practice and improvement. It may not happen by September, but it can happen. HOWEVER, just try to do the best you can on the test. I would honestly recommend getting that 170 number out of your head. If you are consistently being discouraged by not hitting or being close to 170, it can do way more harm than it can good. For example, I have been PT'ing close to 170's lately (with 2 PTs above 170), however, I recently scored a 164 on a PT. I freaked out over it, and this ruined a good day of studying that I could have taken to review my mistakes and improve.

    There is no "magical score" on the LSAT. You are already PTing in the 160's, and you can definitely make improvement. Don't get discouraged. Learn from your mistakes, improve, and keep your chin up -- you'll be close to 170 when you are ready.

  • AshleighKAshleighK Alum Member
    786 karma

    @JohnnyKarate said:
    Keep at it. Also, hitting a 170 is a very difficult thing to do. I know it may seem like everyone is hitting at or close to 170, but you have to remember that 170 is top 97.4% percentile of test takers. I have seen people get accepted into Harvard with mid-160's.

    All this to say, I think you can hit 170 with a ton of practice and improvement. It may not happen by September, but it can happen. HOWEVER, just try to do the best you can on the test. I would honestly recommend getting that 170 number out of your head. If you are consistently being discouraged by not hitting or being close to 170, it can do way more harm than it can good. For example, I have been PT'ing close to 170's lately (with 2 PTs above 170), however, I recently scored a 164 on a PT. I freaked out over it, and this ruined a good day of studying that I could have taken to review my mistakes and improve.

    There is no "magical score" on the LSAT. You are already PTing in the 160's, and you can definitely make improvement. Don't get discouraged. Learn from your mistakes, improve, and keep your chin up -- you'll be close to 170 when you are ready.

    I second this. I'm in the same boat as you @Ohnoeshalpme but fixating on a single score will only discourage you. Every bit of improvement signals success even if it takes you long. I too wish to score in the 170 range but I'd be equally as happy if it was in the 165+ range! Best of luck studying and if needed, feel free to reach out. LG is my strength and although I'm still on PT 2 for FPing I could possibly help where needed. :)

Sign In or Register to comment.