What did you like from LSAT Trainer?

Comments

• AlexanderCM Member

  July 2017 174 karma

  I like their RC stuff.
• doyouevenLSAT Core Member

  July 2017 609 karma

  @jackigoe said:

  Having not read the LSAT trainer yet, but did purchase it. I've read elsewhere that the RC is good, and general tips on Question types are also helpful. Overall, the consensus is that the LSAT trainer is more about how to think differently. As an aside he was also the author of the Manhattan series.
• Hannah56 Alum Member

  July 2017 224 karma

  I started with the LSAT Trainer. I liked the way he focused on building habits and the chapters on flaws. Also, how his explanations to questions are in the form of a real time internal dialogue of a top scorer. For LG, I started with his method and then I tweaked my diagramming after watching 7sage videos. overall, I felt it was an easy read and effective.
• Nikkkkkkk Live Member

  July 2017 edited July 2017 249 karma

  I've only gone over the LR section and skipped its LG section entirely. I think most people would agree that its strongest sections are its LR and RC sections. For LR, I found that its section on flaws was pretty good (again, this seems to be the consensus as well). However, there are definitely some things that it doesn't cover, such as conditional logic. As an example, it goes over a question where the correct AC is something along the lines of "No effective law is unenforceable." This statement also means "If a law is unenforceable it is not effective." I don't know about you, but that did not come intuitively to me, and the Trainer, in its explanation for that answer, kind of glosses that over and just assumes that the reader would know that translation. It wasn't until I came across 7Sage and went over the conditional indicators that that statement clicked for me.

  Finally, I didn't find its strategies for inference questions that helpful.

  EDIT: My post sounds overly negative, but I want to reiterate that its sections on flaws is quite good, and I think it was still worth reading!
• Alex Alum Member ⭐

  July 2017 23929 karma

  Mike Kim just provided a different prospective than any other LSAT book I've read. He is very good at breaking things down and distilling them to their common denominators by simplifying concepts. It reads pretty nicely, too. I enjoy his humor and style of writing.

  My favorite parts were the section on Flaws and the Reading Comprehension parts. Honestly, I think the entire book is a good read. It's like all the best stuff from Manhattan LSAT put into one book.
• 1 Like

  tringo335 Alum Member ⭐

  July 2017 3679 karma

  I appreciated the LR section as well as his style of explaining things. I read the Trainer first and it was very helpful but I kind of plateaued on it and decided to move over to 7Sage. I will probably reference it again in my studies after I complete the CC.
• Achen165 Member

  July 2017 656 karma

  I read the Trainer before discovering 7Sage. Strongest component of the Trainer is the RC section, which helps give you a perspective on how to improve reading of passages. My RC scores went up upon completing the RC materials. I like 7Sage's method for soo soo much LG better, and it's safe to skip that from the Trainer. The Trainer mainly covers translation rules that contradict with 7Sages. LR section is good for polishing, but I also learned much more from the 7Sage CC so far. I think that, like @tringo335 said, I did plateau upon finishing the Trainer (read it over the course of a month) and will also consider consulting it after CC. But it uses a less in-depth, and more comprehensive approach to LR was not super useful as a starting point for me (needed much help...low scorer) but perhaps after having a good base developed from 7Sage CC, will find the little tips more useful. The Trainer's approach is far less intuitive than 7Sages, focuses on traps and identifying wrong and correct answers, but I think are worth reading over to help you with BR.
• 1 Like

  Alex Alum Member ⭐

  July 2017 23929 karma

  @achen013 said:
  I read the Trainer before discovering 7Sage. Strongest component of the Trainer is the RC section, which helps give you a perspective on how to improve reading of passages. My RC scores went up upon completing the RC materials. I like 7Sage's method for soo soo much LG better, and it's safe to skip that from the Trainer. The Trainer mainly covers translation rules that contradict with 7Sages. LR section is good for polishing, but I also learned much more from the 7Sage CC so far. I think that, like @tringo335 said, I did plateau upon finishing the Trainer (read it over the course of a month) and will also consider consulting it after CC. But it uses a less in-depth, and more comprehensive approach to LR was not super useful as a starting point for me (needed much help...low scorer) but perhaps after having a good base developed from 7Sage CC, will find the little tips more useful. The Trainer's approach is far less intuitive than 7Sages, focuses on traps and identifying wrong and correct answers, but I think are worth reading over to help you with BR.

  I think there are some helpful tips in the Trainer regarding LG. Such as subcategories and using shapes. Some of these techniques have made some difficult games much easier. I don't recommend skipping it at all.
• Farabian-Platonist Alum Member

  July 2017 54 karma

  I bought the Trainer last week and plowed through the first half of the book. The flaw section was really insightful, enabling me to quickly see the flaw in various arguments. However, once I began the LG section, my enthusiasm for the book waned substantially. I immediately went to 7Sage's section on LG and quickly gained a better understanding of the subject material. I have yet to read the remainder of the book, but I plan to do so, seeing that many on this forum endorse the RC section.
• tanes256 Alum Member

  July 2017 2573 karma

  The flaw sections and RC. I read through the LG stuff but stuck with 7 Sage. I would've bought the book just for the flaw sections. I never could grasp the memory method so I used The Trainer and I tweaked Nicole Hopkins' method for RC.
• jack.igoe Member

  July 2017 544 karma

  Thank you everyone for your input! I appreciate it immensely!
• 1 Like

  Alex Alum Member ⭐

  July 2017 23929 karma

  @jackigoe said:
  Thank you everyone for your input! I appreciate it immensely!

  It's a great read, but I think it's best suited for those early in their prep. Mike Kim also can be a bit long winded when making a point and sometimes I feel like I'm reading a chapter out of Crime and Punishment by Dostoyevsky. It still a great book! I'm just busting Mike's balls, lol.