Mike's Trainer Thread Forum

[foreverhopful]

Hey Mike,

First off, thank you for writing such an outstanding book. I've used every prep book you could think of, and it was just too confusing. I was starting to lose hope, but then I found your book and it all was great with the world again. It's been a MASSIVE help and I make sure to recommend it to all of my friends that are thinking of taking the LSAT.

Quick question, and this is probably a stupid question, but I need to know about my piece of my mind, have the old study schedules (specifically the 8 week SS w/ Exam 51-61) become obsolete since posting the new ones? I ask because I was using the older version and when I went to your website today I saw you uploaded a new one. When I opened it just to see whether it was any different, I noticed that according to that schedule, I'm about 6 lessons behind (although on time w/ the older SS version.)

Is the newer version strategically better? Was there anything wrong with the older version that I should be concerned about?

I'm currently on Lesson 27 and I will be taking the test on Dec 06. Am I too far behind?

Sorry for the questions in advance, the law school application process is giving me serious anxiety issues.

Thank you in advance,

You are seriously the BOMB,

[The LSAT Trainer]

Hey Mike,

First off, thank you for writing such an outstanding book. I've used every prep book you could think of, and it was just too confusing. I was starting to lose hope, but then I found your book and it all was great with the world again. It's been a MASSIVE help and I make sure to recommend it to all of my friends that are thinking of taking the LSAT.

Quick question, and this is probably a stupid question, but I need to know about my piece of my mind, have the old study schedules (specifically the 8 week SS w/ Exam 51-61) become obsolete since posting the new ones? I ask because I was using the older version and when I went to your website today I saw you uploaded a new one. When I opened it just to see whether it was any different, I noticed that according to that schedule, I'm about 6 lessons behind (although on time w/ the older SS version.)

Is the newer version strategically better? Was there anything wrong with the older version that I should be concerned about?

I'm currently on Lesson 27 and I will be taking the test on Dec 06. Am I too far behind?

Sorry for the questions in advance, the law school application process is giving me serious anxiety issues.

Thank you in advance,

You are seriously the BOMB,

Hi --

I'm so happy to hear that you are finding the trainer useful -- thanks so much for the comments --

You are totally fine sticking with your current schedule -- the main difference between them is that for the newer ones I simplified the overlap between book and drilling (so you do more of the book before drilling, and more of the drilling after the book) and that's why they have you finishing the book work a bit faster -- you aren't missing out on anything by sticking with your current schedule --

Having said that, as I'm sure you know, 8 weeks is certainly a tighter-than-ideal schedule, so if you are feeling an itch to start applying, in a more test-like manner, all that you are learning and practicing (that is, if you are looking for your "sand the floor" moment by all means I encourage you to start getting in some extra pt's or full sections now, or at least after lesson 34 in the book --

Wish you the best -- if you need anything else at all, please feel free to follow up here or pm or email me -- Mike

[akechi]

Edit: question answered!

[JervillianSwike]

Hi Mike,

I've been reading your book over the last few days and just finished with lesson 8.

I'm having a bit of trouble with the phrases, "fails to consider" and "takes for granted." For example, on the first flaw drill on page 102, I wrote, "Falsely equates a healthier emotional state with serenity." However, the book's answer is, "Takes for granted that being less prone to emotional fluctuations equates to being in a healthier emotional state." When I do try to include the phrases in my answers, they are frequently different from the answers given in the book. In your opinion, how important is the inclusion of these phrases in fully understanding the flaw? I've done well on the sample questions so far, but are there questions where distinguishing between the two phrases is helpful?

Thank you for writing the book and making yourself available on this forum.

[cheeseman92]

Hi Mike,

I am studying for the December test. I have been studying for about 6 months now, and I started with a diagnostic score of 137. I have been studying with LSAT Trainer and 7Sage materials, and I am consistently scoring about 160 now. My goal is 166. I still have 20 more PTs left, and I'm not sure where to go from now on. Do you think I should postpone the test? I am missing about 15-18 on LR (both sections combined) and about 6-9 on RC. I am not too worried about LG. I have read all of the Trainer book and gone through 7Sage materials as of now.

Should I continue with PT + Review until December? Or postpone the test? Is it worth postponing? That means another year. I know this is a good time to go to law school for those with lower numbers because of a decrease in the applicants. Is this coming to an end anytime soon?

Also, when do you give up? When do you know that you have reached your maximum potential and move on?

These are all very broad questions and somewhat pessimistic. I apologize. Thank you so much for your time.

Sincerely,
A desperate LSAT student...

[jlk411]

I am working on the Extreme Links Drill in The Trainer (thanks for all of your help with the book btw!). Are you able to write down what your conditional statements look like? I am having troule with diagramming "Leon will only attend if Sarah does not".

Thanks!

[mornincounselor]

Post removed.

[The LSAT Trainer]

Hi Mike,

I've been reading your book over the last few days and just finished with lesson 8.

I'm having a bit of trouble with the phrases, "fails to consider" and "takes for granted." For example, on the first flaw drill on page 102, I wrote, "Falsely equates a healthier emotional state with serenity." However, the book's answer is, "Takes for granted that being less prone to emotional fluctuations equates to being in a healthier emotional state." When I do try to include the phrases in my answers, they are frequently different from the answers given in the book. In your opinion, how important is the inclusion of these phrases in fully understanding the flaw? I've done well on the sample questions so far, but are there questions where distinguishing between the two phrases is helpful?

Thank you for writing the book and making yourself available on this forum.

Hi there --

Sorry if I didn't make this so clear in the book, but I'll discuss the relationship between those two phrases more specifically in a later chapter--ideally I'd love for you to feel like you understand flaws very conceptually, and can explain them using a variety of terms -- so, for example, you feel comfortable describing flaws using either "takes for granted" or "fails to consider" or, as you correctly did w/your own wording - "falsely equates" --

An analogy I'll give is understanding a word in terms of one memorized definition vs understanding a word so well you could define it in a variety of ways. I think that it's a great idea to strive for the equivalent of the latter --

On a practical level, when you think about how test writers make flaw q's more difficult in the answering stage, they don't do it by mentioning secondary or unexpected flaws -- so, if you correctly identify the main issue w/an argument, that main issue will be what the right answer will be about. The way the test writers make harder answers for flaw questions is thus to phrase issues in ways you don't expect or that are more challenging or indirect - the more flexible you are with describing the flaw in different ways the better. In addition, it just so happens that "fails to consider" and "takes for granted" are phrases the test writers themselves use again and again, and so practicing phrasing flaws using those two different statements can do you a lot of good.

Sorry -- that's a very long-winded way of saying that your definition of the flaw is great, and I encourage you to work to be comfortable describing flaws in a variety of ways --

Hope that helps and hope you are enjoying the book -- let me know if you have any follow up or need anything else --

Mike

[The LSAT Trainer]

Hi Mike,

I am studying for the December test. I have been studying for about 6 months now, and I started with a diagnostic score of 137. I have been studying with LSAT Trainer and 7Sage materials, and I am consistently scoring about 160 now. My goal is 166. I still have 20 more PTs left, and I'm not sure where to go from now on. Do you think I should postpone the test? I am missing about 15-18 on LR (both sections combined) and about 6-9 on RC. I am not too worried about LG. I have read all of the Trainer book and gone through 7Sage materials as of now.

Should I continue with PT + Review until December? Or postpone the test? Is it worth postponing? That means another year. I know this is a good time to go to law school for those with lower numbers because of a decrease in the applicants. Is this coming to an end anytime soon?

Also, when do you give up? When do you know that you have reached your maximum potential and move on?

These are all very broad questions and somewhat pessimistic. I apologize. Thank you so much for your time.

Sincerely,
A desperate LSAT student...

Hi there -- I'm really impressed with your message and it's hard for me to not get overly sappy but I'll do my best --

I have a different take on what you are feeling/experiencing right now -- I don't think you are in a bad place at all -- you've made incredible gains and you are within striking distance of your goal score.

I could be wrong, but I feel like what you are experiencing instead is that feeling we all get of something getting harder as we get to the end -- the way the end of a long run always feels the toughest, no matter the distance (or so people who exercise tell me) --

You know yourself best and a lot of this advice depends on how "solid" or not your current 160 level feels, but I really believe that you can get where you want to be and it'd be a waste for you to think otherwise. The worst thing that can possibly happen is that you need to take it again later, which you'd have to do anyway. This is a situation where the upside is tremendous -- you have a very realistic chance of achieving your goals, and the downside almost non-existent --

At your score level, you've gotten over the hump of "getting" the exam and it's now about getting stronger and stronger -- the points are all around you, and I encourage you to be as aggressive as you can in seeking them out -- take a little mini-vacation from the LSAT if you have to, then continue on with your pt and review plan, and every problem you try and then review, try to gain another inch and another inch and I believe you have enough time to improve as much as you need --

More specifically, I encourage you (if you aren't doing this already) to take stock of the
a) the problems you miss and
b) the problems that you don't solve ideally (games where the setup took too long or an easy LR q you should answered faster and more easily) --

And do your best to see patterns in the challenges that you face (the notebook organizer tool on the website is useful for that if you don't have some sort of system already) --

For each of these q's, force yourself to think of your issues as falling into the three categories I stress in the trainer --

I had trouble because I...
a) thought through it wrong -- that is, didn't think about the reasoning issues correctly
b) read it wrong -- not prioritizing the right parts of a stimulus, or not seeing the particular nuance of an RC q stem
c) i solved it wrong -- you tried hypos on an LG q when you didn't need to and wasted time, or didn't use the right issues to try to eliminate incorrect answers to an RC q, etc.

If you keep doing this for all the work you do you will invariably see patterns and recognize your own weaknesses better, and it'll make it easier for you to find small and specific ways to improve --

You are almost there, and I'd love to see you nail it in Dec -- 137 to 166 would be awfully impressive success story --

Wish you the best and don't hesitate to get in touch if you need me -- MK

[The LSAT Trainer]

I am working on the Extreme Links Drill in The Trainer (thanks for all of your help with the book btw!). Are you able to write down what your conditional statements look like? I am having troule with diagramming "Leon will only attend if Sarah does not".

Thanks!

Hi there --

I get a lot of q's about this very line --

Short answer:

"Leon will only attend if Sarah does not" translates to

L -> - S, S -> -L

Longer than necessary answer:

As part of my job I've spent a lot of my time studying and thinking about why students get certain things wrong -- when it comes to conditional logic, certainly in part it has to with the actual language challenges (and the fact that these words sometimes--per the context--don't mean exactly the same thing in our everyday lives that they do on the LSAT) -- but the two problems I want to mention here that I see cause problems for students again and again are --

1) confusing/overlapping their thinking of conditional logic and causation - conditional logic and causation are two separate reasoning issues and you shouldn't think about them the same.
2) confusing/overlapping their thinking of conditional logic and time sequence - we naturally think in terms of one thing happening then another (for example, Sally decides then Leon decides) but conditional logic is not at all about the sequence of events and you shouldn't think of these issues together.

When students make mistakes with conditional statements, or when they are uncertain about them, in my experience, again and again it commonly involves situations where the conditional logic doesn't go in the same "direction" as the causation or timing, and because, whether they realize it or not, students are pulled and influenced by these thinking about causation or sequence, they have a harder time thinking about the conditional statements correctly and accurately. So, for example, if you worry about whether Sally going or not causes Leon to go or not, you put yourself in a much worse position to understand the statement correctly.

You want to remember that conditional logic is all about guarantees -- knowing one thing will be sufficient for guaranteeing the truth of another thing -- not causation or sequence --

Another thing to remember is that the options for how a conditional rule can play out will always be very limited, and whenever you aren't sure about a rule, you have plenty of time to play out the possibilities to figure out how it actually works.

So, going back to "Leon will only attend if Sarah does not" --

We have two elements involved -- L and S -- and they can either go or not go -- so the four possible sufficient triggers are: L, -L, S, - S -- and we can try each of them out to see if any of them guarantee anything --

What MUST BE GUARANTEED if Leon attends? Well, per the statement "Leon will only attend if Sarah does not" it must be true Sarah did not. Thus we know for sure

L -> - S.

What MUST BE GUARANTEED if Leon doesn't attend? Nothing. We don't know whether Sarah attended or not.

However, let's just imagine for a second that we couldn't figure that out -- we didn't feel "sure" this didn't guarantee anything -- that's okay -- keep going and look for things you are sure of.

Next up -- What MUST BE GUARANTEED if Sarah attends? Well, if Leon only attends if Sarah does not, we know for sure that if

S -> - L.

You can play out the last trigger (-S) if you want, but by this point we know which way the guarantees go -- We know for sure this statement gives us

L -> - S and S -> - L, which are contrapositives of each other.

Hope that helps -- please feel free to follow up if you need anything else or if I wasn't clear about something -- MK

[fakeacct12]

Hi Mike

I just completed your book earlier this week and I have to say it was one of the best LSAT prep books I have read. It was very comprehensive and I really like how you emphasize habits and mental discipline. I have a few questions though that don't appear to be answered from your 1st post(via the hyperlinks). Rather than posting a bunch of questions as I was reading the book, I decided to just write it down on a note card and post it all once I have completed the book.

They are actually quite short though so it won't be too taxing on you.

1.) I didn't see anywhere in the book with you telling or mentioning to prephase for resolve questions. Are we suppose to not prephase ie come up with various ways to resolve the paradox once we identify it? You write in your book to hit the answer choices with how come "paradox" and then see if the answer choices work. Just curious.

2.) Should we treat explain questions the same way as resolve? I know some of the explain questions may already list the exact paradox or unexpected result in the q stem. Is this something we should read prior to reading the stimulus if the question stem lists it out? I see some explain questions and something think they might be a strengthen, but im not sure because if it is, then my approach changed quite a bit(looking for flaw/subjective)

3.) I know you have a section dedicated to strengthen/weaken on RC. So for these types on RC, should we treat similar to strengthen/weaken in LR ie trying to think of the flaw as we would in LR?

4.) Any hints on handling new question stems that appear on the test? such as "which of the following would best support the conclusion above" with the stimulus phrased as a must complete(with the ____ at the end)"

5.)Last question. I know you advocate working wrong to right on LR, but lets say of the 1st 10 questions you know the answer to 5/10 very well. It matches patterns and is a classic ad hom, or whole to part fallacy. And let says answer choice A matches your prephase. Is it ok to pick it and go if you're 100% certain or would you still want us to work wrong to right for all LR questions.

Thank you for everything and the resources provided here and on your website

[The LSAT Trainer]

Hey Mike I underperformed in September and my biggest problem area was RC (-8, of -20 combined) so I'm been focusing on almost exclusively RC just doing section after section and I created a separate account on 7sage to input just those RC results. I've done about 120 passages mostly untimed. I'm at a stage now where I miss between 0-2 untimed and I'm averaging 2.5 wrong per section timed.

Spending so much time on RC though I feel I've fallen behind on the other sections. LR was always my favorite and I just took a test and missed 7 LR questions including 2 within the first 5 questions! One was a misread of agree vs disagree in a point question and the other was a similar silly error. I also missed 3 on LG including 2 on the first game.

I know I just have to keep drilling LG and working through LR problems (and perhaps a run through of the Trainer is in order) but my question is do students, in your experience, struggle with the other sections as they focus on the third section? Would it be better to split my hours every day somewhat equally between the sections instead of spending whole days doing a single section type?

Thanks Mike

Hey MC --

Sorry to hear about Sept -- I was rooting for you, and I'm sure you'll get the score you need in Dec --

In my experience it's fine to take a bit of a break from two sections to focus on the third - LSAT skills don't really go away (in fact, they can even get stronger while staying dormant) -- however, you do definitely want to make sure you are in optimal test taking shape on test day (habits and reactions as sharp as can be), and since it's only a few weeks a way, you do want to make sure you get in enough LR and LG to make sure you are back in a rhythm with them -- so, if you want to spend the majority of your time on RC for the next week or so that's fine, but make sure you are getting some LR and RC touches, and make sure you are in full PT mode for the final couple of weeks --

One other thing I want to mention, though I know you didn't ask about this --

I do not recommend untimed practice, especially for RC, and especially this close to the exam.

I'm sure there is some good that you are getting out of it (and of course I trust you know what works best for you), but in my experience it can do some harm as well, and I encourage you to try to mimic the test as accurately as possible for as much of your remaining prep as possible --

Best of luck -- get in touch if you need anything else -- MK

[The LSAT Trainer]

Hi Mike

I just completed your book earlier this week and I have to say it was one of the best LSAT prep books I have read. It was very comprehensive and I really like how you emphasize habits and mental discipline. I have a few questions though that don't appear to be answered from your 1st post(via the hyperlinks). Rather than posting a bunch of questions as I was reading the book, I decided to just write it down on a note card and post it all once I have completed the book.

They are actually quite short though so it won't be too taxing on you.

1.) I didn't see anywhere in the book with you telling or mentioning to prephase for resolve questions. Are we suppose to not prephase ie come up with various ways to resolve the paradox once we identify it? You write in your book to hit the answer choices with how come "paradox" and then see if the answer choices work. Just curious.

2.) Should we treat explain questions the same way as resolve? I know some of the explain questions may already list the exact paradox or unexpected result in the q stem. Is this something we should read prior to reading the stimulus if the question stem lists it out? I see some explain questions and something think they might be a strengthen, but im not sure because if it is, then my approach changed quite a bit(looking for flaw/subjective)

3.) I know you have a section dedicated to strengthen/weaken on RC. So for these types on RC, should we treat similar to strengthen/weaken in LR ie trying to think of the flaw as we would in LR?

4.) Any hints on handling new question stems that appear on the test? such as "which of the following would best support the conclusion above" with the stimulus phrased as a must complete(with the ____ at the end)"

5.)Last question. I know you advocate working wrong to right on LR, but lets say of the 1st 10 questions you know the answer to 5/10 very well. It matches patterns and is a classic ad hom, or whole to part fallacy. And let says answer choice A matches your prephase. Is it ok to pick it and go if you're 100% certain or would you still want us to work wrong to right for all LR questions.

Thank you for everything and the resources provided here and on your website

Hi there --

Glad you've found the trainer helpful --

Your q's are indeed very short, but unfortunately my responses may not be -- I apologize in advance for the length -- if I had more time I would be more succinct --

I think that several of your q's relate to two key issues -- I know you know them from reading the book but I'll lay them out again here for the discussion --

1) Certain types of q's are designed to have answers that you can predict, and others are designed to have answers that you know something about --

It's the difference between these math questions:

1) 5 + 2 =
a) 6
b) 7
c) 8

2) Which of the following numbers is even?
a) 5
b) 6
c) 7

ID the flaw and ID the conclusion are two examples of q's for which we should know the substance (though not the exact wording) of the right answer. Match the reasoning, or strengthen or weaken are examples of q types for which we can't predict the actual substance of the right answer, and for which we determine right and wrong because we understand the characteristics that the right answer needs to have.

2) Some situations involve arguments and others don't. There is a critical difference between a conclusion and an argument (which you want to narrowly define as the relationship between support and the point). You should have different expectations and different strategies for these different situations.

Okay, so now let's get to your q's --

#1 & 2) Yeah, if we're talking about the same thing, I group explain q's and paradox q's together, and for both, I think it's very important to predict the function of the answer but not the substance.

This makes perfect sense, I think, if you look at these q's from the test writer's perspective.

First, to give some context, imagine a test writer wants to make the correct answer to an "ID the conclusion" q as difficult as possible to identify. How does he do that? He can't do it by changing the substance of the conclusion -- it is what it is -- he can only make it difficult by masking it with language.

But how does a test writer make an "explain this" question more difficult? One common way is to come up with an unexpected explanation that nevertheless fulfills the function. So essentially, in an over-simplified view of things, you can say that the harder the paradox q, the less likely the answer will fit a "reasonable reason you might be able to predict" -- so that's why I don't recommend you predict what the answer will be (though invariably certain possibilities can jump into your mind and of course that's fine and great), and rather focus on what function the answer will play.

In terms of how it relates to your strengthen skills -- the difference for these q's is that --

1) you are not being asked to strengthen a bond between support and a conclusion.
2) you are not being asked to just support a conclusion in a vacuum.
3) you are given information in the stimulus that conflicts with a point being made, and what you are looking for is an answer that supports the conclusion by offering a counter to the information that goes against that conclusion.

And #3 should really be your barometer for confirming the right answer -- does it help strengthen the validity of the conclusion by countering the conflicting info in the stimulus?

#3) I think the big difference is that for LR 9/10 times you are being asked to strengthen or weaken an argument -- which is specifically the relationship between support and conclusion -- whereas for RC you are typically asked to strengthen or weaken a point/opinion/conclusion. This opinion may have support or it may not, it may have evidence against or may not, or may have neither evidence for or against, and all we may be given is some background for context. So for RC, typically, instead of expecting to zero in an argument and the flaw in the argument, you want to instead think more generally about the point being made, and how it relates to various other information the passage -- sometimes a right answer will offset a counterexample, or it will turn background information into support by giving us something new -- and you want to stay open and flexible to that.

#4) Every test or two the writers will throw in a relatively unique LR question stem -- they are always variations on the norm, and so it can be helpful to think about how they relate to the standard categories. A fairly common trick is they will combine language or style from one q type and another, and invariably certain wrong choices will punish those who don't read the stem carefully enough or work off memorized methods too much -- the q stem you bring up is just such an example -- it's a strengthen q, but with a form that one commonly sees in inference q's --

So, my advice is just to be on the lookout for that 1 q stem that may be worded in a way that's meant to throw you off a bit, and in these cases practice being super-careful about relating the situation to standard categories and recognizing when they are trying to throw you in the wrong direction.

If you are nervous about your skills with this, one exercise you can do (probably take about 30 mins or less) is to go through the question breakdown pages I offer on my website, look up all the q's by category and look at their stems, and mark out the ones you find unusual. I think if you do this for just a little bit, you'll start to see some very clear patterns in terms of how they come up with these unusual q stems and how they try to get you with them.

5) This is one of those situations where if a student feels comfortable enough w/the test to ignore my advice, I'm okay with it --

To give an analogy -- in basketball it is not fundamentally correct to jump before you make a pass, and coaches will tell you not to do this -- however, if you are Derrick Rose, you can do stuff like this -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFedG-hybGk --

So if you want to do it, go for it - but a couple of pieces of advice --

a) think of it as a tradeoff between time and accuracy, and use your practice tests/practice sections to get better and better at figuring out what works best for you -- that is, try out using elimination more or less, keep gauging the results, and try to get to a point of ideal balance.

b) keep in mind that in general it's easier for you to id the right answer for q's for which you can predict the right answer (duh), and typically q types that have unpredictable right answers will require more of your elimination skills. So, I'd be much more comfortable w/you answering an ID the Conclusion q without vetting all answers and much less comfortable if you answered a match the reasoning w/o eliminating.

Whew! Even longer than I anticipated -- sorry for the length but I hope at least some of that was helpful -- great q's, and if you have any follow up or need anything else just let me know -- MK

[fakeacct12]

Thanks for the quality response Mike.

I was just curious about what your opinion is about retaking PTs? I read through the last 5-10 pages but I didn't see anyone post a similar question. I checked the 1st page and didn't see any hyperlinks about retaking Pts. Most of the PTs I am taking currently, in preparation for the Dec Test, are retakes. I only saved 2 PTs. I'll retake the most recent test(Sept) as well.

Should I be skeptical of the scaled score and just gauge how well my mental discipline and habits are at this point?

Thanks

[jlk411]

THANK YOU SO MUCH for the detailed response!

[GreenTee]

Thanks for the quality response Mike.

I was just curious about what your opinion is about retaking PTs? I read through the last 5-10 pages but I didn't see anyone post a similar question. I checked the 1st page and didn't see any hyperlinks about retaking Pts. Most of the PTs I am taking currently, in preparation for the Dec Test, are retakes. I only saved 2 PTs. I'll retake the most recent test(Sept) as well.

Should I be skeptical of the scaled score and just gauge how well my mental discipline and habits are at this point?

Thanks

Also interested to hear your take on PT retakes, Mike.

TYIA -- Love your work.

[The LSAT Trainer]

Thanks for the quality response Mike.

I was just curious about what your opinion is about retaking PTs? I read through the last 5-10 pages but I didn't see anyone post a similar question. I checked the 1st page and didn't see any hyperlinks about retaking Pts. Most of the PTs I am taking currently, in preparation for the Dec Test, are retakes. I only saved 2 PTs. I'll retake the most recent test(Sept) as well.

Should I be skeptical of the scaled score and just gauge how well my mental discipline and habits are at this point?

Thanks

Also interested to hear your take on PT retakes, Mike.

TYIA -- Love your work.

Short answer - I do think they are useful. As you mentioned, I would consider the score less accurate (not necessarily “X points higher” than what you would get otherwise, just less correct an indication of true ability level), and also as you mentioned I’d encourage you to use the retake pt’s to consider your big-picture skill set/habits going into the exam. I also think it’s a good idea to limit your section timing a bit (say, to 32 mins per) to offset some of the advantage that familiarity gives you.

Long answer -

At this point (and I believe you are taking in Dec but let me know if I’m wrong on that) three things that you want to get out of your final prep are --

1) get your timing strategies set so that you don’t have to waste time and energy making them up on test day.
2) try to i.d. and fine-tune any weakness you may have in terms of understanding or strategies
3) try to i.d. and fine-tune any habits that may not be as consistent as they ought to be

Obviously, these three things are all related (in particular our habits and timing strategies), and I think that retaking old pt’s can be helpful for all of them -- more specifically --

I imagine that when you take pt’s you naturally pay attention to q’s you missed and q’s you found challenging -- when retaking, I also encourage you to mark along the way q’s for which you felt your process was inefficient or q’s where you took too long -- whether they be games that should have taken you 5 mins but took 8, or a tough LR that you don’t mind spending 1:40 on that actually took over 3 mins.

Study these q’s carefully, and try to decide for yourself whether -
1) you were inefficient because there was something lacking in your understanding or strategy or
2) you were inefficient because of bad habits (wasted time doing stuff w/a wrong answer that weren’t necessary, etc.)

Keep track of these problems (that is, take notes) and look for patterns. See what they tell you about understanding/strategies/habits that need to be strengthened, and if any weaknesses jump out at you, take time to address these specific areas.

In terms of the q’s you missed/found challenging, if you took notes on them the first time through it can be very interesting to compare and contrast them to the more recent retake --

If you missed exactly the same problems for the same reasons, these are strong signs of weaknesses in understanding or strategy.

If you missed totally different q’s, and suddenly found certain q’s much easier than the first time taking the test and others much harder, these are strong signs that you aren’t as consistent as you ought to be (that is, you need to strengthen your habits).

And lastly, make sure you are using these tests to firm up your timing strategies (I think I pretty much discuss all of what follows is discussed in the trainer but just to emphasize it here...) --

A lot of students, and even some prep companies, confuse timing strategies with simply setting timing goals -- planning to get through a certain number of LR q’s in a certain amount of time or planning to finish the second game by a certain time and so on --

Setting such goals is necessary but it’s just the tip of the iceberg -- what’s going to give you a significant advantage is if you can go into the exam with set and practiced strategies for handling a variety of timing challenges -- from the micro (steps to take before knowing you need to move on from an LR q for example) to the macro (figuring out how to maximize points if you are running behind in a section, for example).

To that end, you don’t want to think about your pt timing simply in terms of “did I go fast enough” -- instead, you want to use your pt’s to think very carefully about each of the timing decisions you make (rushed through a game setup when you didn’t have to / decided to spend an extra minute on a q when you shouldn’t have, etc.), try to figure out the very best strategies that fit your current ability level / goal score, and use these tests to get better and better at making such decisions and doing so more easily.

One of the worst mindsets to have going into the exam is thinking that, in order to get the score that you need, everything has to go perfectly--you have to “nail” exact timing goals, etc. -- the test simply doesn’t work that way and things are not going to go perfect and if you have this sort of mindset you will be at a disadvantage when you run into challenges (which you invariably will). If instead you are able to go in thinking in a more practical fashion about the fact that your job is to maximize the number of points you can collect in a limited amount of time, and if you feel that you have the understanding/strategies/habits to do this well, I think it gives you an enormous advantage on test day, and puts you in a much better position to perform closer to the top end of your ability range.

Your final pt’s -- including the retakes -- can obviously be extremely useful for this, and in fact even if you hadn’t thought about such timing strategies at all up to this point (though hopefully you have) I think there is plenty of time between now and test day to do so and to firm them up and give yourself that edge. Again, a lot of people take the test without timing strategies and a lot of them take it with timing goals only—you will get a significant leg up on your competition if you go in with specific and practiced ways to deal w/the various timing challenges and decisions that will arise.

And as I mentioned in the shorter answer, I do think it’s also a good idea to limit your section timing a bit more (to 32 mins, or even 30 depending on your situation) to offset some of the advantages you get from having seen an exam before, and, if you want to take it to the next extreme, it’s also not a bad idea to use to use a couple of pt’s to practice reacting to “significant” timing issues, maybe by giving yourself just 25 mins a section.

Hope at least some of that is relevant and helpful -- as always, if you have any follow up or need anything else, just let me know.

[GreenTee]

Mike, I'm a nervous wreck. It's a chronic condition and a character defect, but it's also a pretty serious handicap when it comes to standardized testing. I'm sure you've answered this question in some capacity before, but I'd really like to hear your thoughts about reducing anxiety on test day and the week before.

Some background: I'm retaking on December 6th. I took the test in September after studying for 13 months. My diag was a 149, and I was averaging ~171 for my last 10 PTs prior to the Sept test. I scored a 166. I didn't feel overtly nervous during the test, but in retrospect, I rushed through many of the sections (finished RC and LR1 right around 30) and missed questions I shouldn't have missed. I was also vomiting from nerves the day before (sorry for the TMI, but it's a relevant detail).

I started studying again on October 21st, and I've taken 16 PTs since then (all retakes, but I've been doing them back to back and limiting time) and drilled all sections heavily. My average across those 16 PTs is 177.8. I'm starting to get nervous, but I feel like I am as prepared as I could expect to be at this point. How do I keep my cool for the next week?

Also, I'm starting to feel a little burnt out. Should I take a day off now and push through the weekend, or wait until next week to start gradually tapering off?

[The LSAT Trainer]

Mike, I'm a nervous wreck. It's a chronic condition and a character defect, but it's also a pretty serious handicap when it comes to standardized testing. I'm sure you've answered this question in some capacity before, but I'd really like to hear your thoughts about reducing anxiety on test day and the week before.

Some background: I'm retaking on December 6th. I took the test in September after studying for 13 months. My diag was a 149, and I was averaging ~171 for my last 10 PTs prior to the Sept test. I scored a 166. I didn't feel overtly nervous during the test, but in retrospect, I rushed through many of the sections (finished RC and LR1 right around 30) and missed questions I shouldn't have missed. I was also vomiting from nerves the day before (sorry for the TMI, but it's a relevant detail).

I started studying again on October 21st, and I've taken 16 PTs since then (all retakes, but I've been doing them back to back and limiting time) and drilled all sections heavily. My average across those 16 PTs is 177.8. I'm starting to get nervous, but I feel like I am as prepared as I could expect to be at this point. How do I keep my cool for the next week?

Also, I'm starting to feel a little burnt out. Should I take a day off now and push through the weekend, or wait until next week to start gradually tapering off?

I feel your pain -- I am also someone who, by nature, suffers from nerves a bit more than others do. However, I'm proud to say that I feel I’ve largely conquered any such issues (though it took me far longer than I would have liked) --

About taking time off -- I think it’s totally, totally fine - it’s not like you have much more to learn or get better at -- take a few days if you want to -- just make sure you rev up properly starting beginning of next week (though take it easy the day before the exam) --

Here are a few thoughts about handling anxiety on test day -- the first three are my “professional” responses based on my experiences with students, and the last is a slightly hokey bit of personal advice -- as always please take the advice that applies and ignore the rest --

1) Be aggressive

At your score level, you aren’t used to making a lot of errors, and I’m sure you’ve got a fantasy of things going easily/perfectly on test day -- this can lead to you trying to be a bit too precious and meticulous, and next thing you know you’ve spent 8 mins on a game that should have taken you 6 -- a seemingly small issue that might come back to haunt you when you really need those extra two minutes on a harder game --

Remember to try to hit the ground running and try to be as aggressive as possible at the beginning of each section. This of course does not mean you ought to rush or skip essential steps -- still of course do everything you need to do to ensure that you get problems correct -- just try to go through each of the necessary steps as quickly and aggressively as possible (as opposed to trying to be too methodical and perfect).

2) Stay in the Moment

Do not sit in the car beforehand and think about how hard you’ve studied, how much a top score will mean to your family’s future, etc. Think those types of thoughts now and get it over with. None of that stuff will help you on test day, and it can prevent you from being as sharp as you ought to be.

More importantly, do your best to think of each section as a brand new exam, and make sure to be aware of, and prepared for, what I guess is technically considered “decision fatigue.”

The vast majority of test takers will distract themselves in one section with thoughts of what they should have done in a previous section, or at the least drain a slight bit of energy because of regret or uncertainty or whatever.

Practice setting a fake mental reset button in between sections in your head during your pts, and try to do the same thing on test day -- of the 10 seconds in between sections -- try to spend 5 going into a fantasy or whatever else you need to try to refresh and refocus.

Also, as I’ve mentioned in previous posts -- make sure to have your timing strategies/backup systems etc. all set so that you don’t have to waste as much mental energy making tough timing decisions on test day. You want to avoid thinking about the test as a whole, because that won’t help you with the problem at hand.

Think of yourself as an athlete or performer -- you want to be totally focused in on the question in front of you, with all your talents at your disposal -- think of the things that detract from this, and use your final pt’s to work on getting rid of distractions and staying in the moment.

3) Embrace challenges

Even though you are clearly at an expert level, I promise you that there will be situations on the exam that scare the hell out of you. But these challenges will also be scaring the hell out of everyone else taking the test, and the difference is that you are far better prepared than everybody else to face these challenges head on.

There will be absolutely nothing on your exam that you haven’t seen before. I promise you. You are beyond prepared.

I know it’s easier said than done, but don’t be afraid to run into difficult situations. Understand that those (and not the easier ones) are the situations where you truly get to differentiate yourself and show how much stronger and more prepared you are than everyone else.

There may be a couple of questions you have trouble with on test day but that’s okay -- there are very, very few people who are as prepared to take the test as you are, and over the course of the entire exam you will have plenty of time to show how much stronger you are -- don’t worry about hiccups, be confident in your skills, and try to face each challenge head on.

And finally, here’s my final bit of hokey advice --

Let me say in advance that this is not advice that applies to everyone (or maybe not even any of you), and if you don’t think this will work for you, it probably won’t -- please, please ignore it. I only mention it because I think a couple of you might know exactly what I mean, and exactly why this might work for you. For the rest of you, I hope you don’t think any differently of me for suggesting it --

4) Get Angry

At people who may have doubted you, or tried to mess with you -- and think of the test as a giant “Fuck you, you haven’t been able to break me, look at what I can do.”

I think being angry can really help you stay focused and aggressive, and it can help take away doubt so that you can really spend all your energy trying to make sure you get problems correct. Again, I don’t think this is advice that applies to most, but if you think it might work for you, maybe try it out before a few final pt’s and see what impact it has.

It’s great to hear that you’ve gotten to such a high level, and even though you are nervous, I’m personally very excited for you and can’t wait to see how you do. Hope you found at least some of that helpful, and if you have any follow up or need anything else please let me know -- I’m going to do my best to be around as much as possible up to the Dec exam --

Mike

[mist4bison]

.

[The LSAT Trainer]

Hey Mike!

I bought the Trainer last January and read through over half of it before I stopped studying for the LSAT. I started studying again this Sept and have since taken a TM course, read a couple chapters in Manhattan, and looked at some stuff on 7sage. I've avoided going back to the Trainer because I didn't want to redo the chapters I'd already done. Now I am wishing I'd reread it before my TM course and looking at other books. At this point, I want to use the Trainer, because I remember it being helpful, but I'm not sure how to do so. I know that I have the fundamentals down for LG (I've been going -0 consistently) and LR I'm getting better. RC is improving, but still a struggle (My best is -6, lowest -14, average probably -9).

My question is: What is the best approach in utilizing the Trainer now that I'm past the basics?

Thanks for any advice! Also, I apologize if this has already been discussed.

Hey M4B--

Great q and sorry for the delay -- been tied up working w/ Dec takers --

I assume you are taking in Feb --

In terms of how you should approach the trainer, I think it can be helpful to think about what you want to ultimately get out of it and when --

Per how long you've been studying, etc., I imagine you'll want to be done with all of your general learning by at least end of Dec, so that you can pretty much focus on pt's, review, and maybe just a bit of drilling for the final month --

So that gives you a month to get through the book (which should be fine for review work) --

And I think that by the end of Dec, ideally where you want to be is --
1) Totally comfortable with your level of understanding -- how well you understand all the concepts being tested and how the test itself is designed.
2) Totally comfortable with your strategies -- you feel you have a comprehensive understanding of all the challenges the test can present, and effective methods for handling these challenges.
3) Feeling like your skill set is nearly complete -- you should feel confident that in almost all situations you can apply your understanding and strategies effectively. There may be a few skills that aren't 100% there yet, but you should know what these weaknesses are and be able to address them in the final month.
4) Feeling like your habits are mostly there -- ideally, you want to go into that final month with almost everything else in place so that you can focus on proper execution -- habitually applying the right skills at the right time. You should feel like you have very good habits going into the final month, and if your understanding, strategies, and skill set are all strong, that final month of practice should be more than enough to firm up your habits to put you in great position for test day.

On the flip side, what you don't want is to finish the trainer at the end of dec, and then decide what the best strategies ought to be, what skills you want to utilize, etc. -- that's not going to give you enough time firm up habits the best you can.

So, in order to put yourself in a better position by the time you are done w/the trainer, I suggest you--

a) do an assessment before you dive back in deep -- more on this in just a bit.
b) carefully combine trainer work with drilling -- so that you can use your drilling to make decisions about which strategies work best for you.

So, in terms of the assessment -- you can do whatever you want, but basically you want to get a sense of where you are in terms of understanding, strategies, skills, and habits, and you want to develop a clearer sense of what areas you want to strengthen or prop up with your trainer work. This will help you use the trainer more efficiently.

One method for you to do this assessment would be to --
1) start with one large piece of paper for each section type - LR, RC, and LG -- I am partial to Rhodia 16.5 X 12.5 dot pads but anything is fine -
2) split up the sheet into 2 areas -- a very large one for understanding/strategies, and a small corner box for notes about skills/habits
3) before looking back through your materials, write out your most important understanding/strategies (LR q types, RC q strategies, what can happen in LG's, etc.), and take some notes on how good you feel about your skills and habits for the section.
4) next, return to your materials (books, notes, whatever) and fill in everything else there is to fill in the best you can (maybe you forget to consider certain LR q types, etc.)
**I think doing steps 3 & 4 separately can be very helpful for helping you see which lessons you've really internalized vs which ones you've read/understood but aren't really utilizing***

Once you've done the above, you can create a basic "goals" sheet of what's most important for you to get out of the trainer, and this will help you figure out for yourself how to best allocate the time you spend with it.

A few other notes about using the trainer effectively --

1) The book is designed to be very skimmable -- if you take any chapter and spend just 3 minutes reading through and looking at the bolding, pull quotes, subject matter of the drills, etc., you can get a very clear sense of exactly what is being discussed in that lesson -- you don't have to worry that some key bit of insight or strategy is "hidden" in the middle of some paragraph -- so, use markers as guideposts of where you ought to devote more or less time -- I encourage you to devote more time not only to your weaknesses (duh) but also to those sections where you think to yourself "why is Mike writing about this?" -- these sections will perhaps cover issues your other study materials did not / issues you may not have considered yet.

2) The LG drills are not trainer specific (that is, you can do any of them using any other diagramming strategies you choose) so even though you are already very strong at LG I encourage you to at least take a look at them and perhaps go through them when you see they might be useful for you --

Before I designed the drills, I did a super-detailed breakdown of every single challenge (how games and questions are made hard/why students miss problems) presented by every problem for every game over years and years, and I categorized and organized all of these challenges -- the LG drills represent the micro-skills that I found to be most commonly important for having success with the hardest games -- so, they can work as a great "checklist" for you to make sure you're all set on stuff such as translating biconditionals, etc. So again, I encourage you to at least take a look at each of them and to try out any that you think might address potential weaknesses.

3) From what you mentioned, it seems the two areas that you need to focus on most as you go through the trainer are reading strategies and task specific strategies. Keep in mind that there is great overlap between the reading strategies necessary for RC success and LR success, and the better you can get at understanding and staying objective about the reasoning structure, the better you'll get at both.

In terms of task-specific strategies, one part of the trainer that I encourage you to pay extra attention to is the part that discusses strategies for different types of RC questions -- the differences between RC q types are far more subtle than those between LR q types but can be just as important, and often students can greatly improve their score by paying better attention to, and understanding the significance of, the subtle differences in the tasks presented in the question stem.

Sorry for the length, and I hope at least some of that was helpful -- again,to summarize-- I think if you do a self-assessment before getting back deep into the trainer, use the trainer to consider and finalize your understanding and strategies, combine it with outside drill work (such as cambridge sets) to firm up skills and habits, and finish up in the next month or so, you'll put yourself in terrific position to go into that final month of prep --

As always, please don't hesitate to reach out if you have any follow up or further q's -- MK

[Sherlock1122]

Hey Mike,

First off, thank you for writing this book. I just started it a few weeks ago, but finally feel like someone is writing to those of us trying to bump up from the high 160's to the 170s. In my experience over the past few months, it's harder than I anticipated especially with cookie cutter courses and other materials.

For some reason I am really struggling on a particular type of complex "or" rule: the if and only if.
As an example: H will go before J if and only if H is after M.

I keep breaking it down to:
IF M-H, THEN H-J
and
H-J ONLY IF M-H

The answer to the drill is MHJ or JHM.

It has to do with a contrapositive right? I run through the rule in my head and continually end up with:

M-H-J/M-H-J

Sorry for the seemingly simple question I just can't seem to wrap my mind around it. Thanks in advance!

[secadc11]

Hi Mike,

Thanks for your amazing book. I had been going an average of -8 between the two LR sections before reading your book. Having now worked through most of your LR chapters, I feel consistently more confident in my LR answers. On the PT I took last night, I scored a combined -1 for LR that led me to a 179. Thanks for the huge bump.

That said, there is one type of logic games question that frequently trips me up - rule substitution. Is there some better way to get through this sort of question than brute force? What am I missing? (And also, do you address this specific type of question in the Trainer? I haven't managed to find it in my skimming.)

Thanks Mike.

[GreenTee]

Mike, thank you so much.

In case anyone ITT doubted it: You're the best we have in the world of LSAT.

I just printed out your final words of wisdom, and I'm bringing a copy with me on test day. I think you should publish some derivation of that post on your website, if you haven't done so already. The greatest hurdle for many students is simply staying grounded and focused on test day, and a good pep talk from you could go a long way.

Thank you thank you thank you. I'll be sure to come back to post here in three weeks when I receive the (good) news!

[WaltGrace83]

Hey Mike, I'm wanting to seek some clarification on Principles. I'll use PT31-S2-Q22, "Melville's Billy Budd" as my central example:

There is no textual or historical evidence that Melville intend an allegorical reading
-->
We should be content with reading Billy Budd as a simple tragedy

Principles are often grouped with Sufficient Assumption questions because, typically, the principle question will close the gap between the premise and the conclusion, or come pretty darn close to it. However, what I think I have gathered - and want I am ultimately wanting some clarification on - is that the central difference between Sufficient Assumption and Principle questions is related to HOW the gap is closed.

In both questions, we have to address the conclusion. We have to ultimately get to those key words in the conclusion. In this case, the "key word" has to do with how we "should read" Billy Budd.

However, (A) and (D) we both tempting.

• (D) is great because it connects the premise to the conclusion. It gives a conditional (~relevant evidence --> ~allegorical reading). We know the sufficient condition (~relevant evidence) is satisfied by the premise and so the conclusion must be satisfied too! It's great.
  
  However, (A) seems like it would be sufficient too! It also gives us a conditional (choice --> choose ~allegorical). We know that the sufficient condition (choice) is satisfied. Thus, the conclusion follows.

So it seems that the central difference between (A) and (D), while both seemingly being sufficient, is that (D) deals DIRECTLY with the premise whereas (A) does not. Is THAT what principles are all about? We typically have to include BOTH the premise and the conclusion in our answer?