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
- 191 Webinars
- 11 Scholarships
- 194 Test Center Reviews
- 2.2K Study Groups
- 112 Study Guides/Cheat Sheets
- 2.5K Specific LSAT Dates
- 31 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
- 641 Technical Problems
- 286 Off-topic
Related Discussions
25 Likes
Comments
That's amazing! How long did it take you to get there? And what study tips did you find most effective?
Congrats! That's awesome to hear!
Congrats!! Do you have any tips to improve LR and RC particularly? Thanks in advance
Wow!!! this is incredible! Congrats!
Thanks all!
@"kayla.jackson232" I probably have about 5 months of prep in. Grain of salt, as I have a ways to go still, it's only my second 170, and I have yet to post an official score like this, but I think if I had to emphasize one thing it would be quality of review. When you’re done reviewing a question it should feel like the equivalent of a complete mechanical tear down or an exploded diagram. Not just what the argument/flaw was but stuff like what words/language in the ACs make a certain one wrong, what the test writer was trying to do by composing the stimulus/AC in that way.
Also, variety of material/approaches. The optimal approach is different for everyone and we all need to find the battle plan that works best for us. Whether its tutors, a study group, or variety of prep materials, I feel like experience attacking the test from different angles, and exposure to other approaches broadens your skillset. In my opinion, one of the most underrated LSAT skills is the agility to transition between approaches on the fly. The more exposure you have to successful strategies, the more tools you have at your disposal. On test/PT day, when you blink at your screen and say wtf did I just read, those tools pay off. If you're a military history buff, "No plan of operations extends with any certainty beyond the first contact with the main hostile force", or if you're a boxing fan, "Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the face (or mouth depending on where you read it)". We have great tutors here, and I highly recommend talking with a few, as well as at least taking a look at multiple prep material sources. You never know what specific strategy or approach will resonate with you, give you a breakthrough, or help you on that curvebreaker on test day. As an example, I love this RRE tip from powerscore that I got from their podcast - you can't explain a difference with a similarity, and you can't explain a similarity with a difference.
Granted my approach still need more refinement (maybe 5-6 points worth
) but I try to pack away as much of that kind of stuff as I can to take with me to the test.
@Chloeeee for RC/LR, I would say don't leave a stimulus or RC paragraph unless you truly understand what you just read. For LR, that includes the argument, flaws, assumptions, condtional logic, etc.. For RC, things like the reasoning structure, author's position/tone, and relationship to other paragraphs. For me, it never pays off to think, "i got the gist of it" and try to let the AC's guide me. In those cases, I always end up going back to the stimulus to re-read.
Do you all BR only the questions you are not 100% sure about? That's what I originally did. Now I sort of skim through sections and re-read everything. Then I change answers for even those that I didn't bookmark.
I know this prob hurts me, but how exactly?
@"austin.c" I have the same question!
Congratulations! That's super impressive!
@"austin.c" @Dkimvisionmaker11 my understanding is that differentiating between ones you were and were not sure about shows you where you made an error and were certain that you didn't. This allows you to identify areas of overconfidence or where you had no idea there was some kind of issue, which you may gloss over if you just check everything. It really drills in trap answers when you see that you not only fell for it, but did so with confidence. You expose a dangerous area where you didn't know what you didn't know.
It's not a perfect system... the prescription for BR is anything you can't articulate a right/wrong justification for every answer choice, but who does that under time for every question? Wizards... wizards and liars. Maybe Jedi. I do anything that just gave me issues... answer changes, stuck between two, hard translations, had to skip and come back, etc..
@ahnendc-1 thanks! I hope its repeatable!
@canihazJD
Congrats on the 180 BR and the two scores in the 170s!!
Quick question about that RRE tip from Powerscore: "you can't explain similarity with difference, or difference with similarity".
In PT82Q13S1, there's an apparent similarity yet the result is not the same. To solve the discrepancy of the result not being the same, the correct answer choice relies on introducing something that showcases that despite the apparent similarity, there is an important difference between the groups.
Is this okay because the similarity isn't actually as similar as it seems, whereas normally you can't explain a similarity with a difference because even though they might be different in one way, they're still similar in some important ways? Trying to wrap my head around it. Thanks!
Hey @"jeff.wongkachi"! To see why that strategy doesn't seem to fit I think you can just take a look at what you wrote to examine how you viewed the question:
The paradox we are trying to resolve is that despite similarities, the results (effect on moose population) are not the same. They are different. The issue is why are they different... explain the difference.
So now we see we are trying to resolve a difference and that the correct AC (no spoilers) is also a difference, fitting the strategy.
Now as it turns out almost all the ACs are differences between the two habitats in paradox, so this wouldn't have been as useful a strategy for this question, but in many, I've found it does allow you to eliminate ACs quickly. The key is to be proficient with the weapons you take with you... or else they become liabilities. In this case you want to be able to ID that this was a difference, and almost mindlessly apply the strategy as you read... similarity - gone, difference - read, etc.. Otherwise you end up wasting time trying to figure out if what you read fits and if you are applying the rule correctly.
This one is fairly new to me too and I've just seen its utility over that past few PT's. Hope that helps!
@canihazJD Thanks for the clarification!!
@canihazJD congratulations on the amazing feat! Hope you continue with this graph!
I wanted to know if you pursued any particular strategy for studying? I have been studying continuously for the last few weeks, however, I was expecting a good / impressive improvement i my answers to the CC question sets than the situation currently is. Whenever I get the results of the drilling sets under each questions, I feel disheartened for not having selected the right question. I am desperate for the 2021 intake, and now, with these results, very much scared! Did you experience this while you were halfway through the CC? I have not started taking PTs yet. Do you have suggestions as to how do I improve my attention-to-details/words tactic so as to immediately recognize the wrong ACs? Most times, it turns out that I misread / misinterpreted / over-analysed an AC, and ultimately end up selecting a wrong AC.
@"ShashankC.15" grain of salt as I also still have a way to go in my own prep.
First, I don't think a few weeks is a lot of time in the world of LSAT prep. It takes time to process what you've learned. The absorption of strategies and construction and strengthening of new thought processes takes time. This test is more similar to a physical activity than another standardized test in my opinion. Imagine training for a first marathon or learning a new sport... among many applicable parallels, you'll probably suck at first. What I take from what you wrote is that above all else, you might benefit from a more positive mindset. I did well on the CC questions, but not so hot when I started PT'ing... also I started on KA and was easily discouraged there... I got stuff wrong and didn't feel like the explanations helped.
Something that helped me shortly after switching to 7sage was adopting the mindset that when prepping, wrong answers are not a bad thing. I love wrong answers... they're a gift. They provide quantifiable, actionable evidence of a weakness. Its like a friend telling you, I noticed you made this mistake, and want to make sure you don't do the same thing on test day.
The key is taking that gift and using it... not just throwing it away. Analyze why you got that question wrong and how you will get it right next time. Not just, oh I see why thats the right answer... what happened that made you not just reject that answer, but also fall for the wrong one? What was the test writer trying to do by including this AC, by placing the ACs in this sequence, by including this language? Everything on this test is both intentional and purposeful. I think a full review of a question and its ACs can easily fill a page... I've gone over two typed pages on an LR question (I still dont like you Iliad/Odyssey question from PT41), and I believe I could revisit it again and extract more value. For me, review is where the majority of improvement happens.
Now that's addressing wrong answers. As far as improvement/reducing mistakes to begin with, that's about things such as attaining solid foundational competency, developing strategies for Qtypes, translating what you read effectively (this one is huge IMO... do not leave a stimulus you don't understand, unless its to skip). Fully engage with the lessons and don't blow any of it off... learn your conditional indicators... like don't leave that part until you memorize them and can apply them mindlessly. Memorize the flaw types and what they look like in LSAT language. If you're not clear on a lesson, do it again until you're comfortable. The CC is your foundation. Take the time to get as much as possible out of it, and you will see improvements, and will progressively be able to identify your own specific weaknesses and determine what strategies will work best for you. Then you can look at other materials, talk to other people, review and reflect on your PT results... ultimately I believe we all have to build our own toolset, or (I prefer) battleplan. You collect things from 7sage, your study partner, this strategy a tutor taught you, that thing you heard on a podcast, powerscore, loophole, etc.. and after a PT evaluate what was effective and what wasn't, and why, then decide what to take with you next time and what to leave behind.
Hope that helps... Feel free to PM. I'm always down to talk LSAT or throw around some questions.
@canihazJD thanks for the helpful explanation and guidance, really appreciate it!