Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- 33.6K All Categories
- 28.2K LSAT
- 17.1K General
- 5.2K Logical Reasoning
- 1.4K Reading Comprehension
- 1.7K Logic Games
- 70 Podcasts
- 192 Webinars
- 11 Scholarships
- 194 Test Center Reviews
- 2.2K Study Groups
- 112 Study Guides/Cheat Sheets
- 2.5K Specific LSAT Dates
- 36 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
- 4.1K Law School Admissions
- 13 Law School Explained
- 10 Forum Rules
- 649 Technical Problems
- 288 Off-topic
5 Likes
Unpopular Opinion - LSAT Studying Edition (Studying and LSAT Structure Opinion Only)
Preston Bigley
Member
This forum is for opinions that are not mainstream regarding studying the LSAT! This forum is not meant to criticize or complain about the LSAT. Instead, it is intended for people to share unique studying tips, original thoughts regarding the LSAT structure and talk about how the LSAT studying process is a different journey for everyone but with surprising similarities! I would love to hear from everyone! I will get us started below with a couple of opinions that may spark some curiosity.
Comments
Annotating on logical reasoning is overrated during timed sessions.
I believe that annotating is a handy tool to organize thoughts and lay out a structure of an argument. However, I have found that annotating during timed sessions makes me take longer and lowers my accuracy. The reason is that I rely on my annotations as a notation to show that I comprehend something. Wait, no, I annotate things I do not understand in the stimulus. Never mind, that is not it... I rely on annotations to underline my conclusion and premise. Nevermind.. I cannot remember! See, that is the problem!! I get confused with my own annotations, and it becomes counter-intuitive.
Not only that, I started to question for each problem on the LSAT whether it would be a good idea to annotate, and that contemplation in itself takes up time.
This is how I found a balance. I have decided annotation during time reviews is a no-go for me! But, during the blind reviews, I will make each problem look like a Picasso painting with annotations; I will go crazy! I will practice annotating on the blind reviews so much that when I take the time sections, I will start to be able to organize the information in my head correctly and crucial points by simply taking a mental capture and then going back to that point when I need it for reference.
Same thing with writing out formal logic.
Notecards are not the best way to go for memorizing LSAT concepts.
Don't get me wrong, I love note cards, and note cards got me through grade school! However, the material on the LSAT is determinant on a holistic understanding. So, simply memorizing a definition or a rule though the process of making note cards has not been the best for me.
What has worked best for me is making little interactive infographics on Canva.com! I have so much fun making them, and I notice that my memorization is enhanced because I am actively putting the concepts onto an interactive infographic that suits my learning style the best, taking complex concepts and making them big and straightforward to look at!
Here is an example.
https://www.canva.com/design/DAEtBunbgIc/2qwcON-GgVJHwfdRKoAFeQ/edit
After making this, along with some others, I talked to my mom about what logical fallacies I was learning about, and I was naming them better than ever! And I know it has to do with making this new interactive "note-taking" process.
Completely agree with this, the only time I annotate during LR is when the stimulus is confusing enough that reading through it the first time didn't help me grasp the concept. I also read a lot of comments under the practice sets in CC where people comment "for some reason when I use lawgic I do worse on the problems" and I think this is an advice that can potentially help a lot of people. I personally feel that with LR it's possible to develop an intuitive understanding where you know that for any given question you are just analyzing an argument in some form. You don't have to have a specific way of solving any of these questions.
Beautifully said! I love the input.
I think another unpopular opinion is note taking on RC. I used to note take and felt it took away from actually understanding the passage. Since I have stopped notating, I have increased my RC immensely.
YES!! I LOVE IT!
I think the most underrated way to study is to study extremely slow in the beginning.
What I mean by this is taking apart every single portion of a LR question when learning a certain question type. Timed practice is overrated as well. If you can't do it flawlessly slow, you can't do it well fast.
YES – Not enough people heed this advice. Beginners somehow expect to be scoring -1/-2 on timed LR, when they can't even get those scores on untimed LR.
I'll restate what you said because it bears repeating: If you can't get a score without time constraints, don't expect to get it with time constraints!
For sure!
I learned this the hard way by being too eager to “score high” or “do well.” Now, I just take my time.
Literallyyyyyy was just thinking this earlier today. Great comment!
Right on point.
Prephrasing strategies are garbage.
That’s a little more hyperbolic than I want to actually represent, but in the spirit of the thread I just felt like leading with something blunt and melodramatic. My real position is probably something more like:
Prephrasing strategies are inherently flawed and necessarily fail to exploit critical vulnerabilities the test presents to us.
That includes more traditional prephrasing strategies and, yes, Loophole too. Which is mostly just regular old prephrasing.
If you can prephrase the right answer, you’ll know it when you see it whether you prephrase it or not. If you can’t prephrase the right answer, letting the answer choices serve as prompts for consideration is far better than forcing something. Worst of all, many if not most questions have many different possible correct answers. So you can correctly prephrase an answer that isn’t going to be there. Now you’re going to disregard the correct answer not because you thought it was wrong but because it didn’t match what you’ve arbitrarily determined the correct answer should be. Let the answers guide you. The correct answer will articulate itself far better than you ever can. At its best, prephrasing just doesn’t hurt you. But if it does anything at all, it will hurt you.
I think the LSAT hasn't done enough to level the playing field for people from disadvantaged socioeconomic communities and that they think they can get away with this by adding in more diverse names in the LG section. First of all the LG is the most dependent on studying, so it's going to favor those who have access to top notch study tools. I can't explain how much of a difference it's made having the unlimited data on 7sage. Second, they've only made the LG section worth more since eliminating the second LR section. If they really wanted to level the playing field they'd let everyone who signed up have access to every prep test previously offered. Rough analogy here: Imagine you spend 200$ to sign up for a class and then the teacher offer proportionately more study material to those who give more money. All the while the teacher is profiting directly from whoever buys more material. Open to any feedback on this but I think the LSAC is so damn greedy
Couldn’t have said it better myself. However, do you think that learning the pre phrases initially is the best way to enhance intuition in the long run?
Hey Matt, I appreciate and respect the opinion. You seem very passionate on the matter. But, the goal of the thread is to talk about opinions on unique studying techniques or thoughts about the actual content in the lsat. Please stick to positive and brain enhancing comments!
You definitely have great passion and that is going to pay off well as a lawyer!
@"preston.bigley-1" ”talk about how the LSAT is a different journey for everyone” okay, I talked about how it’s difficult for low income individuals. “Original thoughts regarding the lsat” okay, I’m not the first person to say this but first to bring it up in this thread so I’d say it’s original here. Also I’m not criticizing the lsat itself, if I was saying the LSAT is dumb and designed for idiots, then I’d agree that my comment is negative. I’m criticizing the barriers of entry that surround the test. “Positive and brain enhancing” lol cmon, bringing up a social issue can’t enhance the brain? Positive? I’d say pointing out the social disadvantages is positive if the alternative is ignoring it and only talking about the test structure.
I wouldn't say it's the "best" way to enhance intuition, but I would certainly say it can be a legitimate exercise.
Monopolies tend to be that way, and its disgusting.
I'm going to pivot off your post into my own U.O. that is related to yours.
Here it is:
With the exception of individuals that are heavily gifted intellectually and/or in the extreme upper percentile in terms of "drive" that borderlines on obsession, generally speaking, the LSAT DOES NOT level any playing field between "disadvantaged vs advantaged". Sure, in SOME cases it MAY, but generally it rewards and compounds advantage. To put it bluntly: Good luck with your $200 fee waiver, because that's probably the only favor you'll be getting from LSAC as someone disadvantaged.
At it's core, the LSAT, and furthermore LSAC in generally, is a filter and if your sum advantages are more than the average lsat prepper then you're inherently more likely to succeed. I think this is true for everything everywhere though lol. I'll still make my case though.
The LSAT, because of how and what it tests for and also the general process behind LSAC as a whole, heavily favors advantaged individuals and punishes disadvantaged individuals. For example:
1) Family support vs little to no family support (emotional and financial). The more positive support, and less anti support an LSAT prepper can attain, the more OPPORTUNITY they'll have to score well on the test. Think of a living situation, your home: rent free vs having rent. This alone is huge. Not having to worry about rent, and by implication probably not having to worry about a job? Or think of overly burdensome or outright hostility of family members towards your studying, such as "Hey, you can only live here 1 month rent free, then your back to working 50 hours per week" vs "Hey, no problem. Live here rent free and take the test whenever you're ready. I honestly don't care how long you take." Obviously, this does not guarantee that someone would do better, but having support definitely increases OPPORTUNITY.
2) Decent to good primary school vs bad or non existent primary school (think basic, basic stuff.) I think this is even more important than college honestly, and I would personally say that this is the absolute number 1 "thing" that you'd want as a LSAT prepper if you had to choose. Are you above average intelligence but also have some glaring weaknesses in basic reading or understanding of English, or even some slight deficiencies in basic multiplication and division? Your LSAT prep just got 100x harder.
Is it good or bad? I don't know. Honestly, if law school had a smaller barrier to entry than what is currently in place then would it be economically speaking or "fulfillment-wise" speaking less appealing? I think so.
So yea, I think the LSAT tests intellect or education or however you want to label that portion of it, but it also "tests" you on dedication, advantage, opportunity. It's possible to be dumb as rocks and get a 180. But it's definitely not easy, and if you're not advantaged to begin with AND dumb as rocks then LSAC just weeded you out.
Below applies to timed PT's (and the real test) only...
Note taking during LR is generally unnecessary IMO. The only time I do it is for more difficult parallel reasoning/flaw questions and that's only because those typically involve the transposition of a formula between two arguments rather than understanding a single argument. Understanding a single argument simply doesn't require notation in any but the most extreme of cases.
Note taking during RC is even more unnecessary IMO. I understand the argument for it, but found it causes more problems than it helps due to the amount of time it takes to summarize a passage in sufficient detail beyond what can quite easily be remembered in one's head.
And saving the most controversial for last...
In general, I think we as students are far too negative and self-critical.
What I mean by that is that, assuming one has been through the core curriculum and, in general, has a good understanding of the fundamentals in play, more often than not the answer that instinctively feels right (once one has carefully read and considered the question) is correct. Not every time, of course, but surprisingly often. Often enough to matter.
I typically PT in the high-ish 160's with being in the low to mid 170's about 1 in 3 tests. In LR and RC particularly, the vast majority of the time when I get answers wrong its because I second guess myself. More often than not, my wrong answers result from when I actually talk myself out of the right answer, simply through thinking 'it couldn't be that simple'. But it can be that simple! Especially when one instinctively just knows.
IMO once one has got through the curriculum, pretty much the entire thing comes down to confidence. Full understanding + Low confidence = 160. Full understanding + High confidence = 175. Burnout and fatigue, stress, hunger, whatever are all so much more important factors than whether one truly understands things. Second guessing becomes a kind of madness. At the higher end, it's mostly a head game, not a matter of endless drilling and studying (although those things can, of course, help with the head game).
Yes. Exactly. This thread is to only talk about test structure and studying techniques that are unique or different in way one or another. Check out the description of the forum I posed above! You are very passionate and extremely knowledge about that subject, props to you and best of luck!
Makes sense. It is a little step in the right direction.
I love every single point you hit on. Especially the last one. The LSAT is THE mind game of all mind games.
Low resolution is a must for rc!
Also find all inferences on lg before you answer the questions! This is super helpful and I just started doing this not too long ago.
You sparked my interest. What do you mean by low resolution?
You sparked my interest. What do you mean by low resolution?
Such a an essential part of LG, and so simple too. I sometimes feel time is ticking too fast to make the necessary inferences, but it is always the best investment to make inferences earlier on.
Such a an essential part of LG, and so simple too. I sometimes feel time is ticking too fast to make the necessary inferences, but it is always the best investment to make inferences earlier on.
@"preston.bigley-1" okay so 1, you specifically asked how the test differs from individual to individual. 2, someone made an awesome point about how students 2nd guess themselves too much in general, which has nothing to do w the structure of the LSAT or specific LSAT studying habits, but you had no problem with that. Wonder why you applied that principle to what I said but said not to them? You posted on a public forum dude. Interact with the points brought up that you can learn or benefit from, unless someone says something rude or offensive, keep scrolling
Ok. Best of luck to you on the LSAT!