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
- 4K Law School Admissions
- 13 Law School Explained
- 10 Forum Rules
- 646 Technical Problems
- 288 Off-topic
Related Discussions
Pacing Preptests
ATLsat_2019
Member
I am currently studying for the February LSAT and feeling fairly confident about it, but I am planning to retake in June if I don't get a score I am happy with. I want to make sure I'm using the Preptests as wisely as possible. I was planning on using all of PT 52-81 between now and February, but I've realized that will leave me with only much older PTs (that I haven't seen before) to study from if I retake in June.
Should I reserve some of the newer PTs in case I end up retaking the test, or is it best to put everything into February and use all of them? Are the older PTs really that different from the recent ones?
Any and all input appreciated 
Comments
" I was planning on using all of PT 52-81 between now and February"
That's way too many PTs in such a short period of time.
"I am planning to retake in June if I don't get a score I am happy with"
Are you close to your target score? Is there a reason you don't take the test in June, and use September as your backup?
"Should I reserve some of the newer PTs in case I end up retaking the test"
Yes
"Are the older PTs really that different from the recent ones"
You'll get different answers from different people. You also didn't define what you consider an older PT. You'll make a decision on this when you start taking PTs. You don't need to take the PTs sequentially.
Just work through them in some sort of skipping pattern. Do either every other one, every third one, or do two and skip every third one, depending on how many PTs you want to do before February.
The new and old tests are not vastly different, but there are a couple slightly different types of questions. For example, there is a newish logic games question type which is often the last question in a section and has you replace a rule without changing anything. You want to have some experience on that type of question since it is often fairly hard. You also don't want any shock from whatever differences there are so you want your last 2 or 3 PTs to be fairly recent(I would say at least within the newest10 to 15 tests).
Yes, you should reserve some of the newer tests! Putting "everything" into Feb need not include completing all the new tests. No, the older PTs are not really that different from the modern ones. Sure, there have been some changes. I think RC is different and more LR like an has a-b passages. LG had some odd games here and there and those annoying rule substitution questions @"Seeking Perfection" mentioned. LR definitely has a different voice and more/less of certain question types.
That said, the LSAT still tests the same set of skills. I think PTs from the 1990s are ~85% similar to the new tests post-2007. The ~15% difference is pretty negligible making the old PTs great for practice! Use those to master your fundamentals and test taking skills, and only take new PTs when you have a reasonable expectation you have improved, because there's no doubt that the newer PTs are more valuable.
Always remember that PTs are great for giving us information on where we need to improve. They are not however, great for improving in and of themselves. Improvement comes from everything you do in between your PTs. So make sure to allot plenty of time in between PTs to drill, drill, drill!
Thanks for the advice, everyone!
@10000019 what I failed to mention is that I've already used a handful of those PTs (52-57 and 62-64), so no I won't be doing 30 tests between now and Feb! I feel like I'm going to be ready to take the test in Feb and I'm getting close to my target score, but I'm a full time grad student and just yesterday found out I might have a conflict with the Feb test date ( :'( ). So the June backup is in case I either can't take it in Feb or end up bombing it. I'd really prefer to avoid pushing it until Sept but it may come to that in the end.
@"Seeking Perfection" I have just started seeing those rule replacement questions, and they really threw me for a loop at first!
@"Alex Divine" RC is without a doubt my weakness so that's really good to know. I like the idea of only using the new tests when I think I've improved significantly.
Based on what you all said I think I will definitely avoid using all of the most recent tests and start mixing in some of the older ones)
Even having taken a handful of of your tests already, that’s still way way too many PTs. Don’t mistake burning through PTs for studying. As others have said, PTs are great at telling you what you need to study, but they are generally a very ineffective tool for actually addressing those issues.
@"Cant Get Right" that's a great point. My main thought process in doing that many was just to get used to the timing of the test and sitting and focusing for that long, since that's a challenge for me. I was going to do about 3 per week starting this week until test day to get used to the full length tests. Since I've just about finished all of my study material, I was just going to focus on taking tests and BR going forward.
How many PT's per week do you think is reasonable?
Leading up to the Dec. test, I was like you and wanted to save as many possible. I ended up doing every third test, starting with 55 I believe. So 55, 58, 61, etc. I was doing 2 PTs a week, which might have been a bit much. Once I got to ~80, I started back over
Depending on how much review of those PT's you want to be doing, 1 or 2 per week would be good. For me, BR consisted of going over the entire test, not just the ones I circled, which would take me up to 10 hours for a single PT. With that I was doing about 3ish tests per two weeks, with my remaining time going into drilling and reviewing drills. With other review strategies you might be able to do PT's more often, but most people here would probably tell you to not do more than 2 per week regardless.
@kimmy_m66 Did you feel like you were comfortable enough on the December test? I think I may try a similar strategy to yours.
@pioneer321 So far I've only been circling and reviewing those, but that could be an interesting strategy to try.
The general consensus seems to be that 3 PTs a week is nuts so I think I'll definitely scale that back a bit.
@"marino.zach" I did! I skipped around just a little bit, to make sure I did the infamous virus LG from PT79 and I wanted to do 81 right before the exam. I ended up scoring above my target, so it worked for me
It depends. You don't want to burn out.
I slowed down to 2 a week the last two weeks but before that did four most weeks with some weeks at two. But, I did that in the summer studying nearly full time. Additionally, I was scoring with a mode of 178 so my blind review was as quick as a blind review can get(about 2hrs a test or 4 hrs for a pair of tests). I also took my PTs in pairs: 4 section test, 15 minute break, 4 section test so I always had at least a couple days between pairs of PTs to foolproof games and rest.
If you are scoring a little bit lower then you probably want even more time for review and for drilling your weaknesses. But it is important to get your endurance up with PTs or long study sessions and take some PTs to see where you are at and need improvement.
I think 2 or 3 a week might be a good number for you, but it might be a good idea to do 2 of them the way I did mine. On Saturday, take the first test starting an hour earlier than the real thing. Don't take a break. Then after the 4 sections are done, take a 15 minute break and do the next test. Then rest for a while and use the rest of the day and Sunday to blind review the two tests. That should remove endurance as a concern and get your PTs done a little more compactly and thus avoid burnout. You can then either use the rest of the week to study up on weaknesses or add in a single PT somewhere near the middle of the week if you feel like it. If your scores start to drop or your it becomes difficult to stay motivated and focussed back off the PTs because those are signs of burn out.
@kimmy_m66 That's great, congrats on your score!!
@"Seeking Perfection" That actually sounds like a really smart idea, I think I'll definitely give 2 in a day a shot. I may be able to squeeze in another mid-week PT beyond that but I like the idea of using the week to study and/or drill.
Where are you scoring and what is your target score? It also depends on how easily this comes for you. If you're a natural and are scoring where you'd like to be and just need to get more reps in, then you're in a very different position than I was in. I had to scratch and claw my way up and taking too many PTs not only didn't help me, it actively hurt me. I was leaving myself with no time to actually study, and I only reinforced bad habits and conceptual misunderstandings. I plateaued during this time and only began improving again when I stopped taking so many PTs and started actually studying. Taking PTs alone is not an effective way to study for the LSAT. Use your PTs to identify your weaknesses, then target them through review and exercise. One PT a week is ambitious for most people. Even when I was averaging in the high-mid 170's, one a week felt a little rushed. I got very good at identifying the underlying reasons for my errors, and addressing those can be very intensive. If you're not walking away from a PT feeling a little overwhelmed with the amount of work it suggests you have to do, you need to do a deeper analysis and really reflect on what the test is telling you.
Damn, maybe I needed to be better at reading the tea leaves. By the time I got into the high 170s, I felt like I needed at least a few PTs just to spot any sort of a faint trend in my mistakes. Efficient or not though, it worked out.
Hi, @"Cant Get Right," would you recommend timed sections instead?
Yeah, I think things went alright for you, haha! And there is certainly room for a diversity of approaches, but working my way up from a high 140's diagnostic, I had to be so hard on myself for every mistake if I was going to break into the top ranges, and I never lost that.
I think what I'm specifically thinking about is my problems in LG. I normally went -0/-1 but every once in a while I'd fumble it. The fact that that was even a possibility was a problem and it didn't correlate to game type or even difficulty. I finally figured out that the problem was that I was kind of making up my strategy and procedure as I went, reinventing it for every game I did. Any time I reinvented it poorly, I screwed up the game. Once I'd figured this out, I didn't need to take another PT to tell me what the issue was. Developing a procedure I wanted to use that I felt would work universally for any game they gave me was a big process, and learning to execute it faithfully without having to think too much about it took a lot of reinforcement. Between the PT that revealed the problem and the next, it took me a little over two weeks to put this all together and really get comfortable with it. By the time I took that next PT, I felt effectively invincible in LG, and I don't think I ever missed another question in LG.
That said, there were definitely tests that left me with little to do. If I scored a 179 or 180 or something, there's only so much nitpicking I could do. But even then, I felt more productive drilling something that maybe hadn't "felt" quite as good than just turning around and taking another PT. I also had to conserve materials having burned so much, so that may also have influenced my perspective, lol.
Timed sections are great depending on what you're working on. I think what I'd recommend is exercises with specific goals. If you're working on time management strategy, then yes, timed sections are the only way to go. If you're working on deepening your understanding of question types or to address certain reading errors you've seen emerge as a pattern, then untimed drills may very well be better suited to the purpose. It really just depends.
@"Cant Get Right" I'm currently averaging about 168 and I really want to be at least at 170 on test day (preferably around 172-3). So I definitely still have work to do. I definitely think I need to be doing PTs or at least full sections quite a bit, because a significant amount of the questions I miss are due to time. Right now I'm at the point where I can finish a LR/RC section in around 37 minutes and do really well, but obviously that's not going to work out. I rarely miss any LG questions, so RC and LR are my weaknesses, and unfortunately so far I haven't seen a particular trend in the question types I'm missing for those sections. A lot of it is reading errors (skipping over the word "not" in an answer choice and silly things like that). I really want to focus on eliminating dumb errors like that and getting my pace under 35 minutes.
Pacing is normally a really big problem for people in your range. This assessment is based on very broad trends and very nonspecific information about you, but you're probably spending way too much time on questions beyond the point at which you should move on. Every question will have a threshold of diminishing returns at which point you're not going to improve enough to justify any additional time. Sometimes the threshold is really low: It'll be a really hard problem that you just don't understand, and it's going to take you way too much time to make any meaningful progress at all. More subtle are the ones at the other end of the spectrum where the threshold is really high. On easier questions, you're probably reaching a very high level of confidence very quickly. You need to move on from these, but you're probably sticking around much longer than you realize. If you can be 90% confident you've got the right answer, the extra 10% confidence isn't going to be worth the additional 30-40 seconds. To diagnose and address, you need to take footage of your timed drills. Then watch it back with a stopwatch and account for every second. You want to get good returns on your time. Identify the seconds on which you got relatively poor returns. Learn to identify the moment you need to move on from each question. If you can begin banking the bulk of your poorly allocated time, you can begin to finish with room to breathe. I was right where you were: Stuck in the upper 160's, struggling to finish sections, so frustrated with studying logic because I knew it backwards and forwards, and just not approving. Then I started taking and reviewing footage. Once I learned how to manage my time, I never scored below a 170 again. I got so good at it, I could frequently complete my BR under time. 35 minutes is a lot of time if you're getting the best possible return on every second.
+1 on @"Cant Get Right"'s point about confidence building. Although I never recorded myself, I got the idea to mentally gauge my confidence on answer choices for LR and RC after watching the video of his Q&A. Doing that definitely helped to shave some time on earlier questions, and go down to a more consistent -0/1 or LR.
@"Cant Get Right" thanks for doing that Q&A by the way! It was very informative.
@"Cant Get Right" thanks for doing that Q&A by the way! It was very informative.
No problem!
@"Cant Get Right" @pioneer321 Is that Q&A still available? I would love to check it out.
Thanks to everyone for the advice
Here's a couple I've done where I think I touch on this:
https://7sage.com/webinar/post-core-curriculum-study-strategies/