Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- 33.4K All Categories
- 28.1K LSAT
- 17.1K General
- 5.2K Logical Reasoning
- 1.4K Reading Comprehension
- 1.7K Logic Games
- 70 Podcasts
- 193 Webinars
- 12 Scholarships
- 194 Test Center Reviews
- 2.2K Study Groups
- 111 Study Guides/Cheat Sheets
- 2.5K Specific LSAT Dates
- 30 November 2024 LSAT
- 18 October 2024 LSAT
- 9 September 2024 LSAT
- 38 August 2024 LSAT
- 28 June 2024 LSAT
- 4 April 2024 LSAT
- 11 February 2024 LSAT
- 22 January 2024 LSAT
- 38 November 2023 LSAT
- 43 October 2023 LSAT
- 14 September 2023 LSAT
- 38 August 2023 LSAT
- 27 June 2023 LSAT
- 30 Sage Advice
- 5K Not LSAT
- 4K Law School Admissions
- 13 Law School Explained
- 10 Forum Rules
- 636 Technical Problems
- 286 Off-topic
Related Discussions
From 168 to 170s in six weeks?
eastcoastdionne
Free Trial Member
Hi, I got a 168 on the Jan LSAT and I'm looking to break 170 for the March LSAT. I've scored in the 170s before, but I'm looking to consistently be scoring in the low 170s range. The problem is, I'm practically out of recent practice tests. I've done almost all of the 60s 70s and 80s. Does any one have any tips for how to start consistently scoring in the 170s, and what I should do re: practice tests?
Comments
I am in the same position as you here. My average PT on last 5 leading up to Jan test was right around 170 and I hit a 168. I have burned through most recent material as well and am really struggling to bump my PT up to 173-175range which is what I think I need to feel confident that I will actually hit 170+ on test day. I have heard some people say that reusing can be a great tool as long as it’s been awhile. If you are getting the same questions wrong twice you really have a great idea on what you need to focus on.
What section gives you most trouble? For me it is typically RC and I just have not been able to get better than -5ish pretty much since I started getting in the 160s range.
First, I must congratulate you on receiving a 168! I also commend you on striving to aim for a 170! I think it is a definite possibility since you have scored in the 170s before
Unfortunately, I have never broke into the 170s
so I don't have any tips on how to start consistently scoring in that range; nonetheless, I think that with consistent practice you can definitely achieve your goal!
If you don't mind me asking, which section do you find the most trouble in? I believe that between earlier RC passages and later RC passages, they tend to be relatively similar in terms of subject and difficulty?
Thanks for the tip on reusing PTs! And same--- RC is really what trips me up, as well as the 26 question LR section.
Let me know how you're progressing! Good luck!
Thanks, same to you. Any tips from om improving RC? I would love to get to a point where I can actually dominate this section like logic games. Is that even possible ? The 7 sage method has never really clicked for me and I feel like on actual test day the nerves make this even harder because of the extended focus it requires. This is also the section that I just have improved the least in since I started studying for the lsat. Don’t have exact numbers but I would imagine I have only gotten 2-3 questions better on this.
I totally feel you. I had been doing the VIEWSTAMP method which definitely helped me get from like -12 to -5, but I also need to be getting much lower and I'm looking to just blast through the section. I was going to try JY's memory method since I have never tried it before -- do you mind explaining a bit why it didn't work for you?
I was in a very similar position to you; I got a score in high 160s on September 2018 LSAT and was out of practice tests. I re-took in November and got a 173 (I went -1 on RC). Here's what I did from September to November: I took 3 practice tests a week at 9AM (Monday, Wednesday, and Friday). In the afternoon, I would blind review the LR and re-do the LG without time constraints. I never blind reviewed the Reading Comp. Reading comp and LG were my weakest sections. For that, every Tuesday and Thursday, I would just crank through practice sets: RC in the morning and LG in the afternoon. Set the filter on hard & hardest on the 7sage Question Bank and print out 20 tests worth. I then did each passage and corresponding questions individually. I'd set a stopwatch and go through it. Then, I'd review it and check the answers. The goal is -0 in under 8 minutes.
Anyway, that's what worked for me. I didn't do the VIEWSTAMP method or JY's method; I just tried to be really clearly in my mind about what the argument was & how it was structured before I went to the questions. My opinion is that RC just requires a lot of reps. Since it is the least fun, I think people spend the least amount of time on it. If it's what your weakest section is, just try to spend a lot of time doing it.
In all fairness I suppose I didn’t really give it as much attention as I did to other parts of the CC, but I just felt like Focusing on the broad high level overview of each paragraph didn’t really help me much. I already felt like I naturally did this and the questions I’m missing are usually the more detailed and specific ones that with the time crunch really give me trouble.
I am definitely guilty of this. I think I partially bought into the hype that you can’t really improve your RC much just to let myself off the hook on studying it. Huge mistake, I’m going to put in the reps this time around. Do you recommend Blind Reviewing RC as well?
I did a ton of RC passages, dedicated a lot of time to practicing and reviewing them and frustratingly still got anywhere from -12 to -3 on a given timed section. I think RC success is very unique to the individual and does require a lot of practice like mentioned above. I literally read any discussion post on here about RC that I could get my hands on and tried to do what everyone recommended. In the end what worked for me was being consistent with a process that I came up with (after all this practice and reading the trainer). Redoing recent pts really helped me as well as making sure I was on top of my game with LG by doing 2-3 sections every day i studied. Good luck!
@"Better every day" I didn't blind review the reading comp. Maybe it will be helpful for you, and it definitely can't hurt. I think just doing a lot of them is more important. Some other advice I'd give is to try to read the passage at a high-level and try to read the answer choices in extreme detail. After each passage you read, try to answer in your head these two questions: "What is the argument being made?" and "How is it supported?" That's it. Try not to get lost in the weeds. The big exception I've noted is if the passage has a paragraph describing a "X goes up, Y goes up" or "X goes up, Y goes down" relationship. There is definitely going to be a question making sure you are clear on that relationship.
On the answer choices, though, read every word carefully. Make sure the focus of the answer choice isn't too broad. If the passage is about Hepatitis B and the answer choice is talking about diseases in general, throw it out.
Set realistic goals. If you're starting out at -10, don't expect to be at -3 overnight. Just try to focus and do your best each time you do one.
Hey, I'm actually probably going to suggest the most underrated advice that barely anyone follows.
Have you tried practicing reading retention and reading comprehension skills on ONE single read? (Not just doing the "main point of a passage, but understanding what it's actually talking about.)
This not only cuts down time, but also allows you to retain what you read to answer the questions without having to read a passage multiple times!
It may be the missing piece, especially if you're someone that BR's RC at -1 or -0 consistently. (With occasional -2 or 3 ofc.)
Anyways, to train this start with just retaining 2 passages, then moving onto 3, and then 4.
It takes about a week of effort of doing nothing but this, but you may be able to improve your RC score by quite alot!
After all, doesn't this method make sense? If you comprehend what you read the first time around, and retain it, it eliminates alot of time spent looking back and forth and contemplating between two answer choices. (in fact, if you're facing these two issues that I'm mentioning, it may be that you need to work on exactly this skill.)
Not sure I totally understand what you’re saying here. I do always try to retain what I read, but of course I never can actually retain it all.
Thanks for laying this out! I think I might try doing what you did. This is super helpful because it's hard to know where to start for the retake in terms of structure for studying. Just to clarify: since you were pretty much out of PTs like I am, you were re-taking PTs MWF, and drilling practice sets from tests you had already done T Th?
For RC: 1) Did you take a few seconds after you read to go over the passage in your mind, or did you just jump straight into the questions? 2) Do you have any tips for tackling the very detail-oriented passages?
@eastcoastdionne I retook the PTs I had done earliest. For me, I think that ended up being like numbers 50-65 or something like that. The two weeks before I retook the LSAT I counted back with the 5 most recent PTs (so I took 85 on the Wednesday before the November LSAT, 84 on the Monday and so on).
For the days I drilled, I took those from the gap in PTs. So I drilled the RC and LG from 65 - 80. I scheduled it all on my Google calendar, and that may help you organize your PT as well.
1) I would take 30 seconds in my mind thinking my answer to those two questions, almost like I was being asked in a class those two questions: "What is the author's argument?" and "How is it structured?" So, I'd think something like "The author's argument is that, contrary to popular opinion, the salsa dance was popularized throughout the United States by immigrants from Japan and not South America. He makes this argument by pointing to X, Y, and Z" or something like that.
2) People may disagree with this, but with complex detail-oriented passages, I would try to stay surface level. I didn't even try to understand what they were saying, to be honest. I'd just focus more on knowing what the argument is and how it is supported.