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
- 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
- 636 Technical Problems
- 286 Off-topic
Related Discussions
Modern PTs got me down
Toxoplasmosis
Alum Member
My PT average has dropped from roughly the high 160s/low 170s on the older PTs to reliably the lower 160s on the PTs in the 70's. I'm planning on taking in Sept. and this shift in my performance is unnerving especially this close to gameday. Has anyone experienced this before/have good advice on ways to change my mindset in approaching the most recent PTs?
Comments
It definitely took me by surprise, especially as you said, so close to the game day but I am trying to do what @draj0623 mentioned above. Just keep calm and look through the problems and figure out the weak spots. For me, LR was quite confusing. Still, I have some days left so it's not over yet! I think my mindset was also a factor since I get more nervous when I do PT nowadays thinking 'If I don't do well on this one, I won't survive' or something like that...
I am positive that as soon as we get familiar with the 70s and don't think them as something totally new and unexpected, we will get back to our feet!
As I remember, 3 years ago when I was taking the 2013 October LSAT, everyone was panicking for 60s saying it seemed totally new.
We still have some time, let's face the problem then we can decide I think!
I also agree with the sentiment that the LR is what throws off the scores rather than LG. The LR is much more subtle and particular in answer choices IMO. These are changes that you can adapt to though..still two week to adjust, stay calm!
Worst case scenario, I do think you can pull out up to the day before. They've got to be able to accommodate illness and accidents and emergencies. You just can't get even a partial refund.
The point is this: there will most likely be a game that will "shock" you because it seems unlike what you've done before. Don't panic. The skills you possess that makes you successful on other games WILL apply. Trust the process, which means:
1) Write your rules
2) Connect rules together
3) Build scenarios (if this seems to apply)
4) Go through the questions.
The only slight difference I've noticed is that modern games tend to require more brute force rather than making deductions. This is great for those that can kick themselves out of panic mode because it just means applying the process. It's bad for those that can't kick themselves out of panic mode because it means the time you waste spending panicking (like me), the less time you'll have on the questions.
Everyone kept telling me I'd get used to the newest tests, but I was highly skeptical. During BR and review, I doubted I would ever be able to catch even half of my mistakes and even lowered my goal score/range as a result. But improvement can and almost certainly will happen. Definitely review and re-review and retake these tests, if only by taking them one section at a time. Once you start making progress, you'll start to see more the subtleties of the newer material but it'll only abstract. Eventually, you'll begin to nail down specifics. Here are some takeaways I have from the newest tests:
- Some MSS questions allow you to draw a causal conclusion from information merely presenting a correlation. The other answer choices are clearly wrong, and while you can't properly infer a causal relationship from a correlation, a correlation does support causation. I've seen two questions in the 70s that require you to realize this. The key with MSS is to of course recognize that you're not out to make a valid conclusion, just one that could glean evidence/support from what's provided. In essence, some MSS questions seem to require one to accept a "weaker" answer choice
- Strengthening and Weakening questions, and particularly the toughest of them, similarly allow for weaker answer choices that you are tempted to completely gloss over.
- The logical structure of two arguments may still be parallel even though there are, for example, a different number of variables seemingly used. For example, the reasoning behind A - B; /B; therefore /A seems pretty straightforward, though B, for instance, could represent a broad inclusion of many things in one category. A correct answer choice may be more specific and may not look quite like A -- B (it may look like A -- C + D + E). Hopefully, that makes sense, as I may have gotten a bit too abstract, though I want to keep it that way, so I'm not giving a question away. The key here is to really recognize the actual content of the stimulus and the question's answer choices. I believe I've only seen this once, and I bet you'll recognize the question I'm referring to when you see it.
- RC has lately been introducing some really tough comparative passages. In the past, these passages seemed to have easier content and questions.
- I can't think of any examples right off, but the new tests seem to tempt those experienced with the test in new ways. You'll have a lot of, "Ah, I see what you did there, LSAC," moments as you start to get accustomed to these newer tests.
- Unless there's a new-ish LG, the medium-to-hard LGs are more tedious. What may seem like a standard albeit more challenging sequencing game will take you longer than expected, for example. Also, it seems games more often include conditional logic that is itself conditional. In other words, you may have a sequencing game that has A -- B -- C + D or B - A - D - C. One chain must be relevant and only one can be.
These are some of the things that I personally have noticed, though these may not be exclusive to just the late-60s and beyond.
I also agree with the observations on LG. Games that seem like they should be straight forward are a little more time consuming than you'd expect on first glance. I remember when I took 78 for real, game 1 took me ~7 minutes to do, and I started to freak out because I had grown accustomed to knocking out the first game in a solid 5 mins. When I retook 78 last Saturday, I still took about 6/7 minutes to get through game 1, but by staying composed I was able to grind through the rest of the section and get that -0 *pats self on back*
Moral of the story: stay calm, we got this
Word.
So should I take tests 36-55 and then start incorporating the 70's in?
Thanks
Once you've pushed your BR score average above your target score, you're in phase two and you should start jumping around in the PTs. Your goal now is to keep increasing your BR score while simultaneously closing the gap between your timed score and target score. You do this by continuing, as needed, all the review and drills you were doing before while increasingly focusing on test taking strategies. So you need to really develop an effective skipping strategy, pacing strategy, consistent annotation methodology for RC, etc.
Phase three, if you get to phase three, is when you're consistently scoring at or above your target score under timed conditions, and consistently scoring at or very near 180 on BR. From here, you really start targeting individual points more than the broader concepts.
So that's my post curriculum strategy. I kinda just made this up on the fly the other day on another thread but I actually really like it. It's very close to what I did, but much more structured in a way I was unaware of when I was working my way up.