Top Law Schools

Just wondering if people are adding a 5th section to their PT to account for an extra section on the real test.

Seems to be a game of endurance, even with the 15 min break.

When I was studying, I did. I would cut up a couple of PTs and shuffle the sections so I wouldn't know which I was getting, then add them to my actual PTs. Just for endurance, it was useful.

Yes, I did.

Actually, I found it easier to do six-section tests. All of one PT and half of another. That way, after doing two practice runs, I could have three scores. Also made the actual LSAT feel a little short.

I did 4 sections in a row, no breaks. Worked out fine. Though I dunno how getting two RC's in a row would have gone over for me.

NayBoer wrote:Yes, I did.

Actually, I found it easier to do six-section tests. All of one PT and half of another. That way, after doing two practice runs, I could have three scores. Also made the actual LSAT feel a little short.

But can you really count the scores for a test on a section you did a couple days earlier, etc?

I remember with Kaplan I think they made us do a few 5 section test and then one didn't count. I can say one thing, I've taken the test twice so far and each time you sit there and wonder "I wonder which LG section that are using and which one is experimental." Cause you always feel you do better on one of the sections that are duplicate (or 3 in the case of LR). Just used the LG section as an example.

you should absolutely do a 5 section test. if you can't find the time, then 4 sections will suffice. get in the habit, tho, of building 5 section endurance.

I only do 4 sections, but I only take a 5 minute break inbetween them.

Desert Fox wrote:I did 4 sections in a row, no breaks. Worked out fine. Though I dunno how getting two RC's in a row would have gone over for me.

i do the same. 4 sections straight through with no breaks. i really dont see myself having stamina issues. maybe i should alternate.

Sandro777 wrote:I only do 4 sections, but I only take a 5 minute break inbetween them.

Wait...you take a break on a 4 section PT?

I don't.

I thought you were supposed to go straight through. srs.

TOMaHULK wrote:

NayBoer wrote:Yes, I did.

Actually, I found it easier to do six-section tests. All of one PT and half of another. That way, after doing two practice runs, I could have three scores. Also made the actual LSAT feel a little short.

But can you really count the scores for a test on a section you did a couple days earlier, etc?

I remember with Kaplan I think they made us do a few 5 section test and then one didn't count. I can say one thing, I've taken the test twice so far and each time you sit there and wonder "I wonder which LG section that are using and which one is experimental." Cause you always feel you do better on one of the sections that are duplicate (or 3 in the case of LR). Just used the LG section as an example.

The scores I got on those tests were basically in line with my score averages.

Closer to the LSAT I started doing eight sections a day, and scoring four tests each weekend. But I had to cram because I work full time.

I always take 5-section tests. I only give myself a 5-minute break between sections 3 and 4, and no break between other sections, so the total time comes out to 3 hours exactly.

I only do 4 to save time, but to add some stress/stamina concerns to the test I reduce my time to 32 minutes and only take 30 second breaks between sections.

I think I might try 5 section tests (with the real 15 minute break and someone timing for me) on my final two practice tests to simulate the real conditions.

I do not. I probably should. I also don't make myself wait the whole 35 minutes after I finish a section, I just stop the timer and restart it for the next section, because I'm impatient. I should probably not do that.

Maybe this weekend...

I never did five, although I usually didn't take a break with four. I think psychologically dealing with the real test being real is more important than dealing with a few extra minutes of work.

Entchen wrote:I do not. I probably should. I also don't make myself wait the whole 35 minutes after I finish a section, I just stop the timer and restart it for the next section, because I'm impatient. I should probably not do that.

Maybe this weekend...

You have extra time...?

TOMaHULK wrote:

Entchen wrote:I do not. I probably should. I also don't make myself wait the whole 35 minutes after I finish a section, I just stop the timer and restart it for the next section, because I'm impatient. I should probably not do that.

Maybe this weekend...

You have extra time...?

Wow, you must be super fast if you're finishing the whole section in nanoseconds and have 35 whole minutes left. What's your technique? I know, I'm being a douche...

I always take tests in five sections, jumping right from one section to the next, with about 5 minutes between sections three and four. I also try to make the extra section as inconvenient as possible (two RC in a row, three LR in a row, etc.).

jman77 wrote:

TOMaHULK wrote:

Entchen wrote:I do not. I probably should. I also don't make myself wait the whole 35 minutes after I finish a section, I just stop the timer and restart it for the next section, because I'm impatient. I should probably not do that.

Maybe this weekend...

You have extra time...?

Wow, you must be super fast if you're finishing the whole section in nanoseconds and have 35 whole minutes left. What's your technique? I know, I'm being a douche...

Haha, yup, I'm that good

No, I usually have about 5-8 minutes left at the end of the readingy sections, less for the games.

TOMaHULK wrote:

Sandro777 wrote:I only do 4 sections, but I only take a 5 minute break inbetween them.

Wait...you take a break on a 4 section PT?

I don't.

I thought you were supposed to go straight through. srs.

quick break after section 2. I'm trying to preserve as many full PTs as I can so I dont really see the point in adding in an expirimental section that I know is experimental. Stamina isnt my problem. I would venture to say the experimental's most detrimental aspect is the fact it could be insanely hard or easy and throw you off mentally - not the fact that another 25 questions would break me down mentally...

I always do 5 section tests. I didn't do it the first time I took the test and I think it cost me. I saw a big drop from my PTs and the real thing. This time around I wanted to make sure that I made it as realistic as possible. This way I can feel confident that my PT scores as realistic as possible. I am very confident that I will be scoring within a point or two of my PT averages.

theavrock wrote:I always do 5 section tests. I didn't do it the first time I took the test and I think it cost me. I saw a big drop from my PTs and the real thing. This time around I wanted to make sure that I made it as realistic as possible. This way I can feel confident that my PT scores as realistic as possible. I am very confident that I will be scoring within a point or two of my PT averages.

I see what you're saying, but if the 5th section isn't graded as part of your PT score, then how can it really be similar?

Also, to the post above that. The experimental section (if I remember correctly from the real test) are generally "fairly" easy to see. I.e. weird questions or insanely difficult. Usually before the break you'll have your experimental. If it's a double to the RC or LG, you'll know right there. No way you're going to have 3 RC for the first three sections.

This is definitely a good idea. In fact, a few runs with seven or eight sections during the last few weeks before the test could help to up your endurance even further.

TOMaHULK wrote:

theavrock wrote:I always do 5 section tests. I didn't do it the first time I took the test and I think it cost me. I saw a big drop from my PTs and the real thing. This time around I wanted to make sure that I made it as realistic as possible. This way I can feel confident that my PT scores as realistic as possible. I am very confident that I will be scoring within a point or two of my PT averages.

I see what you're saying, but if the 5th section isn't graded as part of your PT score, then how can it really be similar?

Also, to the post above that. The experimental section (if I remember correctly from the real test) are generally "fairly" easy to see. I.e. weird questions or insanely difficult. Usually before the break you'll have your experimental. If it's a double to the RC or LG, you'll know right there. No way you're going to have 3 RC for the first three sections.

The 5th section on the test isn't part of your score either. What I do to ensure that I don't know which section is the non graded one is make copies of the test plus one extra section and then shuffle the sections. This helps to make it more similar.

Obviously you aren't going to be able to simulate exact conditions but the key is to make it as similar as possible. The more similar you make your PT's the more honest you are being with yourself and the better your chance of not experiencing the score drops that people experience.

A lot of people fool themselves in to thinking they are doing better than they actually are because they hit the real thing and are tripped for numerous reasons. The point in adding the 5th section is to try to remove one of those reasons and get a better idea of where you are before you go in to the real thing.

I add a fifth section. Well, my boyfriend adds it for me.

I give him the PT I'm planning to take, and he a) makes copies of the logic games so I can review and re-work them later, and b) makes an "x" at the bottom of either the page before section 1, the last page of section 1, or the last page of section 2. When I see the "x," I know it's time to jump over to the experimental section he's randomly bookmarked in a mid-40's PT (I only started full-length runs with PT 50). I obviously know which section is the experimental, but the placement/type are a surprise.

wow. Just...wow. Only do four sections, but I don't take breaks between. The LSAT wasn't so much a stamina game for me as it was a being really, really terrible at Logic Games game. If I had to do ten RC sections in a row I don't think it would bother me.

Don't buy into the hype. The LSAT just isn't that mentally rigorous if you're prepared for each of the sections. If you aren't doing well on a particular section (logic games for me, as I believe it is for many) then spend extra time on that. I do like the idea of doing practice runs, but primarily for the comfort level it gives you. I hardly feel the need to look at the clock anymore.

I make sure to do some prep everyday, even if it's just reviewing a game. My diagnostic went from 158 to 160 on test day (about a week). My PT are running in the mid 170's now.

All that said, I may have to eat my words come late June. I'll let you know.