Repeat for 5 point boost

Comments

• ddakjiking Inactive ⭐

  July 2015 2116 karma

  What are your current scores at? A 5 point boost from say 155->160 is much more doable than 160->165->170.
  
  
• Pacifico Alum Inactive ⭐

  July 2015 8021 karma

  Well on the one hand you can hopefully benefit from a 101 question test in October (fingers crossed) which have had historically better curves than the 100 question tests. If you can shore up your LG and maintain your LR and RC then you should be good to go. Not sure what you used originally but if you haven't used the Trainer I would definitely recommend it for supplementing in any section you need assistance.
  
  Check this out if you want a more abbreviated approach to fool proofing that still gets results and can work in a shorter amount of time: http://7sage.com/discussion/#/discussion/2737/logic-games-attack-strategy
  
  And @ddakjiking is totally right as well. If you only need that jump from 155 to 160 or something lower, you can definitely pursue alternative strategies that rely on skipping certain questions all together in order to maximize your performance elsewhere. If you need above a 160 then this approach goes farther out the window with each additional point you need.
• 1 Like

  NYC12345 Alum Inactive Sage

  July 2015 1654 karma

  I'm hoping for a curve like PT 71 (Dec 2013), where you can get 14 wrong and still get a 170. FYI, here's a link to the curve for all of the released LSAT exams. It's very informative and it provides insight into the trends for the later PTs.
  http://lsatblog.blogspot.com/2010/03/lsat-preptest-raw-score-conversion.html
  @ddakjiking
  @Pacifico
  @gstar2015
• 1 Like

  mpits001 Alum Member

  July 2015 938 karma

  @gstar2015 as someone who has Manhattan LR and LSAT Trainer, I'd highly suggest the LSAT Trainer over Manhattan LR. Manhattan LR is good, but LSAT Trainer is better, at least from what I've seen + a lot of testimony. If you feel pressed for time because of the months then I'd invest my time into the Trainer, especially since RC is one of the areas you're trying to improve in. Good luck, friend!
• Pacifico Alum Inactive ⭐

  July 2015 8021 karma

  Totally with you on that @alexandergreene93 and it looks like Decembers have been generally kind curvewise so that's not a bad sign for a backup test should October get a little crazy. And all the 101 tests have been -11 to -14 for a 170 so as long as there isn't some -9 craziness going on I'll be happy with that aspect of it.
• gstar2015 Alum Member

  July 2015 68 karma

  Great to hear. I'm shooting for a 160.
  Thank you !
• Pacifico Alum Inactive ⭐

  July 2015 8021 karma

  If you can max out LG you could get a good 8-9 wrong in every other section and hit a 160.
• gstar2015 Alum Member

  July 2015 68 karma

  What's more feasible mastering log games or reading comp
• brna0714 Alum Inactive ⭐

  July 2015 1489 karma

  Definitely logic games IMO.
• ddakjiking Inactive ⭐

  July 2015 2116 karma

  Logic Games by far!
• 1 Like

  Pacifico Alum Inactive ⭐

  July 2015 8021 karma

  Logic games, when you master it you will know every answer you arrive at is correct. RC has a little too much room for interpretation to get 100% every single time.
• nicole.hopkins Inactive Sage Inactive ⭐

  July 2015 7965 karma

  @gstar2015 said:
  What's more feasible mastering log games or reading comp
  

  Logic games are much more mechanical than RC, so that's what's behind the feasibility of "mastering" them. The key to RC is:
  
  1) Have a reading strategy that focuses on reasoning structure
  2) Have a notation strategy that is geared towards helping your "future self" (as in, helping yourself get to the parts of the passage you'll need to reference in the questions)
  3) Timing (wow ... this tho ... )
  4) Timing
  5) Did I mention timing?
  6) And lots of practice doing RC so that you learn its tricks. While there are fewer hard-and-fast question types in RC (compared to LR), there are definitely patterns you can and will learn by exposure to a lot of material.
• 2 Likes

  Jonathan Wang Yearly Sage ⭐

  July 2015 6869 karma

  Popping in to deal with some of the conversation above. All this talk about 'generous' curves is completely meaningless. The curve is set where it is to normalize results and match them up to the past three years worth of tests, so you're not actually getting a break on a -14 curve versus a -10 curve; you're getting the extra leeway because the questions are harder too.
• NYC12345 Alum Inactive Sage

  July 2015 edited July 2015 1654 karma

  LSAC hires statisticians to even up the playing field and make the test to be of equal difficulty to previously administered exams. While @"Jonathan Wang" has a point in saying that the test with a "generous" curve will be more difficult, the more difficult section could play to one's strengths. For example, an exam might have a better curve because the LG section is brutal, but some people are so good at LG that they will get -1/-0 on every LG section regardless of the difficulty, which leads me to conclude that a "generous" curve might work to some people's advantage.