My LSAT Study Progress & Spreadsheet Forum

[gdane]

You guys have nothing to worry about. Not one thing. Scoring in the 170's as you guys have on a consistent basis is admirable and should give you plenty of confidence in your abilities to do well on the LSAT.

Be glad that youre not me. I'm having a tough time getting into the mid 160's. Getting 175 and above is something I wish I could attain. Dont take your scores so lightly. Appreciate them and be confident in yourselves. You'll do amazing on test day.

[3|ink]

Took 2 sections in the office today: PT 45 RC and LG scoring -4 and -0 respectively. I loved these games. I finished them 11 minutes early!! RC was a real challenge. Bah!!! I'm hoping to get RC back tonight with my PT

Blink I think we're in the same boat with fluctuating scores in low-mid 170s. Well, sort of. You seem to be doing really well (178, wowz), but RC is killing us both in the 50s. I've heard from my old BP instructor RC gets a lot harder in the 50s, so it's just a matter of attuning oneself I suppose?

I've had a string of 90-94-90-90-90 scores on 47-48-49-50-51 respectively. It's really annoying. Tomorrow is another day, like you say!

I'm not nervous per se. I'm somewhat thankful I'm scoring low so I can get some anxiety to push me and motivate me so I'm not complacent. Thing is I need to get back in the 94-96 raw range the week or two before test day so I can have full confidence. We got this!

Thanks. I think we'll both do okay. The only thing I can think to do is thoroughly go over every RC section.

I got -3 on PT 53's RC as well. One of them, the question was stupid, and the other two were on that strawberry plant thing and I misread them.

Thanks, but it turns out that wasn't really PT 53 I took. It was July 2007. I was taking TM's version of the test and it doesn't say which PT # it is. I'm taking 53 tonight.

You guys have nothing to worry about. Not one thing. Scoring in the 170's as you guys have on a consistent basis is admirable and should give you plenty of confidence in your abilities to do well on the LSAT.

Be glad that youre not me. I'm having a tough time getting into the mid 160's. Getting 175 and above is something I wish I could attain. Dont take your scores so lightly. Appreciate them and be confident in yourselves. You'll do amazing on test day.

Thanks. Keep trying and I'm sure you'll be in 170's eventually.

[Blumpbeef]

I want to try out your Excel files, but all those links appear broken.

[3|ink]

I want to try out your Excel files, but all those links appear broken.

PMed you.

[Blumpbeef]

Thanks. That Excel sheet is really really nice.

[3|ink]

Did PT 12 Games and PT 11 RC at the office today. Got -1 and -4 respectively.

I think I've just gotten slower at RC in recent weeks. I used to be able to complete an entire RC passage within 7 minutes missing an average of .75 per section. I got -2 on the first two RC passages going at 7 minute pace. I slowed down to 8 minutes for the last two passages and got -0. I suppose my new strategy will be to slow things down to 8 minute pace and absorb the whole passage until I can do it faster than 8 minutes.

Games were a tough pill to swallow today. I barely finished with 2 minutes to spare. Not sure what that was about, but the last game was kind of tricky (colored chemicals).

I haven't updated since Monday. I did the first two sections of PT 53 on Monday with 1 LR experimental. I don't know what happened, but I was a mess. I did the experientmal LR first and finished with 11 minutes to spare. I was feeling great. Got a -1 on that. On the first LR section of PT 53 (my section section of the night), I scored a -5!!!!. I missed 3 questions within the first 8: 2, 6 and 8 respectively. That's crazy!! I haven't scored a -5 in LR in a long time! I had games after that. I barely finished on time and managed a -2. I hate those conditional sequencing games. Anyway, I'm going to finish the other half of PT 53 tomorrow night. Tonight I am doing PT 46 I believe with either LR 1 or Games from PT 43 (probably LR).

I couldn't do any studying yesterday because I spent all day moving into a new apartment.

Thanks. That Excel sheet is really really nice.

NP. GL on the test.

[3|ink]

September 22, 2010

Took PT 46 yesterday with RC from PT 13 as experimental:

RC: -2
LR 1: -2
LR 2: -0
LG: -0
Exp RC: -2
Raw: 95
Scaled: 176

Did much better with RC yesterday. Yay!

[3|ink]

September 23, 2010

Took the other half of PT 53 today. Wow. The final breakdown is as follows:

LR 1: -5 !!!!!!!!!U^^&%^*
LG: -2 (Meh)
LR 2: -1
RC: -2
Exp LR: -1
Raw: 90
Scaled: 171

Wow. I thought RC killed me. That was a really really hard RC section. I was expecting -5. I barely finished on time (I had like a minute to spare). I'm aiming for a -1 on test day. Considering the difficulty of these passages, I'm quite satisfied. I don't know what happened in LR 1. I took it on Monday with LG. Maybe I was distracted because I was planning to move to my new apartment the next day. Who knows? They were easy questions too. Bah.

I'll probably take an RC and games section tonight just for kicks.

6 tests to go. PT 47, 48, 57, 58, 59 & 60.

I'm taking 58 on Saturday, 47 Monday, 48 Wednesday, 57 next Saturday, 59 next Monday and 60 next Wednesday.

[3|ink]

September 24, 2010

Feeling lazy today. Only did 1 RC section (PT 14), but got a -0!!! It hardly counts since RC gets a lot harder after PT 40.

I spent time today going over those conditional sequencing games. I think those are unquestionably the hardest game type out there and we are due for them. You can find examples of these game types here:

PT 51, Game 2
PT 53, Game 2
PT 52, Game 4

[Hedwig]

I don't think conditional sequencing is that bad. It's kind of a bitch when you're writing it out, but as long as you diagram it as the two possibilities, it restricts it enough that it's doable.

I love pure sequencing. I'm not sure if I like or dislike conditional sequencing. Hard to keep the rules straight and I'm so worried I'll mis-write a rule or something and screw up my LG section.

I've found that the newer RC is SO MUCH HARDER oh my gosh. The answer choices are just so much more difficult to choose between. I did an RC from 10 Actual and got -1 for my experimental, then did PT 55 and got -2 for that RC, but the difficulty in choosing answers was ASTRONOMICAL.

[3|ink]

I don't think conditional sequencing is that bad. It's kind of a bitch when you're writing it out, but as long as you diagram it as the two possibilities, it restricts it enough that it's doable.

I love pure sequencing. I'm not sure if I like or dislike conditional sequencing. Hard to keep the rules straight and I'm so worried I'll mis-write a rule or something and screw up my LG section.

I've found that the newer RC is SO MUCH HARDER oh my gosh. The answer choices are just so much more difficult to choose between. I did an RC from 10 Actual and got -1 for my experimental, then did PT 55 and got -2 for that RC, but the difficulty in choosing answers was ASTRONOMICAL.

Some do allow you to limit the possibilities. Some don't. I always waste too much time deciding how I should approach the questions and trying to figure out if the rules are restrictive enough to draw out scenarios.

[3|ink]

September 25, 2010

Took PT 58 today w/ RC 15 as experimental.

LR 1: -2
LR2: -2
RC: -1
LG: -1
Exp RC: -2
Raw: 95
Scaled: 175

Good enough, but I missed far more LR than I'm comfortable with. Stupid mistakes.

I meant to take the test at 9 this morning following a breakfast @ 7AM after getting up at 6:30. I went to bed at 10 last night, but I had trouble falling asleep before midnight. Thus, when 6:30 rolled around, the prospect of sleeping in was too tempting to ignore.

Tomorrow is another day.

[aesis]

September 25, 2010

Took PT 58 today w/ RC 15 as experimental.

LR 1: -2
LR2: -2
RC: -1
LG: -1
Exp RC: -2
Raw: 95
Scaled: 175

Good enough, but I missed far more LR than I'm comfortable with. Stupid mistakes.

I meant to take the test at 9 this morning following a breakfast @ 7AM after getting up at 6:30. I went to bed at 10 last night, but I had trouble falling asleep before midnight. Thus, when 6:30 rolled around, the prospect of sleeping in was too tempting to ignore.

Tomorrow is another day.

Great job today blink.
Awesome LR skills, and RC is obv not a problem for you right now I did similarly ... sort of?
PT 54 -- LR -4/-1 RC -1 LG -0 95 --> 175. LR -1 exp. Good to be scoring back in the mid 170s eh? :DDDD

[3|ink]

September 25, 2010

Took PT 58 today w/ RC 15 as experimental.

LR 1: -2
LR2: -2
RC: -1
LG: -1
Exp RC: -2
Raw: 95
Scaled: 175

Good enough, but I missed far more LR than I'm comfortable with. Stupid mistakes.

I meant to take the test at 9 this morning following a breakfast @ 7AM after getting up at 6:30. I went to bed at 10 last night, but I had trouble falling asleep before midnight. Thus, when 6:30 rolled around, the prospect of sleeping in was too tempting to ignore.

Tomorrow is another day.

Great job today blink.
Awesome LR skills, and RC is obv not a problem for you right now I did similarly ... sort of?
PT 54 -- LR -4/-1 RC -1 LG -0 95 --> 175. LR -1 exp. Good to be scoring back in the mid 170s eh? :DDDD

Thank you. Same to you. Wow. You only missed one RC question on PT 54? That's the cakewalk one, right? Well done.

[3|ink]

September 27, 2010

Did the games from Superprep B today. Scored a -4. That stupid circle game killed my time. I only had 5 minutes left for game 4 which would have been easy if I had just another minute. I missed 1 on the circle game and 3 on game 4. God damn circle games kill me.

[3|ink]

September 28, 2010

Took PT 59 today. Results are as follows:

LR 1: -2
LR 2: -0
RC: -2
LG: -2
Exp RC: -6
Raw: 95
Scaled: 177

Wow. Experimental RC killed me. I was fairly confident about that too. Hmmm. Can't believe I missed two in games. Game 4 was really hard IMO, though I probably should have realized the limited number of scenarios.

Tomorrow is another day (closer to D-Day).

[Hedwig]

It must make you feel better having a 177 on PT 59. I'm scared to enter the 57-60 sequence because I'm hearing all these !!!SUPERHARD!!! rumors, haha.

[3|ink]

It must make you feel better having a 177 on PT 59. I'm scared to enter the 57-60 sequence because I'm hearing all these !!!SUPERHARD!!! rumors, haha.

You'd think that'd be the case, but LGs hit me hard. They have me a little shaken up.

GL on 57.

[3|ink]

October 2, 2010

Took PT 57 w/ TM today (Diag 4). Scored as follows:

LR 1: -1
LG: -1
RC: -2
LR 2: -3!!!
Exp. LG: -1
Raw: 94
Scaled: 174

I thought the LR was really hard today. RC wasn't that bad, but I thought the 2 questions I missed were poorly written. W/E.

My plan is to take 1-2 sections of PT 47 tomorrow, PT 60 on Monday and spend the rest of the week finishing PT 47 and 48 (individual sections).

We're almost at that light at the end of the tunnel.

PS: I've skipped my last 5-6 TM classes. People probably thought I dropped out or something. They all looked at me today like I was crazy for coming.

[Blindc1rca]

September 27, 2010

Did the games from Superprep B today. Scored a -4. That stupid circle game killed my time. I only had 5 minutes left for game 4 which would have been easy if I had just another minute. I missed 1 on the circle game and 3 on game 4. God damn circle games kill me.

dude i'm SAYING. i'm praying that one of these doesn't show up next Saturday. no matter how many times i do CL games, they ALWAYS end up eating up time, regardless of whether or not I graph them linearly or circularly.

[JurisDoctorate]

Thanks for this thread. When I read through your sheet, I realized how much I wish I had the confidence for the October test that you have; a confidence that can only come from prepping to the best of one's abilities.

Well, realizing this caused me to create my own version for the December test. I'm going to practice like crazy, this week, do my best on the October test and then just start prepping for December. I know, if I stick with it, I'll be on this thread - in two months - with supreme confidence that I'll get the 170 I need.

Thanks for the inspiration!

[3|ink]

Thanks for this thread. When I read through your sheet, I realized how much I wish I had the confidence for the October test that you have; a confidence that can only come from prepping to the best of one's abilities.

Well, realizing this caused me to create my own version for the December test. I'm going to practice like crazy, this week, do my best on the October test and then just start prepping for December. I know, if I stick with it, I'll be on this thread - in two months - with supreme confidence that I'll get the 170 I need.

Thanks for the inspiration!

NP dude. Kick some ass!

[3|ink]

October 5, 2010

Took PT 60 tonight. Holy shit. Breakdown:

LR1: -1
LR2: -3
RC: -1
LG: -9!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Exp LR: -2

I thought those games were incredibly difficult, but I also thought I did a little better than -9 (before I scored it).

Going to drill games in the days to come.

[aesis]

October 5, 2010

Took PT 60 tonight. Holy shit. Breakdown:

LR1: -1
LR2: -3
RC: -1
LG: -9!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Exp LR: -2

I thought those games were incredibly difficult, but I also thought I did a little better than -9 (before I scored it).

Going to drill games in the days to come.

I totally agree with you. 60's LG was the hardest I've ever done, but luckily I -0'd it. I don't know what happened during your run, but a few things I've noticed about the 50s are that they increasingly depend on one or two key inferences.

PT 59/60 SPOILER --------


The last game seems like it takes forever but the initial setup is probably the biggest issue. You're able to set up 2 general scenarios, within which you have two different options. It seems like scenarios (i.e. PT 59-Game 4) are the way to go on several of these games. I found that I was brute-forcing many of the later 50's games and this is bad bad bad. I did this because I was so used to the later 40's easy easy easy games. What I'm going to do for 61 is -- at least for the harder games -- really try to break down the rules so I can make key inferences even before I attack the problems.

Honestly, I've panicked many a time, due to a sluggish opening during the section, or just straight-up not having anything to go off of, or so it seemed. And that led me to jump in too quickly. Bad idea. At least for me. I think drilling Grouping/Linear games would be your best bet and redoing earlier LG sections, since the more modern and IMO easier trends (conditional sequencing, pure sequencing) are not as reliant on inferences, just mechanics.

Don't let this diminish your confidence at all -- I too am most scared of games right now and will be drilling like a motherfucker today, tomorrow and even Friday.

[Sandro]

LG from 60 was one of the hardest of the recent ones i've come across. The mulch game was pathetically easy, but Interns.... if you didnt get 1 or 2 of the inferences pre attacking it takes forever (GL cant be photo). This combined with forgetting a rule along the way = disaster. I agree with the previous poster who said that trying to maybe look for this before attacking could be beneficial, as the deductions are more *mechanical*