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
- 11 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
Outlier score and help with LR/RC!
Hello all,
After finishing the CC and attempting about 5-6 PTs , I noticed I was still hovering around 158-160 so I revisited the CC and that same day, decided to take PT41 untimed and scored a 166. Huge confidence boost because that's the highest I've ever scored (June test scored a 156 so 166 is quite the improvement). I've done a few more untimed PTs after that thinking that perhaps it was a timing issue but still have returned back to the 160 score 
my motivation is a little shot because it's a little frustrating to know that I may be capable of scoring 166 but keep on scoring in the low 160s... My goal for Sept is to PT at least 165+.
The PTs besides PT41 (post and pre) have been around -8 to -9 on RC, -6 each on LR and 0 to -2 on LG. I know my RC needs work and I've adopted the no notation strategy and have noticed a slight improvement in comprehension and understanding the questions a bit better. The Infer Author Perspective is usually the ones that I get wrong though. For LR, I've noticed a huge improvement in understanding after revisiting the CC but the questions I now get wrong are usually the level 4 or 5 difficulty questions (usually flaw or parallel flaw). Also, I've noticed I struggle a bit more with principle questions, does anyone have any tips to proceed with these?
PT41 was -4 on each LR, -6 on RC and -2 on LG.
So close yet so far away! Help :'(
Comments
Following on this because I'm in the same boat as you!
So outlier scores happen to everyone in both directions. I have been both 6+ above my average and -10 below before. It's part of the random noise of the test. The stars can align and you can rip the test in half one day and the next not focus at all and feel like crud. Don't let dramatic swings get under your skin. (In either direction)
Secondly I firmly believe that you can improve on this test. I believe that LG, LR and RC can all see improvement in that order. I would focus on LR to improve your score. Strangely enough I saw slight improvement on my RC as I worked on LR.
For the question types you are asking about it might help to shake up your perspective a bit. For instance on Flaw questions something that helped me improve a TON was learning how to break AC down into "dumb" English.
Example:
Implicitly bases an inference that something will not occur solely on the information that it's occurance is not predictable.
In my head it's like "wtf did you just say to me?" So I break it apart.
Implicitly based an inference - makes an assumption
Something will not occur - something won't happen
On the information that it's occurance is not predictable - because we know it's not predictable.
Makes an assumption that something won't happen because we know it is not predictable.
This helped me unpack the AC and it became more clear to me if an argument was actually doing what the AC said.
With parallel Flaw questions sometimes it helps to focus on the conclusion. If in the conclusion it says" X caused Y" youu can see causation. So if one of the AC says something other than causation. Move on. This technique is limited but it helped me when I first started to gain some traction on this type of question. You should continue work on recognizing different types of flaws.
With principle questions I just started looking at them as Sufficent Assumptions. It made all the difference. In many cases the AC looks just like a sufficient assumption. I wrote out an explanation on one earlier today.
https://7sage.com/discussion/#/discussion/12395/pt48-s1-q16-most-business-ethics
Notice how the AC makes it so the conclusion can now be drawn? If you look at it in this light, the AC will stand out because it will be directly supporting the conclusion. On the flip side if it is "violates this principle" it will hurt the conclusion. If the principle says people should do X and Y because it's good. The AC will say Bob didn't do X and forgot to do Y.
Feel free to PM me if you have any more specific questions. My advice seems to always be so general and I want to help more, sometimes I just don't know how
Thank you for your response! I think I'll follow your suggestion and work most on LR for the time being (LG - I think I have a somewhat solid foundation, the questions i get wrong I tend to get right during BR so I think it may just be I was reading too quickly), and RC... well... yeah I'm just going to regard that as a lost cause for now lol.
Your explanation on PT48 is actually really helpful because I just did PT48 today and also got that principle question wrong! Do you have any suggestions as to how I should focus on LR going forward? I'm not sure how I should approach those difficult questions other than just drilling them...
LSATCan'tWin gave some solid advice. I just wanted to add that you should do everything to keep your confidence up and not ever feel bad/unmotivated because of a PT score. First, these tests are learning tools. Their scores don't count. The only test that will count is the one you decide to take when you are ready. Second, learn to embrace your weaknesses. Each question you get wrong, or section you bomb now give you as many second chances to get it right as you want. I truly have learned to like missing more questions on PTs/drills because there's often much more to learn from mistakes then from the questions we get right.
I think if you're missing -6 untimed on any given LR sections, your fundamentals still need some work. A couple of things that really helped me get my LR score were revising J.Y's lessons on conditional logic, valid/invalid argument forms. To me, having a grasp of those concepts is essential to doing well on LR.
Also, you may want to forgo taking mixed review/PTs in lieu of doing some targeted drilling of questions types you are especially weak on. You also don't want to be burning too many PTs as this point. PTs are great indicators of where we need work, and since you already know, just focus on getting better for right now via targeted drilling and reviewing the fundamentals.
You can do this!
@amw26
The way I would go about doing them, especially at first, is to drill by type. What you are working on is trying to find the mindset for the question type you are facing.
For instance on a NA question, you want a skeptical mind. You want to be thinking after you read the stimulus, "what is this guy assuming." What would rip his argument apart if it didn't happen. Also make sure you negate the answer to make sure it does destroy his argument.
On a Flaw question you want to have a more analytical mindset. How did we arrive at this conclusion. Did he question someone's motives? Did we assume causation? Did he confuse necessary with sufficent?
Sufficent Assumptions we want to see gaps. If I have A then B, so I conclude A then C. Wait, where the hell did C come from? You better provide me with "B then C" or this just doesn't make sense. Sometimes you can just do this without conditional logic.
If I go to the store, then I will buy milk. So if I go to the store then I will buy cereal.
What, how did you get to cereal? Oh! Well if I buy milk I will buy cereal.
Do you see how the task, while vary similar, changes slightly? You want your mind to be trained for these kinds of mental gymnastics. Spot the hole, find the flaw, find the weakness, find the flaw, find the parallel flaw, spot the hole. This is why I'd start drilling by question type so you get good at the approach to how to solve it!
@LSATcantwin @"Alex Divine" Thank you both for your advice! I'll try revisiting the CC and perhaps taking a different perspective on the questions this time around.
Some encouragement and observations from my own experience: I think a lot of people who start off sub-160 with tests, find 160ish to be a plateau. But fear not, it can be temporary! I am not naturally gifted with taking the LSAT, and like you, I was stuck around 158 -160 for quite a while. It was frustrating, but I broke through and am now nearing 168/170 consistently. A couple of observations - at least in my case - as to why I was able to break my plateau:
1) I started sleeping more;
2) I stopped marathon studying and practicing - moderation can make a difference as the mind can only handle so much LSAT per day or per week;
3) I focused on LR, because if you are even able to always get right one additional answer (or question type) on an LR section, that means you gained an increase of 1-2 points on your overall LSAT score;
4) I drilled question types I got wrong, relentlessly - Parallel questions used to get me until I drilled myself to only pay attention to structure, and start with conclusions of answer choices juxtaposed the stimulus;
5) I now mediate for 10 minutes prior to starting any LSAT prep or testing; calming your mind and honing your focus prior to a test that absolutely requires both the former and the latter will never hurt;
6) I stopped really caring about details in RC. I make one word notations or circle details and virtually never retain them - if I need them, I know where to find them. If it is a date heavy passage (like the literature passages) I write the number of the century very quickly next to it so I can find it quickly if I need it. To me, RC is all about structure, so read for that instead - it will speed up your timing as well. Doing this took from from -8 or -9 to only missing 2 or 3;
7) I changed my mindset about how many I missed: instead of saying, "damn, I missed "x" number of problems", I would say to myself that in no world am I not able to get at least 2 - 4 of those answers right. Believe in yourself, know that getting better is a process, which includes plateaus and setbacks amongst the gains.
Oddly, once I started departing from 160, I jumped quickly past 165ish and now I am amidst another plateau around 168/169.... but it is only temporary
For some perspective, my first PT was a 141, yes, a 1...4...1.
Lastly, I see you note flaw and parallel flaw as especially problematic. If you get better at flaw questions, you will naturally get better at parallel flaw questions.... if you struggle spotting a flaw, you are really going to struggle matching a flaw amidst 5 answer choices.... so focus your energies on flaw questions first and know that your success rate with parallel flaw questions will follow. Best to luck! You can do it!
@nevadacity37 Thanks for your response! Your second point about not marathon studying... I am definitely guilty of that. I'm registered for the Sept LSAT, do you have any suggestions on how I should continue studying rather than marathoning it? I don't want to burn out because that's how I felt nearing the June LSAT but at the same time, I feel that I learn better when I'm studying for long periods of time consistently (Right now my study schedule consists of studying Tuesday, Thursday, Saturday and Sunday usually all day, and then Monday, Wednesday, Friday I usually get off work and come home and do some short review of PT answers that I may have done on the other days).
You've given some solid advice I really appreciate it! Everyone on the forum talks about drilling questions, I've been going through the question bank and then just selectively doing the question types from older LSATs, is there another way to go about this?
Flaw questions are a wildcard, I'll get the majority of them correct but every now and then there's always that one or two tough flaw questions that I can narrow down to 2-3 ACs but then end up choosing the wrong one from that selection. I'm not sure how to sharpen up the thinking on those questions, they all seem pretty attractive but when I review the answers it ends up making sense as to why one of them is correct...
Your welcome. I hope you found at least some value from my perspective. From what you are communicating, something I did might help focus your time towards what you are really struggling with, which will help reduce "marathoning": I marked every question I got wrong (throughout my entire studies) and everyday, I would revisit those questions before doing anything else. Some might disagree with this, but, I refused to look at some explanation as to why I got it wrong and I would be sure to erase my wrong answer choice fully so the question looked "unattempted." I also refused myself from looking at what the correct answer choice was (akin to the "blind review" study method of 7Sage). I sat there and worked on them until I understood why each of the 4 answer choices had to be incorrect, and why the 1 correct answer choice had to be correct. This forced me to look at things from a different angle, and I became aware of how I would get "duped" or common pitfalls the LSAT was getting me with. In doing this, it is a way of "drilling" question types, but instead of drilling just one specific type, the type I was drilling was the "I keep getting these sorts of questions wrong" type. Indeed drilling question types - as a whole - has tremendous value, however, for me at least, it seemed that by throwing every specific question I missed into a "bank" and revisiting them, I was addressing not only the question type I was getting wrong, but the exact problems I was getting wrong and the answer choices that were fooling me. Once I would revisit questions a couple of times that I could recall exactly how each answer choice was wrong and right, I would move on to those questions that were still not automatic. Through this process you will naturally start to adapt your approach, and likely will modify your strategy, sometimes without realizing it. You know this has happened when you start getting them right. You will likely also become a more critical reader, as you realize the tricks LSAC is trying to play on you.
Secondly, I have become - and I imagine most people that are scoring above 165 or so would agree this is the case for them too - quite aware of qualifiers and the presence of one word that makes an ostensibly correct answer, incorrect. At least for me, this is how I really started getting the hardest questions right, because indeed, 2 and sometimes 3 answer choices look fantastic. For example, if the stimulus' conclusion is qualified in some way, often wrong answer choices place a different qualifier - or add some modifier - but have all the right facts: conclusion is about "trained dogs", and answer choices will be about "house-broken dogs".... that is a incorrect equivocation. Other examples: conclusion in the stimulus is about "laytex-based paints", and a sucker answer choice will have "laytex-based oils" or "oil-based paints" with all the right details surrounding it. LSAC is catching people that only read the first part of the qualifier or who see the buzz words they are looking for and assume it is correct. The LSAT is littered with these kind of traps on all sorts of question types, and section; you have to be able to spot them. Two answers can look nearly identical.... look for words that move the answer choice beyond the logical strength (like a "most" instead of "some"), or nudges the subject matter away from of the stimulus' conclusion (like "laytex-based oils").
This is just what worked for me. I am sure some might disagree with my approach. To note, I make no claims to LSAT mastery either. There are lots of people out there that have it "down" better than I. This is just my two cents, and perhaps that is all it is worth