Mike's Trainer Thread

Special forum where professionals are encouraged to help law school applicants, students, and graduates.
User avatar
Nah B
Posts: 5
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2016 3:31 pm

Re: Mike's Trainer Thread

Postby Nah B » Sun Sep 04, 2016 7:15 pm

Hey Mike,

I just purchased The LSAT Trainer (I had skimmed a friend's copy prior to this; you're the man for this resource, thank you) and will be beginning comprehensive prep with your 12 Week Study Schedule tomorrow in preparation for the December exam. I'm familiar with Blueprint's methods and have just recently completed their Blueprint for LSAT Logic Games book which I found to be tremendously helpful. My question is, having grown comfortable with their games strategy and diagramming method, should I proceed with The Trainer in any special manner (i.e. skipping your earlier intro section to games or approaching differently/keeping in mind, etc.)? Thanks in advance.

User avatar
The LSAT Trainer
Posts: 628
Joined: Fri May 10, 2013 4:57 am

Re: Mike's Trainer Thread

Postby The LSAT Trainer » Mon Sep 05, 2016 6:57 pm

Nah B wrote:Hey Mike,

I just purchased The LSAT Trainer (I had skimmed a friend's copy prior to this; you're the man for this resource, thank you) and will be beginning comprehensive prep with your 12 Week Study Schedule tomorrow in preparation for the December exam. I'm familiar with Blueprint's methods and have just recently completed their Blueprint for LSAT Logic Games book which I found to be tremendously helpful. My question is, having grown comfortable with their games strategy and diagramming method, should I proceed with The Trainer in any special manner (i.e. skipping your earlier intro section to games or approaching differently/keeping in mind, etc.)? Thanks in advance.


Hey! -- Good to meet you online and thanks for trusting in the Trainer --

My suggestion would be to go through the 12 week in the recommended order and as you would otherwise, but
a) obviously, feel free to go a bit quicker through parts of the LG you feel more comfortable with from having finished the BP book
b) when you get to the various drills and practice games and such -- if you'd like --go ahead and do them using the BP diagramming notations you've grown comfortable with -- the drills will work just fine with non-trainer diagramming methods, and, if anything, they can help you reaffirm methods that are working well for you, and also help you recognize areas where the methods aren't working as well for you --
c) in the latter situation, and throughout for that matter, you can see if certain Trainer methods will be more effective for you and combine and adjust as you see fit --

Hope that helps and good luck -- if you need anything else just let me know -- MK

User avatar
Nah B
Posts: 5
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2016 3:31 pm

Re: Mike's Trainer Thread

Postby Nah B » Tue Sep 06, 2016 6:21 pm

The LSAT Trainer wrote:
Nah B wrote:Hey Mike,

I just purchased The LSAT Trainer (I had skimmed a friend's copy prior to this; you're the man for this resource, thank you) and will be beginning comprehensive prep with your 12 Week Study Schedule tomorrow in preparation for the December exam. I'm familiar with Blueprint's methods and have just recently completed their Blueprint for LSAT Logic Games book which I found to be tremendously helpful. My question is, having grown comfortable with their games strategy and diagramming method, should I proceed with The Trainer in any special manner (i.e. skipping your earlier intro section to games or approaching differently/keeping in mind, etc.)? Thanks in advance.


Hey! -- Good to meet you online and thanks for trusting in the Trainer --

My suggestion would be to go through the 12 week in the recommended order and as you would otherwise, but
a) obviously, feel free to go a bit quicker through parts of the LG you feel more comfortable with from having finished the BP book
b) when you get to the various drills and practice games and such -- if you'd like --go ahead and do them using the BP diagramming notations you've grown comfortable with -- the drills will work just fine with non-trainer diagramming methods, and, if anything, they can help you reaffirm methods that are working well for you, and also help you recognize areas where the methods aren't working as well for you --
c) in the latter situation, and throughout for that matter, you can see if certain Trainer methods will be more effective for you and combine and adjust as you see fit --

Hope that helps and good luck -- if you need anything else just let me know -- MK


Perfect, will do. I appreciate the advice. Thank you.

User avatar
The LSAT Trainer
Posts: 628
Joined: Fri May 10, 2013 4:57 am

Re: Mike's Trainer Thread

Postby The LSAT Trainer » Fri Oct 14, 2016 11:02 am

Hi everyone —

Wanted to let you know I’ve made and put up some solution videos for the 4 Logic Games from the free June ‘07 exam —

You can find them here —

http://www.thelsattrainer.com/sample-ls ... games.html

I designed the videos so that you can play along with them —

Whether you are just starting your prep, or already deep into it, I hope you find the videos useful —

Mike

klaudiaxo
Posts: 35
Joined: Sat Dec 22, 2012 7:18 pm

Re: Mike's Trainer Thread

Postby klaudiaxo » Tue Oct 18, 2016 10:29 pm

The LSAT Trainer wrote:
klaudiaxo wrote:
Hi Mike!

I hope you are doing good. I am currently practicing sufficient assumption Q's and in my review I came upon one that I just cannot figure out why the right answer is correct.

It is PT35 S1 Q22:
No C's are T's, and all members of P are T. So no members of P belong to the family H.

a. all members of H are T
b. all members of H are C
c. all T's are P's
d. no members of the family H are C
e. no C are P

the right answers is B, and I just can't get the thought process correct. Here is what I have:

C-> NOT T
P->T
P->NOT H

CONVERSE:
T-> NOT C
T-> NOT P
H-> NOT P


Yikes, what a hairy problem -- just had a chance to try it out (haven't seen it in a while) -- here's the thought process I went through, and if you felt like trying to reason your way through it this is one way you could do it:

Task - suff assumption q

Conclusion
- If P, don't belong to H.

I know at this point that I am going to be given, in the premises, most of the chain from the "P" part to the "not H" part, with a piece of that chain missing --

So as I go to search for the --

Support - I do so by first starting by looking for what I know of P -- and I can see that

All P are T, and (from first part of stimuli) all T are not C.

Gap - So, the conclusion is --

If P, not H.

And the support all adds up to --

If P, not C.

So, I need a "link" that tells us either

"not C, then not H" or the contrapositive, which is "if H, then C."

answers - Of the answer choices, only (B) and (D) focus on H and C, and those are the ones I had to evaluate most carefully.

If you want to utilize notation as you solve this problem (and I think that for this problem that's a good idea for the vast majority of students) -- you can follow the same thought pattern --

1) recognize that task will be to fill gap -- thus you know that there will be, in the stimulus, a clearly definable gap to fill.

2) search out and seek to correctly understand the conclusion -- in this case:

P -> not H ; (also helpful to keep in mind contrapositive form H -> not P.)

3) seek to mimic the conclusion / find missing link by chaining support - in general, you will be able to "start" where the conclusion does, in this case with "If P..."

P -> T -> not C.

4) identify that missing link --

so, what we need is a "not C -> not H" -- notice this would allow us to create a complete chain --

P -> T -> not C -> not H

And this would allow us to properly conclude P -> not H as the conclusion does.

I could add a bit more color but I'll cut myself off here -- hope that helps and take care --

-- Mike



Hi Mike,

thank you for the explanation a few months ago! I am still studying and I came upon another problem I cannot figure out at all.

It is PT 24 S3 Q24

Do you happen to have this one on hand? I am very confused how to diagram this problem. I know that "when and only when" is a bi conditional, but I was wondering how I know to recognize those as well as how to digram the unless statement and put them together for this problem.

Any help would be appreciated. Thanks!

ZVBXRPL
Posts: 581
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 10:15 pm

Re: Mike's Trainer Thread

Postby ZVBXRPL » Wed Oct 26, 2016 1:17 am

Mike,

Great Trainer. I actually bought two of them! Any tips on dealing with abstract flaw questions?

User avatar
Barack O'Drama
Posts: 2693
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2012 7:21 pm

Re: Mike's Trainer Thread

Postby Barack O'Drama » Wed Oct 26, 2016 2:00 am

The LSAT Trainer wrote:


Hey Mike,

Just a quick question. A friend of mine who took the LSAT a year or so ago said your old schedule used to use PTs 29-71.
Looking at your website it seems like now it is PTs 52-71. I'm just wondering why the change?

Do you think it is better to focus on the newer tests?

User avatar
The LSAT Trainer
Posts: 628
Joined: Fri May 10, 2013 4:57 am

Re: Mike's Trainer Thread

Postby The LSAT Trainer » Thu Oct 27, 2016 4:16 pm

klaudiaxo wrote:Hi Mike,


thank you for the explanation a few months ago! I am still studying and I came upon another problem I cannot figure out at all.

It is PT 24 S3 Q24


Do you happen to have this one on hand? I am very confused how to diagram this problem. I know that "when and only when" is a bi conditional, but I was wondering how I know to recognize those as well as how to digram the unless statement and put them together for this problem.


Any help would be appreciated. Thanks!





Hey --


A few thoughts --

1) when and only when is a play on if and only if --

There are just a couple of ways the test writers generally create a biconditional situation --

Either by combining two conditions into one:

"J if K" (J <-K)" + "J only if K" (J -> K) = "J if and only if K" (J <->K)

Or by giving us two separate rules that together combine to form the double arrow:

"If J then K." (J -> K, - K -> - J)
"If not J, then not K" ( - J -> - K, K -> J)

Added together they give us J <-> K (and -J <-> - K).

As long as u keep that in mind, you should be able to spot all bicons when they appear.

2) I would not diagram this problem, and in general would not recommend diagramming for answer conforms to principle/give example of principle q's (and most other q's for that matter) -- I think it’s an inefficient use of your time, and can lead to unnecessary drops in accuracy.

Here's the analogy that comes to mind --

Remember when you were little -- you probably played games in activity books where you were presented with two nearly identical pictures, and your task was to recognize what is different about the pictures? Or maybe you were given one main picture, and three or four copies -- one identical, the rest with some changes made, and you had to figure out which one was the right match? ---

Even if you didn't play such games, I hope the image presented is clear --

In our hypothetical walk down memory lane, the best way to go about finding a match / recognize discrepancies was to cross-check the pictures one small part at a time --

An inefficient way of playing such games would be to
a) draw out your own version of what the original picture was like and then
b) try and match the answer options with your drawing

I think unnecessary diagramming can play a similar role as creating an unnecessary drawing.

3) Instead, I think it's a better strategy to put more of your energy into carefully trying to match up parts of each answer choice with the stimulus, with the goal of finding mismatches.

Four of the answers will either have components that won’t match up (missing some key part required by the stimulus or more components than the stimulus has, etc) or reasoning that doesn’t match up (the answer uses reasoning that is opposite from that in the stimulus, or just different altogether ((about causation when original was about conditional logic, etc.)) --

Using this method to evaluate the answers for 24-3-24 --

A) Notice “open to most people” -- this directly contradicts “open to everyone” in the stimulus and so we know (A) is a mismatch and we can eliminate it.
B) goes from saying S has inequalities to concluding that S must be unjust -- it fails to account for the entire “unless…” (that is, fails to account for a way in which a society could have income inequality and still be just) and so we know (B) is a mismatch and we can eliminate it.
C) is missing the entire part about basic liberties, a necessary component, per the stimulus, of a just society. So we know (C) is a mismatch and we can eliminate it.
D) clearly violates a required condition of a just society -- equal right to basic liberties, and so matches the given information well. Let’s leave it.
E) is missing the part about the inequalities being to everyone’s advantage. And so since we are missing all the necessary criteria for determining that a country is just, (E) is a mismatch and we can eliminate it.

I think if one is too focused on trying to map out all the links, see all possible inferences, etc. (B) and (E) may seem like more attractive answers, and I think evaluating them with a mindset of just trying to find and focus in on a specific reason why the answer mismatches the stimulus hopefully puts you in a better position to correctly evaluate those most important differences between those answers and the original stimulus.

I hope that makes sense --

If you were to bring in diagramming on this q, I would recommend doing so at the stage of evaluating the answers -- that is, for example, imagine you can’t quite eliminate (B) with confidence -- well maybe at that point you diagram a bit to evaluate how it relates to the stimulus.

I’m sure there are contrary opinions on this, but those are my thoughts and HTH -- MK

User avatar
The LSAT Trainer
Posts: 628
Joined: Fri May 10, 2013 4:57 am

Re: Mike's Trainer Thread

Postby The LSAT Trainer » Thu Oct 27, 2016 5:42 pm

ZVBXRPL wrote:Mike,

Great Trainer. I actually bought two of them! Any tips on dealing with abstract flaw questions?


Hey! - thanks and glad to hear you are finding the Trainer useful --

Some quick thoughts

1) Keep in mind that there are two distinct and separate challenges -- recognizing the flaw in the argument, and recognizing, among the answer choices, a correct way to represent the flaw.

2) In terms of recognizing the flaw -- I think it's helpful to keep in mind that every single flaw that appears on the LSAT is simple enough so that you can explain it using plain, everyday language -- and your goal is to always try to see the flaw as clearly and simply as possible.

3) It's much easier to evaluate answers when you go in with a clear sense of the flaw, as opposed to going in without a clear sense / expecting the answers to tell you how to think of the argument.

4) As always, work from wrong to right -- four of the answers will clearly misrepresent the flaw in some way.

5) You can find some discussion of abstract flaw language on page 246 of the Trainer --

6) Lastly, I think it can be helpful, if you'd like, to keep your own list of abstract language that you happen to run into as you solve flaw q's, and make sure you understand the correct definitions in each circumstance (feel free to ask if you ever need help) -- the list of options for LSAT writers is fairly limited, and I think, over time, keeping such a list and studying it will help ensure you feel confident about any abstract language that might appear.

HTH -- good luck with the rest of your studies and let me know if you need me -- MK

User avatar
The LSAT Trainer
Posts: 628
Joined: Fri May 10, 2013 4:57 am

Re: Mike's Trainer Thread

Postby The LSAT Trainer » Thu Oct 27, 2016 5:50 pm

Barack O'Drama wrote:
The LSAT Trainer wrote:


Hey Mike,

Just a quick question. A friend of mine who took the LSAT a year or so ago said your old schedule used to use PTs 29-71.
Looking at your website it seems like now it is PTs 52-71. I'm just wondering why the change?

Do you think it is better to focus on the newer tests?


Hey --

The main reason I created such a schedule was because a lot of students wanted to use it in conjunction w/the Cambridge packets that were sold -- and the main reason I ended up taking it off the site was because at some point it became too difficult for students to get access to all those tests--

In terms of newer vs older tests -- while I do think newer tests are slightly more helpful, to me the differences are very minimal, and the older tests are just fine to study with --

I do think there is a danger in going into your prep with the built in expectation of doing too much practice -- I recently talked that about that a bit here --

https://www.reddit.com/r/LSAT/comments/ ... se_for_my/

The last thing you want to do is burn through all your pt's before you feel ready for the exam, and to me that's entirely avoidable with the right planning --

HTH and hope the studying is going well -- MK

senperfect
Posts: 4
Joined: Thu May 11, 2017 10:01 am

Re: Mike's Trainer Thread

Postby senperfect » Thu May 11, 2017 10:06 am

Great! It's really nice list of information!

User avatar
DaydreamNation
Posts: 137
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2017 9:45 pm

Re: Mike's Trainer Thread

Postby DaydreamNation » Wed May 17, 2017 5:53 pm

The LSAT Trainer wrote:.
Hey Mike, the Trainer has treated me very well thus far. Have been using it on and off since January, and now that my school semester is finished, I'm trying to put the hammer down and get as closed to finished with it as I can before the June LSAT date (I'm about 40% through the book right now and planning to retake in Sept 2017 no matter how I do in June).

Quick question about an LG problem that is found on p. 213 of the 2015 Trainer. For the problem at the top of the page, I'm confused about this phrase of the instructions: "At some sites she leaves a list of suggestions, and at some sites she doesn't." I took the fact that "some sites she doesn't" is plural to mean that I can infer there are at least two sites where she doesn't leave suggestions, but you don't mention that in the solutions. Was that an incorrect inference? Thanks!

User avatar
The LSAT Trainer
Posts: 628
Joined: Fri May 10, 2013 4:57 am

Re: Mike's Trainer Thread

Postby The LSAT Trainer » Thu May 18, 2017 1:51 pm

DaydreamNation wrote:
The LSAT Trainer wrote:.
Hey Mike, the Trainer has treated me very well thus far. Have been using it on and off since January, and now that my school semester is finished, I'm trying to put the hammer down and get as closed to finished with it as I can before the June LSAT date (I'm about 40% through the book right now and planning to retake in Sept 2017 no matter how I do in June).

Quick question about an LG problem that is found on p. 213 of the 2015 Trainer. For the problem at the top of the page, I'm confused about this phrase of the instructions: "At some sites she leaves a list of suggestions, and at some sites she doesn't." I took the fact that "some sites she doesn't" is plural to mean that I can infer there are at least two sites where she doesn't leave suggestions, but you don't mention that in the solutions. Was that an incorrect inference? Thanks!


Hey -- glad to hear you are finding the trainer helpful --

"some" simply means an unknown amount > 0 -- we can't say for sure that it is two or more -- hth and take care -- Mike

BlueDevil666
Posts: 2
Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2017 1:01 pm

Re: Mike's Trainer Thread

Postby BlueDevil666 » Tue Jun 13, 2017 1:05 pm

Hi Mike!

I just bought a copy of your book based on positive reviews on Amazon and on this site, and I can tell already that it's going to be invaluable. I have also been watching videos on 7Sage and have been very impressed. Quick question: It seems like you are fairly familiar with 7Sage. I would like to use your book and 7Sage in tandem in my LSAT prep. Do you have any advice on how to do this (which should come first, how the two build off of each other, etc.)? Thank you so much for such a great resource!

Thank you,

BlueDevil666

User avatar
The LSAT Trainer
Posts: 628
Joined: Fri May 10, 2013 4:57 am

Re: Mike's Trainer Thread

Postby The LSAT Trainer » Fri Jun 16, 2017 6:31 pm

BlueDevil666 wrote:Hi Mike!

I just bought a copy of your book based on positive reviews on Amazon and on this site, and I can tell already that it's going to be invaluable. I have also been watching videos on 7Sage and have been very impressed. Quick question: It seems like you are fairly familiar with 7Sage. I would like to use your book and 7Sage in tandem in my LSAT prep. Do you have any advice on how to do this (which should come first, how the two build off of each other, etc.)? Thank you so much for such a great resource!

Thank you,

BlueDevil666


Hi there! -- Thanks so much for trusting in the Trainer and I wish you the best with it --

In terms of how to bring everything together, I think there are several effective paths that you can take --

Here are my suggestions for if you want to combine the two --

First, a few of key factors --

1) In my experience, there is generally more benefit that comes out of learning from multiple materials than there is harm.

2) The key mitigating factor is opportunity cost -- you want to combine your learning with drilling and pt work, and generally you want a good balance of components --

3) And in general, though you always want to try to be linking together your learning, drilling, practice, and review, I recommend you put a greater priority on learning at the beginning of your studies, a greater priority on drilling in the middle of our studies, and a greater priority on pt's toward the end of your studies.

With all that said --

I recommend you think of your drilling as occurring in multiple rounds -- so, whatever drilling you plan on doing, split it into two or three cycles of drill work --

Start with the trainer, and, as you get deeper into the book, combine your work with your first round of drilling. You can use and adjust one of the free trainer study schedules for this part, if you'd like --

http://www.thelsattrainer.com/lsat-stud ... tions.html

After you are done with that stage, determine if you feel you would prefer to a) spend more of your remaining time on practice or if b) you think you can benefit from digging deep into another learning resource --

If it's (a), use the free 7sage videos in conjunction with your second round of drilling

If it's (b), consider getting the full 7sage course

Whatever you choose, ideally you want to get most of your learning done with plenty of time to continue practicing and then pt'ing after --

Again, I think there are many effective ways you can go about this, and others may have plans that fit your needs better, but I think the above could work well for you --

Hope that helps and wish you the best -- if you have any follow-up or need anything else just let me know -- MK

Aleksander
Posts: 27
Joined: Tue Aug 29, 2017 6:52 pm

Re: Mike's Trainer Thread

Postby Aleksander » Sat Oct 07, 2017 2:28 pm

Hey Mike,

I picked up The LSAT Trainer recently from Amazon and I am really loving it so far! It's the first time I feel like a LSAT book is clicking with me. I'm currently using the 16-week study schedule (using PT52-71)

Do you recommend that we then use 72-82 to take as full PTs? Should we aim to take them all?

Also, an unrelated question: What are your views on only focusing on the newer tests 52+ I think it is so odd that when studying for the LSAT some people go back to tests released in the 1990s. I get that essentially all PTs are going to be somewhat useful but why wouldn't 30 modern PTs between drilling/PT'ing be enough to do well on the test? I almost feel like it's unreasonable to expect students to purchase 82 tests, many from before they were born, in order to do well on this test.

Just wondering your take?

User avatar
The LSAT Trainer
Posts: 628
Joined: Fri May 10, 2013 4:57 am

Re: Mike's Trainer Thread

Postby The LSAT Trainer » Thu Oct 12, 2017 7:10 pm

Aleksander wrote:Hey Mike,

I picked up The LSAT Trainer recently from Amazon and I am really loving it so far! It's the first time I feel like a LSAT book is clicking with me. I'm currently using the 16-week study schedule (using PT52-71)

Do you recommend that we then use 72-82 to take as full PTs? Should we aim to take them all?

Also, an unrelated question: What are your views on only focusing on the newer tests 52+ I think it is so odd that when studying for the LSAT some people go back to tests released in the 1990s. I get that essentially all PTs are going to be somewhat useful but why wouldn't 30 modern PTs between drilling/PT'ing be enough to do well on the test? I almost feel like it's unreasonable to expect students to purchase 82 tests, many from before they were born, in order to do well on this test.

Just wondering your take?


Hey Aleksander --

Thanks for trusting in the Trainer and glad to hear that you are finding it useful -

I do think it’s a good idea to fit in the newer exams if you have them -- you can either add it on top of your 16 week schedule or substitute some in for those assigned, and it’s up to you how many you want to use and which ones you want to use for drill work and which ones for pts (though you do, ideally, want to save the most recent exams you have for your final pt work).

And in terms of using the older exams -- certainly not necessary, but very understandable.

Good luck with everything and let me know if you need me --

MK

makingthemove
Posts: 56
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2015 5:57 pm

Re: Mike's Trainer Thread

Postby makingthemove » Sat Oct 14, 2017 1:21 pm

Mike, thanks for making the trainer and for providing help. I got a 171 in the June LSAT after using your trainer (but not as diligently). I feel like I left a few points on the table and I'm thinking of retaking the February LSAT - I wanted your opinions on my strategy for this.

In the June LSAT I got -3 on the logic games, -2 on the reading, and -2/-1 on the two other sections. Seems like I could improve my grade if I got my logic games score up. My issue with the logic games is a time one. I am usually hurried in my last game and I get everything correct when I do the test untimed.

My plan is to spend the next 6 weeks reviewing the logic games chapters for extra insight and drill the logic games I already solved to get some speed. After thanksgiving, I'd use the recent tests (72-80) to do 1 or 2 PTs a week until the test in February. Do you think that would work? I'm concerned with spending too much time doing problems that I already know the solution to.

User avatar
The LSAT Trainer
Posts: 628
Joined: Fri May 10, 2013 4:57 am

Re: Mike's Trainer Thread

Postby The LSAT Trainer » Tue Oct 17, 2017 7:36 pm

makingthemove wrote:Mike, thanks for making the trainer and for providing help. I got a 171 in the June LSAT after using your trainer (but not as diligently). I feel like I left a few points on the table and I'm thinking of retaking the February LSAT - I wanted your opinions on my strategy for this.

In the June LSAT I got -3 on the logic games, -2 on the reading, and -2/-1 on the two other sections. Seems like I could improve my grade if I got my logic games score up. My issue with the logic games is a time one. I am usually hurried in my last game and I get everything correct when I do the test untimed.

My plan is to spend the next 6 weeks reviewing the logic games chapters for extra insight and drill the logic games I already solved to get some speed. After thanksgiving, I'd use the recent tests (72-80) to do 1 or 2 PTs a week until the test in February. Do you think that would work? I'm concerned with spending too much time doing problems that I already know the solution to.


Hey! ---

Congrats on the fantastic score, and I applaud you for working to go even higher.

I actually have a whole batch of posts written for students in similar situations to yours -- check out the links under “Tips for Those Seeking Top Scores” here --

https://thelsattrainer.academy/forums/topic/faq-links/

Several of the posts are specifically geared toward retakers, and several bring you right back to TLS --

In terms of specific advice for your situation, here are the thoughts that come to mind -- as always you know yourself best, so feel free to ignore whatever you think doesn’t apply or won’t be helpful --

1) I think your plan of using a chunk of time for practice/strengthening and then a chunk of time for pt work is a great one.

2) I would encourage you to expand beyond LG -- at your score level, every point becomes so important, and I think it makes sense to continue to try and grow stronger in all areas.

One tool that can help with this is the Trainer Readiness Checklist --

http://www.thelsattrainer.com/are-you-r ... klist.html

you can use it as a gauge to see where you feel you might need to go back and study the Trainer again, or where you feel you might need a bit more drill work, etc.

3) In terms of redoing games -- I think it can be very useful (I’m still redoing them, ten years into this job) -- in order to maximize your benefit, I really encourage you to focus on connecting games to one another, and on trying to use every game to create and solidify your big-picture understanding of all that can happen in games.

And, if you want some advice on novel ways to reuse games, please check out the post Extreme Drilling For Top Scorers -

https://thelsattrainer.academy/forums/t ... p-scorers/

Those are the thoughts that come to mind -- HTH -- if you have any follow-up or need anything else, just let me know -- MK

User avatar
The LSAT Trainer
Posts: 628
Joined: Fri May 10, 2013 4:57 am

Re: Mike's Trainer Thread

Postby The LSAT Trainer » Fri Oct 20, 2017 6:36 pm

Hey Everyone —

Just wanted to let you know that I’ve finished the beta versions of the following new Study Schedules:

16 Week (Trainer + PT’s 62 – 81)
12 Week (Trainer + PT’s 62 – 81)
12 Week (Trainer + PT’s 72 – 81)
8 Week (Trainer + PT’s 72 – 81)
4 Week (Trainer + PT’s 72 – 81)

It’ll be a few more weeks yet until they are polished and up on the website, but I know that a lot of you who are prepping for Dec would rather get a rougher version a bit earlier —

So, if that’s you, please go ahead and send me your email address, and let me know which schedule you want, and I’ll email it to you.

My email address is: mike@thelsattrainer.com.

For those of you who are using the current schedules and considering switching over, that should be very easy. Two suggestions — you can just jump to where you were and work off the new schedules, or you can finish the drill work as assigned in the older schedules, and then switch over to the new schedule suggestions for your PT work.

Please let me know if you have any questions! —

Mike

User avatar
eraserhead
Posts: 28
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2017 12:02 pm

Re: Mike's Trainer Thread

Postby eraserhead » Wed Dec 06, 2017 10:15 pm

Hey Mike,


I purchased your trainer and went through most of it but I don't think I finished all the accompanying drills. At some point I stopped and started focusing on practice tests and through 10 timed PTs, my average score is 165 (164-166). I sat for the test for the first time last week and I really under-performed. Canceled my score on the basis that I sat and stared at the test for 10 minutes and literally left 20 questions unanswered. I've never had anxiety. Not sure what happened but I know it isn't going to happen again. I want your advice on how you think I can improve on fundamentals for LR. My score break down usually: LG: -0 to -1. RC: anywhere from -6 to -11 LR: -10 to -12.

LR kills me. A tutor on here said that if I'm missing any of the first 10 questions in LR, I might have an issue with the fundamentals. I think he may be on to something. I only miss 1 question in the first 10 in the moments that I do. But I don't think I should be missing any. More importantly, I find that when I start the lsat -- even for prep, I get NERVOUS when I look at the first LR question. For some reason I'm super slow and no matter what the question says I have a hard time understanding it, but it goes away in the later questions. Even as early as question 2. A few days before the test I started to feel that I was unsure of myself when it came to a lot of question types. I got paranoid that I've been doing it wrong the entire time. Most notably for strengthen questions and inference questions. Basically I want to get stronger in LR before the February test. I'm also wondering if you think there is a benefit in going through the trainer again from the start and doing all the accompanying drills. Here is my plan for the next 2 months:


My plan for the next two months:
- Random LR sections timed (3-4 per week, maybe more?) + full blind review
- drill question types I get wrong using kaplan mastery grouping (I'd love any tips on how to most effectively drill)
- Going to go through the LSAT trainer again and do the accompanying drills from PT 62-71 (even though I've done all those PTs)
- I have the newest 10 actual books that I haven't touched yet for fresh PTs, i'll do one a week leading up to February
- Random RC sections (2-3 per week) + full blind review (and of course review RC through the trainer since I'll go through the entire trainer)
- Ace the lsat logic games book-- going to go through that and do random games repeatedly just to make sure timing will not be an issue for the test

I'd love your thoughts/advice. And also, do you know if I can access the 8 week schedule for PTs 52-61? I already downloaded the schedule for 62-71 but I'm prep testing with the newest 10 actual book and I don't want to waste those PTs for drilling since I only have 10 left. And I figure if I had the grouping for 62-71 + 52-61 I'll have more material to drill.


Thank you!

User avatar
The LSAT Trainer
Posts: 628
Joined: Fri May 10, 2013 4:57 am

Re: Mike's Trainer Thread

Postby The LSAT Trainer » Thu Dec 07, 2017 4:01 pm

eraserhead wrote:Hey Mike,


I purchased your trainer and went through most of it but I don't think I finished all the accompanying drills. At some point I stopped and started focusing on practice tests and through 10 timed PTs, my average score is 165 (164-166). I sat for the test for the first time last week and I really under-performed. Canceled my score on the basis that I sat and stared at the test for 10 minutes and literally left 20 questions unanswered. I've never had anxiety. Not sure what happened but I know it isn't going to happen again. I want your advice on how you think I can improve on fundamentals for LR. My score break down usually: LG: -0 to -1. RC: anywhere from -6 to -11 LR: -10 to -12.

LR kills me. A tutor on here said that if I'm missing any of the first 10 questions in LR, I might have an issue with the fundamentals. I think he may be on to something. I only miss 1 question in the first 10 in the moments that I do. But I don't think I should be missing any. More importantly, I find that when I start the lsat -- even for prep, I get NERVOUS when I look at the first LR question. For some reason I'm super slow and no matter what the question says I have a hard time understanding it, but it goes away in the later questions. Even as early as question 2. A few days before the test I started to feel that I was unsure of myself when it came to a lot of question types. I got paranoid that I've been doing it wrong the entire time. Most notably for strengthen questions and inference questions. Basically I want to get stronger in LR before the February test. I'm also wondering if you think there is a benefit in going through the trainer again from the start and doing all the accompanying drills. Here is my plan for the next 2 months:


My plan for the next two months:
- Random LR sections timed (3-4 per week, maybe more?) + full blind review
- drill question types I get wrong using kaplan mastery grouping (I'd love any tips on how to most effectively drill)
- Going to go through the LSAT trainer again and do the accompanying drills from PT 62-71 (even though I've done all those PTs)
- I have the newest 10 actual books that I haven't touched yet for fresh PTs, i'll do one a week leading up to February
- Random RC sections (2-3 per week) + full blind review (and of course review RC through the trainer since I'll go through the entire trainer)
- Ace the lsat logic games book-- going to go through that and do random games repeatedly just to make sure timing will not be an issue for the test

I'd love your thoughts/advice. And also, do you know if I can access the 8 week schedule for PTs 52-61? I already downloaded the schedule for 62-71 but I'm prep testing with the newest 10 actual book and I don't want to waste those PTs for drilling since I only have 10 left. And I figure if I had the grouping for 62-71 + 52-61 I'll have more material to drill.


Thank you!


Hey --

Happy to try and help --

Here are some thoughts -- as I always say, every student is different and you know yourself best, so please feel free to utilize or ignore as you see fit --

1) In terms of how you utilize your prep time, it’s important to consider the tradeoff between quality and quantity -- some students benefit more from digging deeper into fewer materials, and others from going faster through more materials.

To me, the amount of work you have planned is more than I would recommend in that I think it may prevent you from getting as deep into your work as you could otherwise -- but again, that’s up to you -- I do suggest though that it’s something to be mindful of.

2) There is a little mental hack that I feel can be extremely useful to keep in mind, and it has to do with the difference between these two mindsets --

a) My plan is to do X amount of work/use X amount of material, and I hope (or expect) that at the end of it I’ll have mastery over X.

Vs

b) My plan is that I want to try and get mastery over X, and I’m going to use X amount of work/materials in order to try and achieve that goal.

I think that students who best habituate the latter mindset end up utilizing their study time and materials far more effectively and feeling more confident on test day, and so it’s something I always try and encourage.

3) In terms of that, one suggestion I have is to start off with a list of all of various challenges the test can present / the specific skills and habits that you’d like to develop before test day.

You can use the Readiness Checklist I have available here --

http://www.thelsattrainer.com/are-you-r ... klist.html

Or you can make your own list based on how you think about the test.

Tell yourself that the list ought to include every key concern that you feel you need to master in order to feel totally prepared for test day, and then make it your goal to specifically address all of those concerns, or at least as many as you can, during your preparation.

4) For each of the issues that you want to master, make sure you work to develop a thorough understanding of that topic, that you arm yourself with strategies you know are effective, and that you get plenty of practice at applying your understanding and strategies.

5) Use the development of skills and habits as your guide for how you should spend your study time.

So, for example, if your next assignment in the Trainer is a topic you feel you have strong understanding of, feel free to go faster, if it’s a topic you feel fuzzy about, go slower, if you know you have mastery over a topic, feel free to drill less of that q type -- if you know you have trouble, drill more, and so on.

All stuff already in the Trainer, but hope you find it useful to see it here -- let me know if you have any follow-up, and good luck with your studies --

MK

User avatar
The LSAT Trainer
Posts: 628
Joined: Fri May 10, 2013 4:57 am

Re: Mike's Trainer Thread

Postby The LSAT Trainer » Thu Dec 07, 2017 4:07 pm

Oh -- shoot -- forgot to answer your q about the schedules --

I don't have an 8-week schedule that utilizes 52-61 for drilling --

If you want to use those for drilling along with the Trainer, I would suggest either

a) using the 12-week 52-71 schedule and truncating it down or
b) using any 8-week schedule and just replacing the drill assignments with those from the 52-71 12-week one.

You can find all of the available schedules here --

http://www.thelsattrainer.com/lsat-stud ... tions.html

Cheers -- MK


Return to “Free Help and Advice from Professionals”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests