2 posts • Page 1 of 1
- Posts: 5152
- Joined: Wed Jun 10, 2009 3:09 pm
Going be using this thread to take questions, and get feedback before I submit my final draft. I'm working on submitting a LSAT Study Guide with my study method, which hopefully will be more helpful for people who have yet to find a method that really works for them.
Anyways, if anyone has any questions or anything about LSAT prep please post them, so I can try and incorporate them into my study guide.
Anyways, if anyone has any questions or anything about LSAT prep please post them, so I can try and incorporate them into my study guide.
- Posts: 5152
- Joined: Wed Jun 10, 2009 3:09 pm
Will start working on putting it all together tomorrow.
My Practice Tests:
Pt#____Date__________Individual Sections____Raw /Scaled Score_______________Notes___________________
36 -- 02/27/10 ------ -6 LR -3 RC -7 LR -3 LG ------82/165 --- Free Kaplan Test, finished LG bible by exam, 5 sections
19 -- 03/24/10 ---- -2 LG -4 LR -4 RC -2 LR ------- 89/170 ---- most of LR Bible done, rusty on games, 4 sections
20 -- 03/25/10 ----- -4 LR -1 RC -4 LG -2 LR ------- 90/171 ---- missed last 3 on 4th LG due to extremely hard game
21 -- 03/30/10 ----- -4 LG -6 LR -2 LR -3 RC ------ 86/169 ----- 4 sections, felt off, disappointing, first PT to drop
22 -- 03/31/10 ----- -2 RC -4 LR -0 LG -4 LR ------ 91/172 ----- 4 sections, nearly bombed LG, LR dragging me down
23 -- 04/01/10 ----- -6 LG -4 LR -4 LR -4 RC ------ 82/168 ----- ran out of time on LG (2 q's), took at 9pm (noise + tired)
24 -- 04/03/10 ----- -2 RC -3 LR -2 LR -6 LG ------ 88/171 ---- 4 sections, bombed last LG (missed 5/6)
25 -- 04/05/10 ----- -0 RC -2 LR -9 LG -2 LR ------ 88/169 ---- 4 sections, bombed 2nd lg (0/7), hardest LG ever
26 -- 04/07/10 ----- -2 LG -5 LR -5 LR -2 RC ------ 87/170 ---- 4 sections, LR holding me back this time
27 -- 04/08/10 ----- -2 LR -1 LG -4 RC -4 LR ------ 90/174 ---- 4 sections, 5 extra minutes on LG! Artificially high score
28 -- 04/09/10 ----- -3 LR -2 LG -2 LR -0 RC ------ 94/175 ---- untimed on 1st LR section, all else timed, 4 sections
SpA- 04/12/10 ----- -0 LR -2 RC -1 LG -1 LR ------ 97/177 ---- SuperPrep A, untimed LG, 4 sections
SpB- 04/13/10 ----- -5 LR -3 LG -3 RC -0 LR ------ 90/173 ---- SuperPrep B, untimed LG, 4 sections
SpC- 04/14/10 ----- -5 LG -2 LR -1 LR -1 RC ------ 92/174 ---- SuperPrep C, untimed LG, 4 sections
40 -- 04/15/10 ----- -2 LR -1 LG -1 LR -2 RC ------ 95/174 ---- 4 sections, fully timed
43 -- 04/17/10 ----- -1 RC -2 LR -2 LR -0 LG ------ 96/177 ---- 4 sections, fully timed
44 -- 04/19/10 ----- -2 RC -3 LR -1 LG -1 LR ------ 93/173 ---- 4 sections, fully timed
45 -- 04/20/10 ----- -1 LR -0 RC -0 LG -3 LR ------ 95/178 ---- 4 sections, fully timed (did a 5th afterwards from PT41.1)
46 -- 04/21/10 ----- -1 RC -1 LR -0 LR -0 LG ------ 97/179 ---- 5 sections (exp. PT41.2 as 3rd section)
39 -- 04/22/10 ----- -3 LG -3 LR -1 RC -3 LR ------ 91/172 ---- 5 sections (exp. PT41.3 as 3rd section)
42 -- 04/23/10 ----- -2 LG -2 LR -2 RC -1 LR ------ 94/174 ---- 5 sections (exp. PT41.4 as 2nd section)
41 -- 04/20-4/10 --- -3 LR -1 LG -0 LR -4 RC ------ 93/174 ---- used as experimental section for PT's
47 -- 04/27/10 ----- -3 LR -2 RC -1 LR -0 LG ------ 94/174 ----- 5 sections (exp. PT18.1 as 1st section)
48 -- 04/28/10 ----- -1 LR -0 LG -0 RC -1 LR ------ 99/178 ----- 5 sections (exp. PT18.2 as 3rd section) untimed LG
30 -- 04/29/10 ----- -0 LG -1 LR -2 RC -0 LR ------ 98/180 ----- 5 sections, 18.3 as 3rd experimental, re-used q's, e/x RC
31 -- 05/01/10 ----- -1 LG -1 LR -1 LR -6 RC ------ 92/174 ----- 5 sections, 18.4 as 4th experimental
18 -- 05/01/10 ----- -1 LG -4 LR -0 RC -3 LR ------ 93/175 ----- broken up and used as experimental tests
29 -- 05/03/10 ----- -1 LR -2 RC -0 LG -3 LR ------ 95/176 ----- taken in 2 parts, 1st section and then last 3 sections
32 -- 05/04/10 ----- -0 LR -3 RC -0 LG -2 LR ------ 95/177 ----- 5 secions, with 16.1 as 3rd section experimental
33 -- 05/05/10 ----- -0 LR -4 RC -0 LR -1 LG ------ 96/178 ----- 5 sections, with 16.2 as 3rd section experimental
34 -- 05/06/10 ----- -0 RC -1 LR -2 LR -0 LG ------ 98/180 ----- 5 sections, with 16.3 as 3rd section experimental
16 -- 05/07/10 ----- -1 LG -3 LR -1 LR -5 RC ------ 91/173 ----- experimental test
35 -- 05/08/10 ----- -0 LR -2 RC -0 LG -1 LR ------ 98/179 ----- 4 sections due to library closing
49 -- 05/10/10 ----- -0 LG -2 LR -2 RC -2 LR ------ 94/174 ----- 4 sections
50 -- 05/11/10 ----- -3 RC -0 LR -1 LG -3 LR ------ 93/173 ----- 5 sections
12 -- 05/12/10 ----- -2 LR -0 LG -1 RC -2 LR ------ 96/175 ----- 4 sections
51 -- 05/13/10 ----- -0 LR -0 RC -1 LR -0 LG ------ 99/180 ----- 5 sections, w/ 7.2 as 3rd experimental
15 -- 05/15/10 ----- -1 RC -1 LR -2 LR -1 LG ------ 95/174 ----- 5 sections, w/ 7.3 as 3rd experimental
07 -- 05/18/10 ----- -2 LR -0 LG -4 RC -3 LR ------ 92/175 ----- experimental test
52 -- 05/18/10 ----- -1 LR -0 LG -3 LR -1 RC ------ 94/176 ----- 5 sections, w/ 7.4 as 3rd experimental
14 -- 05/19/10 ----- -0 LG -1 LR -1 RC -1 LR ------ 98/178 ----- 5 sections, w/ 9.1 as 3rd experimental
53 -- 05/20/10 ----- -2 LR -0 LG -2 LR -3 RC ------ 93/174 ----- 5 sections, w/ 9.2 as 3rd experimental
13 -- 05/21/10 ----- -0 LG -6 LR -1 RC -0 LR ------ 94/176 ----- 5 sections, w/ 9.3 as 3rd experimental
09 -- 05/25/10 ----- -0 RC -2 LR -1 LG -3 LR ------ 95/177 ----- experimental test
54 -- 05/25/10 ----- -2 RC -0 LR -0 LG -1 LR ------ 98/179 ----- 5 sections, w/ 9.4 as 2nd experimental
J'07 - 05/26/10 ----- -1 LG -0 LR -3 LR -2 RC ------ 94/172 ----- 5 sections, w/ 10.1 as 2nd experimental
55 -- 05/27/10 ----- -1 LR -4 RC -1 LR -0 LG ------ 94/174 ----- 5 sections, w/ 10.2 as 2nd experimental
37 -- 05/28/10 ----- -0 RC -1 LR -0 LG -3 LR ------ 97/177 ----- 5 sections, w/ 10.3 as 1st experimental
10 -- 05/31/10 ----- -0 LR -1 LG -2 RC -2 LR ------ 96/176 ----- experimental test sections
56 -- 05/31/10 ----- -1 LG -1 LR -1 LR -1 RC ------ 96/178 ----- 5 sections, w/ 10.4 as 3rd experimental
57 -- 06/01/10 ----- -1 LG -1 LR -2 LR -2 RC ------ 95/175 ----- 5 sections, w/ 11.1 as 2nd experimental
38 -- 06/02/10 ----- -1 LR -1 LG -1 LR -0 RC ------ 97/179 ----- 5 sections, w/ 11.2 as 1st experimental
58 -- 06/03/10 ----- -1 LR -0 RC -1 LG -0 LR ------ 99/180 ----- 5 sections, w/ 11.3 as 3rd experimental
11 -- 06/04/10 ----- -1 LG -5 LR -0 RC -2 LR ------ 93/173 ----- experimental test
59 -- 06/04/10 ----- -3 LG -4 LR -1 LR -3 RC ------ 90/172 ----- 5 sections, w/ 11.4 as 3rd experimental
Plenty of time. When I first started about 3 months ago (nearly exactly to the day) I couldn't do any of the logic games (not an exaggeration). Now i'm averaging about 175 on timed 5 section practice tests, topping out at a 179 (and two 178). If you're interested in seeing my progression, check out my profile and go to the link in my signature. Short story, I'm guessing I would probably have scored in the 150's when I first start (didn't take my diagnostic until I had finished the LG Bible), after taking a month to go through the LG Bible and the first couple chapters of the LR Bible scored a diagnostic score of 165. After 2 months, and finishing the majority of the LR bible, I was averaging probably around 170. Now after month three my last 10 timed PT's or so are at a 175 average (although only half of those are 5 sections). I also took nearly 2 weeks off for finals week and the first few days of spring break without doing much studying for the LSAT, if any at all.
So yes, 4 months is enough time if you work hard, spend enough time, and do lots of PT's. If I were to start again knowing what I now know, I wouldn't worry at all about the various classifications given in the LG Bible, and go through it much quicker. I only did about an hour a day or maybe a little bit more. It also took me about a month to work through the LR Bible, and I probably spent an hour to two hours working on it a day. I would go through the Bibles much faster, then start putting questions, sections, and tests under my belt.
For RC, I would recommend really underlining and bracketing the passage, it really breaks down the passage. I think one of the most important things for RC is coming up with your feeling about that particular passage. You have to really stick to your guns on this...because you will be tested on it by probably half of the questions on every passage. You'll get asked questions that are too strong or too weak, but you must stick with your original appraisal, and stay consistent with that fine line you have decided upon. You have to trust yourself that you interpreted the passage correctly. Carefully read the stem and make sure you know whose viewpoint is being asked for (and obviously recognize different viewpoints, and who holds them). Pay careful attention to the first and last paragraph, particularly the last sentence, which can sometimes change the entire tone of the passage. Know the tone of the author, pay attention to words that clue you in on the author's opinion. Pay attention to subtlety and nuance.
PT #25 Review
Section 1: -0 RC
Section 2: -2 LR
#10: Correct answer was E, I chose D. I circled this question as uncertain when I answered it.
Stimulus: Insects can see ultraviolet light and are known to identify important food sources and mating sites by sensing the characteristic patterns of ultraviolet light that these things reflect. Insects are also attracted to Glomosus spiderwebs, which reflect ultraviolet light. Thus, insects are probably attracted to these webs because of the specific patterns of ultraviolet light that these webs reflect.
Question Stem: Which one of the following, if true, most strongly supports the argument?
D: When Drosophila fruit flies were placed before a Glomosus web and a synthetic web of similar pattern that also reflected ultraviolet light and both webs were illuminated with white light containing an ultraviolet component, many of the fruit flies flew to the Glomosus web. This answer is incorrect because, if true, this answer choice tells us that the fruit flies are attracted to the Glomosus web for reasons other than the ultraviolet light. Because both webs reflect ultraviolet light, that variable is held constant, and thus can not be responsible for why the fruit flies are attracted to the Glomosus web.
E: When Drosophila fruit flies were placed before two Glomosus webs, one illuminated with white light containing an ultraviolet component and one illuminated with a white light without an ultraviolet component, the majority flew to the ultraviolet reflecting web. This is the correct answer because the argument concludes that the insects are probably attracted to these webs because of the ultraviolet light that these webs reflect. Since the webs were the same type, and only the variable of whether ultraviolet light was reflecting off the web, we know that that the ultraviolet light was the reason for why the fruit flies chose one web over another.
#25: Correct answer was D, I chose C.
Stimulus: Jack's aunt gave him her will, asking him to make it public when she died; he promised to do so. After her death, Jack looked at the will; it stipulated that all her money go to her friend George. Jack knew that if he made the will public, George would squander the money, benefiting neither George nor anyone else. Jack also knew that if he did not make the will public, the money would go to his own mother, who would use it to benefit herself and others, harming no one. After reflection, he decided not to make the will public.
Question stem: Which one of the following principles, if valid, would require Jack to act as he did in the situation described?
C: One must choose an alternative that benefits some and harms no one over an alternative that harms some and benefits no one. This answer choice is incorrect because if Jack made the will public, there is no indication that it will harm some, it would just simply not benefit anyone else.
D: When faced with alternatives it is obligatory to choose whichever one will benefit the greatest number of people. This answer choice is correct, because this principle, if valid, would require Jack to act as he did in this situation.
Section 3: -9 LG
Missed a key inference on game two, causing me to go 0/7, which was the numerical distribution. It either had to be 1-1-2-2 or 1-1-3-1.
#6: Correct answer is C. Because of numerical distribution, K and M can't both speak Russian.
#7: Correct answer was A. Numerical distribution again.
#8: Correct answer was B. Numerical distribution again.
#9: Correct answer was E. This answer comes as a byproduct of knowing about the numerical distribution.
#10: Correct answer was B. ND.
#11: Correct answer was E. Answer comes from the rule that is Klaus is assigned to Xerxes, then Michael speaks French.
#12: Correct answer was E, comes from the above rule.
Section 4: -2 LR
#11: Correct answer was D, I chose E. I also circled this one as uncertain during the test.
Stimulus: Taken together, some 2,000 stocks recommended on a popular television show over the course of the past 12 years by the show's guests, most of whom are successful consultants for multibillion-dollar stock portfolios, performed less successfully than the market as a whole for this 12-year period. So clearly, no one should ever follow any recommendations by these so-called experts.
Question stem: Each of the following, if true, weakens the argument EXCEPT:
E: The stock portfolios for which the guests were consultants performed better for the past 12-year period than the market as a whole. This answer is incorrect because this does indeed weaken the argument that no one should ever follow any recommendations by these so-called experts, by demonstrating that they are capable of choosing stocks that can perform better than the market as a whole. The correct answer needs to be neutral or strengthen the idea that no one should ever follow any recommendations by these so-called experts.
D: Performance of the stocks recommended on a television show was measured independently by a number of analysts, and the results of all the measurements concurred. This answer is correct because it is neutral to the argument that no one should follow any recommendations by these so-called experts.
#23: Correct answer was B, I chose D. I also circled this question as uncertain.
Stimulus: Only computer scientists understand the architecture of personal computers, and only those who understand the architecture of personal computers appreciate the advances in technology made in the last decade. It follows that only those who appreciate these advances are computer scientists.
Question stem: Which one of the following most accurately describes a flaw in the reasoning of the argument?
Premise 1: Only computer scientists understand the architecture of personal computers
(UAPC → CS)
Premise 2: Only those who understand the architecture of personal computers appreciate the advances in technology made in the last decade.
(AAT → UAPC → CS) Here is the flaw, just because they understand the architecture of personal computers (UAPC), and therefore are computer scientists (CS) doesn't mean they appreciate the advances in technology made in the last decade (AAT).
Conclusion: It follows that those who appreciate these advances are computer scientists.
(AAT → CS) FLAWED
D: The premises of the argument are stated in such a way that they exclude the possibility of drawing any logical conclusion. This answer is incorrect, because you it is possible to draw at least 1 logical conclusion from the premises, such as SOME people who AAT are CS.
B: The argument ignores the fact that some computer scientists may not appreciate the advances in technology made in the last decade. For reasons stated above.
Section 3: -2 RC
#3. Correct answer was E, I put C. C is incorrect because re-creating an accident is not similar to predicting the future. E is correct because the passage states that re-creation technology allows people to see things as if they were there, which is reflected in answer choice E.
#14. Correct answer was A, I put C. C is incorrect because although the point emphasized by the author is that women doctors were common enough that the texts did not pointedly comment on the existence of women doctors. A is correct because it describes the range of textual evidence for women doctors in ancient Greece and Rome.
Section 4: -6 RC
#1. Correct answer was D, I put A. D is correct because the passage mentions that current technology is often inadequate to the task (of having an economically viable role for ever product of a manufacturing process).
#2. Correct answer was D, I put C. D is correct because the author asserts concerning standards of living that all countries could enjoy a high standard of living if they implement an ideal industrial ecosystem.
#13. Correct answer was C, I put D. C is correct because D is too broad, it is not about the history of women in science, it is only about one women's take on the relationship between science and nature.
#20. Correct answer was C, I put D. C is correct because the paragraph talks about the failure to separate internal and external issues, and deems this approach innovative, which answer choice C fulfills.
#22. Correct answer was B, I put A. B is correct because A is too pessimistic, and B correctly reflects the development of the passage towards the end.
#24. Correct answer was B, I put A. A is incorrect because it is a reversal of subjectivist and objectivist beliefs. The passage clearly implies that subjectivists believe that objectivism restricts the kinds of experience from which philosophers may draw knowledge.
Have you gone through the LR Bible? If you haven't, you need to, and if you have, you should try and get as familiar as possible with the question stems. There are only so many types of questions, each question type only has so many ways it can be presented to you. Ideally, you want to be so familiar with the question stems that you can quickly recognize what type of question type it is indicating. Besides indicating the question type, question stems aren't too important, just be sure to pay attention for any unique particulars to the question.
Edit: RC fail. I thought you said question stem. Editing now...
For stimulus, try reading through the argument initially and underlining the conclusion. Then you know what point the argument is heading towards, and can piece together what each part each portion of the stimulus plays. Kind of like reverse engineering to some degree. If you can identify that the stimulus is giving you conclusion A, then you know what the other parts of the stimulus/argument play. Hypothetically then, you would know that the first sentence which you were unsure what part it played, you can confidently say that it functioned to do X/Y/Z. The conclusion is of vital importance, identifying it is extremely valuable, and will get you some points/questions. I'm not sure if this is necessarily the best for you with your time management issue, but if your rereading each sentence a few times, this might actually be quicker.
would do the Powerscore Bibles. You're going to use some more recent material, but it's worth it to work through the Bibles.
What I would recommend is work through a chapter of a Bible, say basic linear games. Then go do all the basic linear games from 10 Actual, Official Preptests (PT's 7-18 with 8 and 17 missing) or the next 10 one. I'd probably go with the 1st set of 10 book, but it doesn't really matter. Pick one of those, and then go find a spreadsheet that breaks down the question types, I found mine at the LSAT Blog (that guy who posted above; I think he has a link to his blog on his profile, check it out). I found the link, hope you don't mind the plug: http://lsatblog.blogspot.com/. This is a really great resource, and I highly recommend reading around, and checking out some of his study schedules, spreadsheets, and other articles. Do this until you've answered all the question types of LR and all the games of LG.
At this point, you should do sections completely untimed, taking as long as you need to finish the section, and being as sure as you can be that you got the answer correct (this eliminates any mistakes you may make due to trying to finish in the time limit; you can figure out what your weaknesses are, and what you need to work on). Do this until you get to a point where you are comfortable with all the question types, and are missing about as many as you would be realistically aiming for.
If you're still missing more than you want to miss, keep on working untimed sections until you've reduced the number of your misses to your realistic goal level.
Now, start doing timed sections, pulling them from oldest PT's, and work your way to the more recent ones. Here is the important trick. Don't countdown/stopwatch; instead, time how long it takes you to work through all the questions, taking as long as you need to be reasonable sure you've gotten them all correctly; work at a reasonable pace, but don't rush. See how long it takes you to complete each section. From this point, you need to repeat this step, slowly speeding up and working faster, maintaining your accuracy. Work until you can do sections most of the time in 35 minutes or less without sacrificing accuracy.
Now you got to put it all together. Start stringing together timed sections. Depending on your level of endurance, you may only be able to do 2 timed sections back to back; keep stringing timed sections until you can get to 4 sections without sacrificing accuracy;
If you're roughly near your goal score, now is time to add in a 5th experimental section. My advice at this point would be to plan everything out on google calendar. Count up how many PT's you have left, how many days you have until test day (giving yourself a good 2 full day break before the actual test), and then space out the PT's "evenly" throughout your remaining time. Ideally, you'd want to spend PT's 7-18 learning sections, PT 19-28 doing untimed and timed sections, leaving yourself 29-59 to do full timed tests.
Working with those numbers, you have 30 PT's. Doing a little bit of math (which I suck at so hopefully I don't mess this up), you'll end up with 24 4-section PT's, and 6 PT's to be divided into 24 experimental sections. So take your 6 older PT's, in this case 29-35 and then assign each section to a PT. So 29.1 would go with PT 36, 29.2 with PT 37, and so on and so forth. Experimental tests come in the 1st 3 sections, so I would rotate putting the experimental sections in all 3 of the slots (for your first test, put the experimental in the 3rd section, the next put it in the 2nd section, the next put it in the 1st section, etc.).
Work through these PT's timed, making a spreadsheet and keeping track of all important data. I record test # (how many tests i've taken), PT #, date, scores for each of the 4 sections recorded as number of misses (-X LR -X RC -X LR -X LG), raw score, scaled score, "curve" (number of misses to get 170), and then additional notes (I usually noted whether it was 5 section or 4 section, what experimental section I used and where I placed it).
You also need to review every PT you do, and every section you do. I highly recommend typing it out. I posted a sample review earlier in this thread. I'll post it at the end of this post.
Hope this helped, I'd be glad to elaborate if you want. And thanks for the encouragement on your other post! Good luck!
When I did them originally I did them untimed, by question type. So I didn't sit down and do a LR section from test 19, but rather one day I would sit down and do all the assumption (or strengthen, weaken, etc.) questions from PT's 29-38.
Then I retested them months later timed and those are what is recorded.
I started studying 4 months and few days in advance, around January 29/30th, with at least a couple weeks where I didn't touch the LSAT for finals/beginning of spring break.
If I did it again, I would probably start a little bit earlier. I averaged probably 5 PT's a week once I started getting into it at the end of March/beginning of February. I would've preferred doing 3-4 a week instead over a longer period. It wasn't really possible for me though, due to school/extracurricular factors.
Yeah, I only used the Bibles + PT's. I tried reading some of the books recommended but didn't get far, didn't think it was useful. I also signed up for a Powerscore class, but stopped attending after the 2nd session (definitely a huge waste of money, at least for me, and I really regret blowing $1,000 on the online class; but it wasn't a good use of my time; I had to make the tough decision, and in the end I did what I thought would get me the best score). I also used test explanations from a particular company. Oh ya, I also used LSAC SuperPrep, which is 3 PT's with explanations and difficulty ratings for each question and answer choice.
The content competition is a TLS competition where people write guides, such as an LSAT study guide, or law school admissions guides, or anything really, and the winners receive cash prizes and probably will get features somewhere on the website. Look for the sticky somewhere; actually I think there's a forum dedicated to it at the bottom of the top group.
Edit: Also, on the study guide I posted earlier, I forgot about the June 2007 free PT available from LSAC, and the SuperPrep tests (3 of them, A, B, and C). So that's 4 more PT's available to take, which also helped me reach my current total of 51.
Alright guys, just for fun, here is a pencil review. If you're like me, you aren't a huge fan of regular pencils. Surprisingly enough, i've actually been having a lot of trouble with pencils. I usually have to sharpen at least a couple of pencils completely down in order to finish a PT, because a lot of times the lead breaks (while i'm sharpening it). So I bought 4 different kinds of pencils to test out.
I'll evaluable them on:
Feel- how they feel in the hand
Writing- how they write
Durability/Finickiness- lasts a while or do you need to sharpen it a lot
Sharpening- can you actually sharpen them or does the lead always break, etc.
Here is how i'll refer to the pencils: from top to bottom Staples, Renew, Tri-Conderoga, and Tri-Write; I'll rate them from 1-5, with 3 being average, 1 being horrible, and 5 being great.
Feel- 2; feels kind of plasticky and weird; triangular shape is okay; not super slick or slippery
Writing- 3; pretty average
Durability/Finickiness- 4; once I got it sharpened, the point stayed for a long time
Sharpening- 1; absolutely horrible to sharpen; squeeks like MAD! kind of awkward and annoying when i'm squeakily sharpening my pencil on quiet study floor of the library the week before finals; this one was the hardest to sharpen, I can't emphasize what a pain in the ass this was to sharpen; it was hard to turn and hard to get it to a point
Feel- 5; best feeling pencil out of the bunch; nice and big so it was easy to grasp, triangular was a little funky and weird to get used to but overall felt good, and the material on the outside of the pencil is great, felt much much slippery than any other pencil
Writing- 4; good at what it does, definitely boosted here too by its feel
D/F- 3; lasted an okay amount of time; it was hard to get this pencil into a worthwihle point, so I had to sharpen it more than should be necessary, hurting it a bit here
Sharpening- 1.5; could not for the life of me get this into a good point; it's so fat and triangular shaped so it sharpens weird, and the lead breaks a ton so you just have to keep sharpening
Feel- 2; felt okay in the hand, a bit slippery
Writing- 1; had to drop this pencil after a minute or two into my LG section; it just does not write well at all, and only makes pretty light and "dull" marks
D/F- N/A; didn't make it long enough to evaluate it on this category
Sharpening- 2; a bit difficult to sharpen, especially since it was pretty slippery; it would be a 1, but what saved it was the lead didn't break a million times, and I could actually sharpen it to a decent point without taking a million ties/broken leads
Feel- 3; feels pretty solid, that classic feel; kind of small and when my hand got sweaty it was a little slippery
Writing- 4; wrote pretty well, above average
D/F- 4; lasted a while once I got it sharpened
Sharpening- 3; I had trouble sharpening all the pencils, but this pencil gave me the least trouble, and I was actually able to sharpen it, although I ended up having to sharpen it a lot because the lead kept breaking while I was sharpening
Overall this was my favorite pencil. It is just that classic simple pencil. I'm going to try and get at least a couple more to try before test day, because I haven't found the one that felt just right yet. What i'm probably going to do though, due to my sharpening troubles, is just get a box of 24 pencils or one of those fairly big ones and just sharpen them all on an electric sharpener, and then just bring them all pre-sharpened with me (along with a sharpener for back up), so I won't have to deal with that.
Hope this helped.
and yes, I am aware that it is very sad, lame, and pathetic that I just did a pencil review
Code: Select all
Code: Select all
Code: Select all
Will start working on putting it all together tomorrow.