Hi everyone I have been studying for a retake using the Manhattan guides and have also been drilling my biggest weaknesses ( flaw and assumption )
I have been reviewing several PTs i have taken and my score is typically -10 avg on LR ultimately getting around 152/153. I would like to improve my score to at least 162. to do so I need go improve LR as my LG and RC have improved thanks to Manhattan.
I've been drilling flaw and assumption q's but when taking LR timed im missing 7 or 8 flaw and assumption questions that I personally know that i can get right if I was drilling untimed. I usually elim to 2 contendors and pick the wrong one.
I was wondering how to improve LR timed. do you guys improve just by drilling problems or is there a habit you guys develop , or strategy you use? if I can improve this section timed it would help massively in achieving my goal. when reviewing I can easily see my mistake and why I got it wrong, early diagnosis says that it may partially be due to short time left since traditionally I always get first ten right and majority of my wrong answers fall between 15 and 23
Here are a few ideas for you:
1. Work on speeding up on those first ten that you're getting right. In general, you earn time for tough questions by moving quickly through the easy questions and cutting bait quickly on the impossible ones. Your goal is that when you review your wrong answers you find yourself thinking "wow, that is a tough one!" - instead of "if I could have just had more than 50 seconds, I could have gotten that..."
So, for that, I'd pull up a bunch of old LSATs and do first 15 question drills -- can you do them in 18 minutes? Yes? So, can you do them in 16 minutes, and so on.
One other note on this, while wrong-to-right is the general approach you should take with most LR and RC questions, if time is the issue, experiment with pulling the trigger early on the easier questions--see if you can maintain your accuracy.
2. Figure out where you're spending your time where you don't need to. Some folks don't spend enough time understanding the stimulus, and then end up having to do that as they spin their wheels on answer choices. Some folks dawdle on confusing answer choices instead of deferring judgment. Identifying this can be difficult (this is one of those places that a teacher/tutor can help), but the way to do it is to think of your process as a series of steps, (though many of these start to happen simultaneously at times): 1) read the stem 2) read the stimulus 3) identify conclusion 4) identify premise 5) identify gap/how you'd debate it 6) first pass through answers 7) second pass. Then, start noticing where you time gets spent and whether the work there is effective.
3. When you're down to two answers, remind yourself of the basics of the core and use that more than you use a comparison of the two answers. Often folks forget their basic job or forget the usual wrong answer characteristics at that point. I wrote a blog post about all of this a while back: http://www.manhattanlsat.com/blog/2010/ ... /#more-543
I hope that's helpful