Something I just don't understand wrt non T14 on full rides Forum

[Clearly]

They don't change much. There's a reason for that. If you get 170, you basically did better than 97ish% of the people who took the test. If somehow getting a 170 meant that you only did better than 90% of the people taking the test for the next 3 yr cycle, well then a 170 wouldn't get you into t14 any more.

The super vast majority of people are not capable of scoring 170. It may not be that literally 97% of test takers are incapable, but it's probably not far off from that.

Everytime someone makes a post saying they got a 163 or 164 and have a good GPA, every post says re-take, as if it's guaranteed that with more practice you will be able to hit 170. That is absurd.

No more absurd than speculating groundlessly that "it's probably not far off from that" which implies that, for the most part, people taking the LSAT are already getting the best score of which they are capable. Your proposition is that, with years of work, day in and day out, if their life depended on figuring out the LSAT, they wouldn't get 5 more points? That is absurd. I look to logic games to see whether or not people have come even close to maxing out their potential. It is very rare that people with a 163 got -0/-1 on games, and games are perfectible. If you haven't spent hundreds and hundreds of hours practicing different ways of doing them, then you haven't yet earned a good reason to disagree with this.

The nagging feeling brought on by settling for less than your best is often consoled by the pretense that you're actually already doing your best, that you've hit your ceiling and nothing more can be done. The truth is that there is a ceiling at play and it is reflected in the scores that people get(as well as other aspects of their life), but the limit isn't on your aptitude, it's on your drive.

Games are perfectible. Games within 35 minutes are not perfectible by everyone.

Take it from someone who has done every single game that the LSAT has ever offered at least once, and most several times.

The idea is simple. If you started at a high 150 and were able to study up to a 165, yea you can probably get into the 170s with more work. If you started at a 145 and were able to get to a 160, it seems much more likely than not that more studying will not ever get you to 170. And don't forget, studying = opportunity cost as well. If that second person COULD get to 170, it might take him hundreds and hundreds of hours. All before he ever steps foot in a law school. It MAY prove to be a good investment of time compared to hours spent in law school, but not necessarily compared to hours spent doing something different altogether.

I disagree.

[stillwater]

games should be perfectible within 28 minutes. 7 extra minutes to laugh and doodle.

[smallbrownbear]

Take it from someone who has done every single game that the LSAT has ever offered at least once, and most several times.

Part of the problem is that very few people here would consider the above, that you seem to be putting forth rather proudly, actual "studying".

It's no lie that a lot of people put "hundreds and hundreds" of hours into logic games alone. Until you've done that, you can't say that you can't break 170. As a reference, "doing all the games at least once, and most several times" is basically the bare minimum. Drill them for a few hundred hours. Do them over and over again. The conventional wisdom around here is that if you can't go -0 pretty consistently on the games, you aren't done studying. And the reason for this is that there has yet to be an example of someone who actually puts in the hundreds of hours and can't seem to do that. Especially not someone who does as little studying as you seem to have done and gotten in the 160's.

I think your frame of reference is just off. You seem to think that doing all the games several times is some pretty serious studying, but it's far from it. Do you have books? powerscore, etc? Have you put in the hundreds of hours?

You need to. These hundreds of hours now will change your life

[Happy Gilmore]

They don't change much. There's a reason for that. If you get 170, you basically did better than 97ish% of the people who took the test. If somehow getting a 170 meant that you only did better than 90% of the people taking the test for the next 3 yr cycle, well then a 170 wouldn't get you into t14 any more.

The super vast majority of people are not capable of scoring 170. It may not be that literally 97% of test takers are incapable, but it's probably not far off from that.

Everytime someone makes a post saying they got a 163 or 164 and have a good GPA, every post says re-take, as if it's guaranteed that with more practice you will be able to hit 170. That is absurd.

No more absurd than speculating groundlessly that "it's probably not far off from that" which implies that, for the most part, people taking the LSAT are already getting the best score of which they are capable. Your proposition is that, with years of work, day in and day out, if their life depended on figuring out the LSAT, they wouldn't get 5 more points? That is absurd. I look to logic games to see whether or not people have come even close to maxing out their potential. It is very rare that people with a 163 got -0/-1 on games, and games are perfectible. If you haven't spent hundreds and hundreds of hours practicing different ways of doing them, then you haven't yet earned a good reason to disagree with this.

The nagging feeling brought on by settling for less than your best is often consoled by the pretense that you're actually already doing your best, that you've hit your ceiling and nothing more can be done. The truth is that there is a ceiling at play and it is reflected in the scores that people get(as well as other aspects of their life), but the limit isn't on your aptitude, it's on your drive.

Games are perfectible. Games within 35 minutes are not perfectible by everyone.

Take it from someone who has done every single game that the LSAT has ever offered at least once, and most several times.

The idea is simple. If you started at a high 150 and were able to study up to a 165, yea you can probably get into the 170s with more work. If you started at a 145 and were able to get to a 160, it seems much more likely than not that more studying will not ever get you to 170. And don't forget, studying = opportunity cost as well. If that second person COULD get to 170, it might take him hundreds and hundreds of hours. All before he ever steps foot in a law school. It MAY prove to be a good investment of time compared to hours spent in law school, but not necessarily compared to hours spent doing something different altogether.

As stated above, I disagree as well.

[McGruff]

They don't change much. There's a reason for that. If you get 170, you basically did better than 97ish% of the people who took the test. If somehow getting a 170 meant that you only did better than 90% of the people taking the test for the next 3 yr cycle, well then a 170 wouldn't get you into t14 any more.

The super vast majority of people are not capable of scoring 170. It may not be that literally 97% of test takers are incapable, but it's probably not far off from that.

Everytime someone makes a post saying they got a 163 or 164 and have a good GPA, every post says re-take, as if it's guaranteed that with more practice you will be able to hit 170. That is absurd.

No more absurd than speculating groundlessly that "it's probably not far off from that" which implies that, for the most part, people taking the LSAT are already getting the best score of which they are capable. Your proposition is that, with years of work, day in and day out, if their life depended on figuring out the LSAT, they wouldn't get 5 more points? That is absurd. I look to logic games to see whether or not people have come even close to maxing out their potential. It is very rare that people with a 163 got -0/-1 on games, and games are perfectible. If you haven't spent hundreds and hundreds of hours practicing different ways of doing them, then you haven't yet earned a good reason to disagree with this.

The nagging feeling brought on by settling for less than your best is often consoled by the pretense that you're actually already doing your best, that you've hit your ceiling and nothing more can be done. The truth is that there is a ceiling at play and it is reflected in the scores that people get(as well as other aspects of their life), but the limit isn't on your aptitude, it's on your drive.

Games are perfectible. Games within 35 minutes are not perfectible by everyone.

Take it from someone who has done every single game that the LSAT has ever offered at least once, and most several times.

The idea is simple. If you started at a high 150 and were able to study up to a 165, yea you can probably get into the 170s with more work. If you started at a 145 and were able to get to a 160, it seems much more likely than not that more studying will not ever get you to 170. And don't forget, studying = opportunity cost as well. If that second person COULD get to 170, it might take him hundreds and hundreds of hours. All before he ever steps foot in a law school. It MAY prove to be a good investment of time compared to hours spent in law school, but not necessarily compared to hours spent doing something different altogether.

The point about opportunity cost is true and, especially as diminishing returns can turn the work necessary for a tip-top score from hundreds into thousands of hours, absolutely worth considering. It's irrelevant to our discussion, though, as it changes whether or not perfecting your skills is worthwhile, not whether it's possible.

As far as the claim that "not far off from" 97% of people who take the LSAT are mentally and physically incapable of getting into the 170s, no matter how hard and how long and with which techniques they train (which was your original claim) we simply disagree. Neither of us can falsify the other's claims, there's no opportunity to test our hypotheses, so let's just agree to disagree so we don't waste any more time talking over each other. I wish you all the best in your application cycle and in your future career.

[AD1818]

Take it from someone who has done every single game that the LSAT has ever offered at least once, and most several times.

Part of the problem is that very few people here would consider the above, that you seem to be putting forth rather proudly, actual "studying".

It's no lie that a lot of people put "hundreds and hundreds" of hours into logic games alone. Until you've done that, you can't say that you can't break 170. As a reference, "doing all the games at least once, and most several times" is basically the bare minimum. Drill them for a few hundred hours. Do them over and over again. The conventional wisdom around here is that if you can't go -0 pretty consistently on the games, you aren't done studying. And the reason for this is that there has yet to be an example of someone who actually puts in the hundreds of hours and can't seem to do that. Especially not someone who does as little studying as you seem to have done and gotten in the 160's.

I think your frame of reference is just off. You seem to think that doing all the games several times is some pretty serious studying, but it's far from it. Do you have books? powerscore, etc? Have you put in the hundreds of hours?

You need to. These hundreds of hours now will change your life

lol @ you assuming you know how much I have studied

It's a minimum that I have done every single game. Of course I spent hundreds of hours studying how to do them before I even looked at one to begin with, and then over and over again.

There are plenty of examples of people who put in this time and can't go -0 on the games. Most of them just are too embarrassed to post here. My raw PT was a 145 when I began. I got up to a 163. If you don't think that took me hundreds and hundreds of hours on the games alone, then you simply are not in touch with what it is like to not be an incredibly intellectually gifted person, probably because you are one.

Well congrats. But realize that the set of very gifted people in the world are grossly overrepresented on this site. The vast majority of people don't have the capability to get these amazing scores. As much as I wish it weren't true, I am probably one of them.

Sure, I can't PROVE I am right anymore than you all can prove you are. But the fact that SO many people score way below 170 is quite telling.

[Tiago Splitter]

You're on to something OP. Getting a law degree for free from a reputable (but non-T14) school is a hell of a deal provided that you are okay with not working in the V5.

Thought this was worth reposting in light of the new information the OP has provided.

[jordan15]

Of course I spent hundreds of hours studying how to do them before I even looked at one to begin with, and then over and over again.

Well that's just ridiculous. You're not doing a good job of convincing us that you studied efficiently or effectively.

[Tiago Splitter]

What is your GPA OP?

[twenty]

There's no way you can't consistently go -0 on games given enough studying/practice.

Also, totally down with the non-T14 on a full ride, especially if you can live with your parents and save even more money.

[littleaaron]

Of course I spent hundreds of hours studying how to do them before I even looked at one to begin with, and then over and over again.

Well that's just ridiculous. You're not doing a good job of convincing us that you studied efficiently or effectively.

this. that just sounds like a) a reactive and not-well-thought-out lie, given the most likely interpretation of all of your other posts, and b) if true, a legitimate waste of hundreds of hours.

yes, what is your gpa? at this point, I'm kind of hoping for a troll.

[wolfgang]

There are plenty of examples of people who put in this time and can't go -0 on the games. Most of them just are too embarrassed to post here. My raw PT was a 145 when I began. I got up to a 163. If you don't think that took me hundreds and hundreds of hours on the games alone, then you simply are not in touch with what it is like to not be an incredibly intellectually gifted person, probably because you are one.

I think we may have hit on the point of disagreement here. There's a reason why everyone says that you should be able to go -0 on LOGIC GAMES, and nobody makes the same claim about, say, reading comp. Logic games don't require the innate intellectual gifts that you seem to think they do. it's true that you probably can't take someone who is testing in the 140's and get them to get -0 on RC. RC is not so much a teachable skill, and can be said (not trying to start an argument here! just roll with it if you disagree) to require innate intellectual gifts to consistently go -0 on. YOu need to be a quick and skillful reader, etc.

But, logic games are completely learnable. A lot of them are very, very similar. you don't have to read fast or possess any insane skills. Really, all you need to be able to do is have general pattern recognition skills and basic, basic logic. Like a magpie.

If someone can't go -0 on logic games, it means that either they haven't put in the time OR they are beyond dumb, and unless you have someone else typing for you, you're not dumb enough to be incapable of going -0 in a reasonable amount of time. Be honest, did you go through the powerscore bible (or similar) and really internalize the information? If yes, and that didn't work, did you try another prep course to see if their system works better for you?

WE're not all brilliant on here. I am, but I'm the exception but really, my first few tries at LG, and I pretty consistently gave myself extra time, still ran out of time, and couldn't get past the first game. I worked and studied and got up past 170. I think that, barring the TRULY brilliant here, we all have similar stories. Logic games kind of suck. They don't resemble life in any way, and they mindf*ck you at first. But they're learnable.

FYI, the people here, myself included, aren;t trying to be mean or make you feel dumb, exactly the opposite. We are trying to get you to spend a little time studying in order to make your life much better. 100 hours of studying now can easily translate to literally tens of thousands of dollars in scholarship money for you (GPA dependent, of course). It can mean the difference between a TTT and a t-14. It can mean the difference between wealth and poverty. Put the time in now.

[AD1818]

What is your GPA OP?

Of course I spent hundreds of hours studying how to do them before I even looked at one to begin with, and then over and over again.

Well that's just ridiculous. You're not doing a good job of convincing us that you studied efficiently or effectively.

this. that just sounds like a) a reactive and not-well-thought-out lie, given the most likely interpretation of all of your other posts, and b) if true, a legitimate waste of hundreds of hours.

yes, what is your gpa? at this point, I'm kind of hoping for a troll.

My LSAC GPA should be something in the 3.75-3.8 range

[AD1818]

There are plenty of examples of people who put in this time and can't go -0 on the games. Most of them just are too embarrassed to post here. My raw PT was a 145 when I began. I got up to a 163. If you don't think that took me hundreds and hundreds of hours on the games alone, then you simply are not in touch with what it is like to not be an incredibly intellectually gifted person, probably because you are one.

I think we may have hit on the point of disagreement here. There's a reason why everyone says that you should be able to go -0 on LOGIC GAMES, and nobody makes the same claim about, say, reading comp. Logic games don't require the innate intellectual gifts that you seem to think they do. it's true that you probably can't take someone who is testing in the 140's and get them to get -0 on RC. RC is not so much a teachable skill, and can be said (not trying to start an argument here! just roll with it if you disagree) to require innate intellectual gifts to consistently go -0 on. YOu need to be a quick and skillful reader, etc.

But, logic games are completely learnable. A lot of them are very, very similar. you don't have to read fast or possess any insane skills. Really, all you need to be able to do is have general pattern recognition skills and basic, basic logic. Like a magpie.

If someone can't go -0 on logic games, it means that either they haven't put in the time OR they are beyond dumb, and unless you have someone else typing for you, you're not dumb enough to be incapable of going -0 in a reasonable amount of time. Be honest, did you go through the powerscore bible (or similar) and really internalize the information? If yes, and that didn't work, did you try another prep course to see if their system works better for you?

WE're not all brilliant on here. I am, but I'm the exception but really, my first few tries at LG, and I pretty consistently gave myself extra time, still ran out of time, and couldn't get past the first game. I worked and studied and got up past 170. I think that, barring the TRULY brilliant here, we all have similar stories. Logic games kind of suck. They don't resemble life in any way, and they mindf*ck you at first. But they're learnable.

FYI, the people here, myself included, aren;t trying to be mean or make you feel dumb, exactly the opposite. We are trying to get you to spend a little time studying in order to make your life much better. 100 hours of studying now can easily translate to literally tens of thousands of dollars in scholarship money for you (GPA dependent, of course). It can mean the difference between a TTT and a t-14. It can mean the difference between wealth and poverty. Put the time in now.

Perhaps you haven't read what I said or are assuming I am lying for the sake of doing so. If you are, well that's fine, but then there's not really much point in continuing this discussion because if you won't take me at my word, I have no other way to prove to you that what I am saying is true.

I have studied hundreds and hundreds of hours (maybe thousands, I honestly have no idea at this point) on JUST the logic games already. I have drilled them by type and by section. All of them! I have the PS bibles, Manhattan books, copies of every game ever offered, etc.

There is no game you can put in front of me that I cannot solve. But, despite this, I have always, and still do struggle mightily with time. I am just not quick enough. The simple sequencing games that take the 170+ scorers under 5 minutes take me 7 or 8, just for example. My mind simply cannot process the information quickly enough. I suppose I can't say this is a fait accompli. Maybe 2000 more hours of practice would get me to where I need to be. But it is neither reasonable nor practical to assume or speculate like this. I have to believe that if I can't do it by now, I probably won't ever be able to. Even if it's not legitimately true, for all intents and purposes, it is.

Maybe I'm special in a negative way. But how many more hours do I need to work on these until I finally call it quits, reconciling myself with the idea that I just am not quick enough? "Enough until you can do it" is not a reasonable answer, given the amount of time and effort I've already put in.

Fwiw, I have only gotten every question right in a properly timed games section a few times. That's right. And I have taken more of these than I can count. I am not trying to be dramatic. Usually I just have to guess on a bunch because I run out of time. I agree that the skills of the logic games are completely learnable. As I said, I can do all of them. I just don't agree that they are necessarily learnable inside of 35 minutes, not unless they get significantly easier.

You might all think I'm trolling. I promise you I don't have that much time to waste. I realize and agree that the difference between my score and a 170 can mean the difference between tens of thousands of dollars now, and the difference between wealth and poverty later. That still doesn't mean there is anything more I can do about this.

[AD1818]

What is your GPA OP?

Of course I spent hundreds of hours studying how to do them before I even looked at one to begin with, and then over and over again.

Well that's just ridiculous. You're not doing a good job of convincing us that you studied efficiently or effectively.

this. that just sounds like a) a reactive and not-well-thought-out lie, given the most likely interpretation of all of your other posts, and b) if true, a legitimate waste of hundreds of hours.

yes, what is your gpa? at this point, I'm kind of hoping for a troll.

My LSAC GPA should be something in the 3.75-3.8 range

I should qualify this too. It probably won't matter much, but this is literally a 2.35 in my first college semester, and a 4.0 in every semester thereafter.

[iamgeorgebush]

The conventional wisdom around here is that if you can't go -0 pretty consistently on the games, you aren't done studying. And the reason for this is that there has yet to be an example of someone who actually puts in the hundreds of hours and can't seem to do that.

Conventional wisdom isn't always right, plus we have to keep in mind that PT scores don't always match up with performance on the real thing. Sometimes, people make mistakes. I did every single modern LG 3-6 times (carefully analyzing his mistakes), consistently got-0/-1 LG on PTs, yet got -3 LG on the real thing (finished with ample time to spare and thought I got everything right, just made some dumb mistakes that I didn't catch).

[jordan15]

I don't think you're trolling, I just don't think you're being honest with yourself. If you are really that good at LGs but just a little slow and have seen no increase in speed after drilling hundreds of games, then you doing it wrong. Stop drilling and start reaching out to different methods of doing the games and reteach yourself. Go over each answer, even the ones you got correctly, and ask, "why did they ask this? why did they pick these 5 choices?" You'll start to notice patterns and will be able to answer some questions immediately without requiring any extra work. That'll save a ton of time.

For example, I've noticed this pattern a lot:

1) Which of the following is a possible sequence?
Correct answer: ABCDE

2) Which of the following could be first?
Correct answer: A

Instead of reworking the entire problem to find the answer to question 2 you would just refer back to the answer of question 1 and bam, you have your answer. This is extremely common (although usually not as obvious as the example I just gave) and if you are regularly taking advantage of these giveaways then your speed will increase immensely.

[AD1818]

I don't think you're trolling, I just don't think you're being honest with yourself. If you are really that good at LGs but just a little slow and have seen no increase in speed after drilling hundreds of games, then you doing it wrong. Stop drilling and start reaching out to different methods of doing the games and reteach yourself. Go over each answer, even the ones you got correctly, and ask, "why did they ask this? why did they pick these 5 choices?" You'll start to notice patterns and will be able to answer some questions immediately without requiring any extra work. That'll save a ton of time.

For example, I've noticed this pattern a lot:

1) Which of the following is a possible sequence?
Correct answer: ABCDE

2) Which of the following could be first?
Correct answer: A

Instead of reworking the entire problem to find the answer to question 2 you would just refer back to the answer of question 1 and bam, you have your answer. This is extremely common (although usually not as obvious as the example I just gave) and if you are regularly taking advantage of these giveaways then your speed will increase immensely.

Yes, I like to think that after all the time I have put in, I am very familiar with the patterns for time saving that are thrown at you in the games sections. But knowing they exist and being able to recognize them on the fly and under pressure are very different animals.

I am not just a "little slow." I am very slow compared to most 170+ scorers. A super tough game that might take someone excellent 10 or 11 minutes might take me double that.

[Chiller303]

I don't know why OP is getting all this pushback. I agree with the underlying (positive) statement that the dividends paid by trying or practicing harder are real, and should be pursued zealously. But the fact of the matter is that not everyone can do the LG section perfectly, even if many or most can. Like the OP, I studied ad nauseum, sinking about a year into LSAT studying. I was lucky enough to get a 171 on the test and land a T6, but that was essentially good luck on the test lottery: I happened to miss 1 a piece on RC and between the two LR sections, while still missing 8 on LG. Bottom line: LG wasn't doable. I had all the books, took a course, had a private tutor, and have tested well on standardized tests my entire life. All that notwithstanding, LG induced panic every time.

TLS hive-mind has costs and benefits. The benefit is that it puts you in an echo chamber that pushes you to reach for the stratosphere. The cost is that it can make you lose perspective on what is a damn good score. 163 is that. And above all, you should know that the LSAT is a terribly reductive proxy for determining you intellectual gifts. There are a lot of bozos at my school, as I'm sure there are throughout the T14.

[irishballa]

To put an actual example into the mix, how would everyone feel about going to Vanderbilt, UCLA, or UT on a full tuition scholarship vs. Penn on down at near sticker?

[McGruff]

Sure, I can't PROVE I am right anymore than you all can prove you are. But the fact that SO many people score way below 170 is quite telling.

Another cool thing about getting better at the LSAT is that your arguments would eventually be less sloppy than this.
edit: sorry, that was dickish of me.

Fwiw, I have only gotten every question right in a properly timed games section a few times. That's right. And I have taken more of these than I can count. I am not trying to be dramatic. Usually I just have to guess on a bunch because I run out of time. I agree that the skills of the logic games are completely learnable. As I said, I can do all of them. I just don't agree that they are necessarily learnable inside of 35 minutes, not unless they get significantly easier.

Just to suggest a method you might not have tried, my time didn't get really good until I started using the 7sage method (same game, several times in a row, shaving 10, 20 seconds off each time) and focusing on REALLY blazing through parts of the setup and hypos. Like, how-can-I-possibly-move-my-pencil-any-faster fast. Same game over and over again, even if it feels pointless because you remember the answers. A lot of speed, in that part of the test, is actually physical. More muscle memory than people think, imo.

[Tiago Splitter]

The cost is that it can make you lose perspective on what is a damn good score. 163 is that. And above all, you should know that the LSAT is a terribly reductive proxy for determining you intellectual gifts. There are a lot of bozos at my school, as I'm sure there are throughout the T14.

Be careful with this line of thinking because it could really mislead people. The fact that 163 is a good score is meaningless. What really matters is what kind of school someone can get into with a 163 and what kind of cost he'll have to incur.

To put an actual example into the mix, how would everyone feel about going to Vanderbilt, UCLA, or UT on a full tuition scholarship vs. Penn on down at near sticker?

I'm not sure this is a real example because the bottom half of the T-14 will usually be receptive to negotiation when the candidate is bringing to the table full rides from these schools. But if it did happen plenty of people would say to take the full ride.

OP if you haven't retaken you really should just to see if you can luck into a higher score. There's really no downside, and if you answer a few more 50-50 questions right you may really improve your prospects.

[mr. wednesday]

Ultimately if OP says he is not smart enough or a slow thinker, that could certainly be true. If you haven't at least taken the test twice you are lying to yourself about how much work you are willing to put in, though. You haven't tried to adjust any studying based on results or real world conditions.

If you've retaken and that's your best score, then okay. Really think about what region you want to be in after graduation because you won't be going to a school with national reach. Apply to the best school in a few acceptable locations that don't have a T14 in state and see where that takes you as far as scholarships go. It doesn't have to be T14 at sticker or TTT at a full ride either. If you can find a half-scholarship or so at the top school in a state you want to stay in permanently, that's not a bad choice for someone who really, really wants to be a lawyer and is okay with never making a ton of money.

[banjo]

I don't know why OP is getting all this pushback. I agree with the underlying (positive) statement that the dividends paid by trying or practicing harder are real, and should be pursued zealously. But the fact of the matter is that not everyone can do the LG section perfectly, even if many or most can. Like the OP, I studied ad nauseum, sinking about a year into LSAT studying. I was lucky enough to get a 171 on the test and land a T6, but that was essentially good luck on the test lottery: I happened to miss 1 a piece on RC and between the two LR sections, while still missing 8 on LG. Bottom line: LG wasn't doable. I had all the books, took a course, had a private tutor, and have tested well on standardized tests my entire life. All that notwithstanding, LG induced panic every time.

I had a similar experience (missed -5 to -8 on the LG on most PTs and the real thing). But the fact that you can totally bomb LG and still get a 99th percentile score actually makes the case for retaking even stronger. If one section is not your cup of tea, focus on the other two.

[AD1818]

Sure, I can't PROVE I am right anymore than you all can prove you are. But the fact that SO many people score way below 170 is quite telling.

Another cool thing about getting better at the LSAT is that your arguments would eventually be less sloppy than this.
edit: sorry, that was dickish of me.

Fwiw, I have only gotten every question right in a properly timed games section a few times. That's right. And I have taken more of these than I can count. I am not trying to be dramatic. Usually I just have to guess on a bunch because I run out of time. I agree that the skills of the logic games are completely learnable. As I said, I can do all of them. I just don't agree that they are necessarily learnable inside of 35 minutes, not unless they get significantly easier.

Just to suggest a method you might not have tried, my time didn't get really good until I started using the 7sage method (same game, several times in a row, shaving 10, 20 seconds off each time) and focusing on REALLY blazing through parts of the setup and hypos. Like, how-can-I-possibly-move-my-pencil-any-faster fast. Same game over and over again, even if it feels pointless because you remember the answers. A lot of speed, in that part of the test, is actually physical. More muscle memory than people think, imo.

I have taken the entire 7sage course. It was in fact pointless for me in many ways to use J.Y.'s method of doing the games over and over again, since I'd memorize all the answers by the 3rd or 4th try, and found I wasn't relying on my skills of logic anymore, but my memory, which is excellent.

It's part of the reason I hate taking practice tests I've already took, because I often will remember the answers to random questions and it really cheapens the experience, since it messes with time and creates a scenario that won't happen on test day.