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
- 10 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
Stuck at 169 trying to get to 173+ before October
Hi everyone,
I am retaking the test in October. I am currently stuck at 169-170 on my PTs. I am really hoping to get that up to 173+ by the October test. Does anyone have any tips on how to narrow down what to focus on? I get about -3 to -5 on both LR and RC just depends on the test. I am having trouble pin pointing where I go wrong in LR because at this point there's no specific question type that I am having trouble with. I'm finding that with the few questions I do get wrong on LR I'm usually down to 2 answer choices but end up picking the wrong one. It's so frustrating. If anyone has any tips on how to avoid this please let me know!
Also, if anyone has any insight on how to get over this hump and make it to the mid 170s please feel free to share!
Comments
Commenting to follow the post However, I am in a very similar boat (I'm scoring at 166 and am shooting for 170). My current plan of attack is to keep reviewing and taking practice tests, since there is no obvious trend to my incorrect answers. I'm hoping that just more practice and repetition will get me there.
I’m assuming you have reviewed the analytics page? There should be at least one or two LR Q types that fall below the others — even if marginally. The 173+ scorers seem to iron out any weakness, however small. I was in the same boat at 169/170 but just recently jumped to 173 by continuing my usual habits of practice —> review —> repeat.
I'm kinda in the same boat re current scores and score target for October, so maybe take my advice with a grain of salt. But in studying LR and looking for patterns, I've found that a different way to slice the content, rather than by question type, is by argument type which the curriculum sorta does (for example separating out questions based on formal logic and those based on empirical premises) but isn't as thorough as I'd like. So maybe if you sort and study your past questions wrong along that major axis - formal logic vs everything else - and then subcategorize from there, you might find patterns you're not otherwise seeing.
I am in the same boat. Consistently score 162+ with my median solidly at 165 (my last four PT’s have been 165) and every now and then I randomly get a 173.
When I get in the 170’s it tends to come down to catching a lucky break in both logic games and reading comprehension as I consistently get less than -5 in LR (usually -4) but LG I average anywhere between -2 to -7 and same with RC. Like OP here, I see very little in terms of pattern with the type of question I get wrong. It tends to come down to relative difficulty of the question itself rather than question type (most of my incorrect questions are 4/5 diamond difficulty) or it’s where I simply rushed and misunderstood something I caught in blind review. It’s extremely rare I encounter a question I cannot get right on BR. Unfortunately this really messes me up on the analytics because even looking at the marginals there is no question type I feel I get much benefit from studying at this point. Like, I know how to spot a parallel flaw. Studying it isn’t the issue.
My theory on this — the only one I have — is that, like OP, this is a matter of practice and, to some extent, of time management.
I have found the tests I do better at tend to be ones where I didn’t run out of time and, just as importantly, didn’t get hung up on a question to the point I had to rush (especially true in LG). Basically looking to work on the speed. This may be an aspect OP would benefit from, though I would be open to correction!
I am currently doing 2 PT’s a day, seven days a week. I actually really enjoy taking PT’s so no sense of burnout here. I have about 40 left and want to do every single PT at least once before Oct. If there’s a better way, like OP, I am all ears!
One thing that helped me go from -5 to -1 on LR was to develop a disciplined skipping strategy. I had a two step process for skipping and typically skipped 7-8 questions per LR section. First, I would translate carefully every stimulus paragraph and pause briefly to prephrase (I could typically prephrase about 70% of the questions). But, if after reading the stimulus paragraph I did not have a good prephrase, I would skip without reading the answers and come back to do it later. Second, if after reading the answers I was down to two or more possible answer choices, then I would not dig in and just skip the question and come back and do these questions later. Skipping has two major benefits, first it reduces anxiety and helps to prevent tunnel vision. Second, your brain will continue to process the question in the background and when you come back to the questions you will be more relaxed and more likely to see the right answer. When you come back reread the stimulus paragraph (you will be able to do this quickly as it is already familiar), then proceed. I would similarly skip questions in RC.
@Ravinder quick question: does that apply to questions you wouldn’t be able to prephrase? MBT questions, for example. I feel like I can come up with prephrases for those, but it’s unlikely it would be the actual AC.
Been there! I would say the major aspect of improving from high 160s to low 170s is SUPER disciplined strategy as well as improving accuracy on those challenging questions. If you haven't implemented strict skipping as well as explicit procedures on what to do in round 2, 3, down to 50/50, etc. I'd start there! Feel free to reach out to me if you need help with this process.
Step 1: Channel your inner Socrates and proceed from the realization that you know nothing. The second you think you understand the LSAT, the LSAT wins; there is always more to learn.
Step 2: Set realistic goals. If you're consistently missing -5 on LR or RC, there is clear room for improvement. Start by aiming to go -4 consistently on each section by targeting what you commonly get wrong. Then aim for -3 consistently. Etc.
I know you say that there's not one question type that's tripping you up, but I find it hard to believe that you're missing an equal amount of all question types. If that were the case, I'd say you just aren't reading carefully enough. But assuming you are indeed plagued by a particular question type - which you can find on the Analytics page - strengthen your understanding by creating problem sets consisting solely of that type. Do them untimed and dissect the stimulus and AC's. Score them, review them, and then repeat with another weakness of yours. Over time, you will recognize patterns and your performance will improve. And - ALWAYS RECORD THE QUESTIONS YOU MISS - segueing into the next step:
Step 3: Keep a wrong answer journal, if you don't already. Since you're close to 170+, every question you miss is an invaluable teaching moment. In fact, everything you get wrong informs you precisely of what you need to invest your time in. So, keep those questions in your journal.
But don't just record them - pick the stimulus apart sentence by sentence as well as the AC's. Write a whole page about why the correct AC is correct if you need to. Compare the question you missed to other questions you've missed. Play with your understanding of the stimulus by creating your own version of it via parallel reasoning. Do whatever helps you. Bottom line, make sure you understand WHY/HOW you missed the question.
Step 4: Construct a plan of action. Now that you know WHY you missed the questions you did, what are you going to do about it? For each question I missed - after an extremely thorough analysis - I wrote a 1-sentence strategy for tackling questions of that type. After doing this for several weeks, I eventually compiled a document of strategies specifically tailored to my deficits. I found it to be a tremendously effective exercise.
Following!
Following
Following
Following
following
Following!
MBT questions are a little harder to prephrase but I would just condense the facts as you go, pausing every sentence or to condense and translate into your own words. Then at the end of the stimulus just super condense the facts again and often you can then get a good prephrase. If not, one can quickly eliminate 2 or 3 obviously wrong answer choices and then focus in detail on the remaining answer choices. Last step would be to quickly point to the one or two portions of the stimulus that when combined prove the remaining answer to be correct.
I actually developed a very systematic simple checklist for each of the 16 or so LR question types, which really helped me stay on task. For example, my checklist for Main Conclusion questions is 1. Bracket what I think is MC (often found by skimming for conclusion indicators) 2. Paraphrase in my own words (S,V,O- subject, verb, object) the bracketed portion, being sure to fill in any referential phrase. 3. skim answer choices for paraphrase. Checklist has to be very simple with no more than 2 items on checklist for each question type. You can start with 2-4 items on checklist for each question type and trim it down with practice over time. Also, would recommend doing quality practice over quantity. After one year of studying (doing over 50 PTs) and taking the test four times I was stuck at 162 (153, 153, 158, 162). I then took a four month break and rethought my whole approach. I then studied only 5 PTs total before final test four months later when I got 177. I studied one question at a time over and over thinking about any tips about how I could have done that question faster. Doing lots of PTs is brain damage. I found that when I only did a small amount of quality studying every day and developed a systematic approach, studying became fun and I could see improvement almost week by week. To be fair, I had the help of several very good tutors but the most helpful thing was developing a checklist and systematic approach for each section and focusing on quality studying.
if you do not see a pattern in your incorrect LR answers while usually getting -4 you are not looking hard enough.
I didn't say there wasn't a pattern. I said the pattern does not seem to be linked to the categorized question type.
It doesn't matter. If you cant see a pattern of any kind that would give indication as to what you are doing wrong in getting -4, then you're not looking hard enough. There's no way around this, the reality is you've still got work to do in achieving a consistent sub -2 and to neglect that by suggesting that your -4 is because of random chance or misreading/rushing is misleading to OP.
Getting -4/-5 out of 25 questions is no margin of error. Its indicative of a lack of understanding of some aspect of LR.
-1 is an acceptable margin of error, maybe -2 if your LR section happens to have an impossibly difficult question that we see every now and then.
Each question type is nuanced in what you are expected to do and look out for, and each question difficulty further builds on that nuance. To suggest that you've done all that you can in mastering LR questions but you're stuck getting -4 is just delusion; that's why I said, if you can't see a pattern you're not looking hard enough.
Being able to answer every question on BR means nothing if you're spending 6 minutes trying to answer a higher difficulty rated question. Time is simply part of the equation on the LSAT, to try and separate time from performance is just doing yourself a disservice. Using the idea that you do well on BR to support a claim of having done everything but still getting -4 is just delusion.
To answer the latter part of your initial comment where you pose the question of a potentially better method than just practicing and time management:
Try selecting question types you tend to underperform on, or you think are not your strongest, then go to problem sets and filter for that specific question type. Then filter that specific question type by difficulty. Then do each difficulty, or just start on 3 stars since that's probably going to be where you want to start as someone getting -4. Do a ton of those, and as you do them, note on a word document for each question, the nature of the answer.
For example, flaw question types:
pt 1 s2 q13:
Argument blah blah blah false dichotomy. Just describe in your own words the flaw in the reasoning.
Once youve done this for a ton of flaw questions, try to determine the frequency of each flaw as it appears in the stimulus argument. Find out what is rare, what is common, what is easier in terms of wordiness within the answer choice, etc....
Move onto 4 stars, do a ton of those, try to see how they differ from 3 stars. Is the stimulus harder? Are the answer choices wordier? Is there more trap answer choices? etc...
You want to dissect the answer choices, and this will reveal to you certain information about that question type, e.g characteristics of 3 star flaw questions. It is this way that you will then be looking hard enough.
Another example, albeit more ambiguous, some people tend to think of strengthen and weaken questions as opposites. This doesn't really help because there's a different approach to each question type that you should have mentally assumed before taking a look at the given answer choices. Simply saying, I'm going to do the opposite of weakening and strengthening doesnt suffice. Strengthening questions are significantly more subtle in the way they expect you to strengthen it. There's a stronger emphasis on contextual relevance in strengthening questions and this lends to more subtle answer choices especially in the 4/5 difficulty range.
I think you misunderstand my point as you seem to mischaracterize it somewhat.
By saying I have 'studied everything' I am referring solely to the theory. I mean I have read multiple books, watched every one of the videos, absorbed the 'how to', am generally 100% comfortable with knowing how to answer almost every iteration of almost every question type without really any posing a problem. In short, getting them 'right' isn't an issue. The issue is getting them right consistently under test conditions.
Your suggestion seems to be to practice problem sets of question types that are weakest under test conditions, and then review incorrect answers. That is, if you refer back to my original post, exactly what I am doing, only with the slight caveat that there aren't striking patterns in the question types (so, basically, practice nearly everything). It seems we actually don't disagree much.