McGruff wrote:shifty_eyed wrote:You guys are being a bit ridiculous. I spent hours and hours on LG (much more than on any other section) and never CONSISTENTLY went -0. I did pretty well on the LSAT too. Consistently -3 or less ok, most people should get there. But even then, I'm not sure. You don't need to go -0 on any section to get a 170.
"hours and hours"? Not trying to be a dick but we've already granted that hundreds of hours might not be enough to max out one's score. The point isn't that he needs to get -0 on LG, it's that he can. Lots(most?) of people find RC impossible to get -0 on regularly, but LG is a different bag and, as such, should be perfected before people start saying that they've hit their absolute maximum score on the LSAT.
-3/section will be in the 160s more often than 170, btw. If, once they hit ~-3/section, someone wants to decide they're done trying to improve, that's fine for them. But to assume that, just because diminishing returns makes them work harder for each additional point, they simply can't improve any further, is to ignore the experience of lots of people in this forum whose labor continued to pay dividends. We have to decide for ourselves when we're willing to settle, but if we tell ourselves that, instead of just not having the motivation needed for more work, we've hit the limit of what we're capable, we're kidding ourselves.
I think much bigger returns can be had by reading the Powerscore LR Bible than redoing the same games over and over. I'm not convinced that redoing the games will translate into perfect scores on new LGs on test day. Some people will never perfect LG, and hundreds of hours can be a huge waste of time. LR is 50% of the test, and for many, much easier to improve on than LG (after a certain point, when figuring out how to diagram and how the different types of games work).