LSAC SuperPrep

User avatar
Deuce
Posts: 1048
Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2010 11:12 am

LSAC SuperPrep

Postby Deuce » Sun Aug 08, 2010 3:58 pm

I'm 50/50 on retaking, so I decided to order LSAC's SuperPrep (free because of fee waiver) to do and decide how I'll proceed from there. I'm guessing this isn't the greatest way to prep since it's MV is ~$20... anyone used it before? Would it help?

User avatar
Anaconda
Posts: 610
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2010 3:51 pm

Re: LSAC SuperPrep

Postby Anaconda » Sun Aug 08, 2010 4:00 pm


User avatar
LSAT Blog
Posts: 1262
Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 9:24 pm

Re: LSAC SuperPrep

Postby LSAT Blog » Sun Aug 08, 2010 4:18 pm

It's worthwhile, mainly because of LSAC's explanations for every question in the 3 PrepTests contained within. Almost none of the PrepTests have LSAC explanations - these do. The LR and RC explanations are very good - great way to see how the test-makers think about their own questions.

User avatar
Anaconda
Posts: 610
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2010 3:51 pm

Re: LSAC SuperPrep

Postby Anaconda » Sun Aug 08, 2010 5:01 pm

LSAT Blog wrote:It's worthwhile, mainly because of LSAC's explanations for every question in the 3 PrepTests contained within. Almost none of the PrepTests have LSAC explanations - these do. The LR and RC explanations are very good - great way to see how the test-makers think about their own questions.


The one thing I don't like about LSAC's explanations is that it doesn't address convoluted question stems, so if you don't understand what the question was asking you'll have to figure it out by yourself in order to understand the explanations. This just happened with me on 2 LR questions, although I think it was very helpful to force myself to interpret the question stems correctly - some of them are surprisingly tricky and the answer choices target those who misread the stem (see SuperPrep LR Section 1 #23 - took me 10 minutes to realize the incorrect answer I chose was actually the opposite answer choice). The explanations are all very technical, whereas the Kaplan explanations are very much strategic in nature (i.e. Answer choice B is a shell answer, Answer choice C is out of scope, etc)

User avatar
Anaconda
Posts: 610
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2010 3:51 pm

Re: LSAC SuperPrep

Postby Anaconda » Sun Aug 08, 2010 5:07 pm

Btw, your assumption that because the market value of the book is $20 means that it can't be that helpful is incredibly fallacious. Just saying...

nStiver
Posts: 388
Joined: Thu Nov 06, 2008 4:15 am

Re: LSAC SuperPrep

Postby nStiver » Sun Aug 08, 2010 9:19 pm

Anaconda wrote:
LSAT Blog wrote:It's worthwhile, mainly because of LSAC's explanations for every question in the 3 PrepTests contained within. Almost none of the PrepTests have LSAC explanations - these do. The LR and RC explanations are very good - great way to see how the test-makers think about their own questions.


The one thing I don't like about LSAC's explanations is that it doesn't address convoluted question stems, so if you don't understand what the question was asking you'll have to figure it out by yourself in order to understand the explanations. This just happened with me on 2 LR questions, although I think it was very helpful to force myself to interpret the question stems correctly - some of them are surprisingly tricky and the answer choices target those who misread the stem (see SuperPrep LR Section 1 #23 - took me 10 minutes to realize the incorrect answer I chose was actually the opposite answer choice). The explanations are all very technical, whereas the Kaplan explanations are very much strategic in nature (i.e. Answer choice B is a shell answer, Answer choice C is out of scope, etc)


Do you really like Kaplan's LR explanations Anaconda? I took their course and still use the mastery book for LR. Their explanations are better than no explanations at all, but I can't get by their snarky tone and stupid attempts at being funny. They fill their explanations with phrases like, "Wow, this dude has issues!" or "Huh? Lets look at that again!", in an attempt to seem cool and edgy. Also, I swear some of their explanations are just plain wrong when they are trying to explain why an answer is correct or incorrect. It kind of seems like they explanations are mass-produced by a team of people who seem more interested in marketing an image than creating a thorough and correct analysis of the questions.

User avatar
Anaconda
Posts: 610
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2010 3:51 pm

Re: LSAC SuperPrep

Postby Anaconda » Sun Aug 08, 2010 9:58 pm

Haha, there jokes are really lame, and quite frankly some of their explanations are either inadequate or in rare cases wrong (that is, the explanation for why an answer choice is wrong is itself not the reason that makes it incorrect).

LSAC's explanations are pretty good, but I think Kaplan's are simpler and easier to understand. I've also noticed Kaplan's explanations get progressively shorter and crappier as you progress through the PTs.

I do prefer LSAC's explanations because they fully explain things. It's just a tedious pain to review answers using SuperPrep in comparison to Kaplan, but no doubt it's better.

nStiver wrote:
Anaconda wrote:
LSAT Blog wrote:It's worthwhile, mainly because of LSAC's explanations for every question in the 3 PrepTests contained within. Almost none of the PrepTests have LSAC explanations - these do. The LR and RC explanations are very good - great way to see how the test-makers think about their own questions.


The one thing I don't like about LSAC's explanations is that it doesn't address convoluted question stems, so if you don't understand what the question was asking you'll have to figure it out by yourself in order to understand the explanations. This just happened with me on 2 LR questions, although I think it was very helpful to force myself to interpret the question stems correctly - some of them are surprisingly tricky and the answer choices target those who misread the stem (see SuperPrep LR Section 1 #23 - took me 10 minutes to realize the incorrect answer I chose was actually the opposite answer choice). The explanations are all very technical, whereas the Kaplan explanations are very much strategic in nature (i.e. Answer choice B is a shell answer, Answer choice C is out of scope, etc)


Do you really like Kaplan's LR explanations Anaconda? I took their course and still use the mastery book for LR. Their explanations are better than no explanations at all, but I can't get by their snarky tone and stupid attempts at being funny. They fill their explanations with phrases like, "Wow, this dude has issues!" or "Huh? Lets look at that again!", in an attempt to seem cool and edgy. Also, I swear some of their explanations are just plain wrong when they are trying to explain why an answer is correct or incorrect. It kind of seems like they explanations are mass-produced by a team of people who seem more interested in marketing an image than creating a thorough and correct analysis of the questions.

nStiver
Posts: 388
Joined: Thu Nov 06, 2008 4:15 am

Re: LSAC SuperPrep

Postby nStiver » Mon Aug 09, 2010 2:09 am

Ya, plowing through those superpreps is a mind-numbingly boring chore. The Kaplan explanations sure are easier to get through. I think the Mastery book is helping me with my main weakness, flaw questions. I used to miss them all the time but now even the hardest ones seem easier, so those explanations must be doing something. Sometimes I just shake my head and smile when I see a particularly lame joke.

I actually like Powerscore's explanations from the LRB better than Kaplan or SuperPrep explanations. They strike a happy medium between density and silliness.

I gotta hand it to Kaplan in that they have explanations for every single LSAT question. That must have been a herculean effort. I can forgive a few bad explanations as to why an answer choice is wrong and some lame humor thrown in here and there in return for the sheer volume of material I got from the class.

Anaconda wrote:Haha, there jokes are really lame, and quite frankly some of their explanations are either inadequate or in rare cases wrong (that is, the explanation for why an answer choice is wrong is itself not the reason that makes it incorrect).

LSAC's explanations are pretty good, but I think Kaplan's are simpler and easier to understand. I've also noticed Kaplan's explanations get progressively shorter and crappier as you progress through the PTs.

I do prefer LSAC's explanations because they fully explain things. It's just a tedious pain to review answers using SuperPrep in comparison to Kaplan, but no doubt it's better.

nStiver wrote:
Anaconda wrote:
LSAT Blog wrote:It's worthwhile, mainly because of LSAC's explanations for every question in the 3 PrepTests contained within. Almost none of the PrepTests have LSAC explanations - these do. The LR and RC explanations are very good - great way to see how the test-makers think about their own questions.


The one thing I don't like about LSAC's explanations is that it doesn't address convoluted question stems, so if you don't understand what the question was asking you'll have to figure it out by yourself in order to understand the explanations. This just happened with me on 2 LR questions, although I think it was very helpful to force myself to interpret the question stems correctly - some of them are surprisingly tricky and the answer choices target those who misread the stem (see SuperPrep LR Section 1 #23 - took me 10 minutes to realize the incorrect answer I chose was actually the opposite answer choice). The explanations are all very technical, whereas the Kaplan explanations are very much strategic in nature (i.e. Answer choice B is a shell answer, Answer choice C is out of scope, etc)


Do you really like Kaplan's LR explanations Anaconda? I took their course and still use the mastery book for LR. Their explanations are better than no explanations at all, but I can't get by their snarky tone and stupid attempts at being funny. They fill their explanations with phrases like, "Wow, this dude has issues!" or "Huh? Lets look at that again!", in an attempt to seem cool and edgy. Also, I swear some of their explanations are just plain wrong when they are trying to explain why an answer is correct or incorrect. It kind of seems like they explanations are mass-produced by a team of people who seem more interested in marketing an image than creating a thorough and correct analysis of the questions.




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: phelpsy, potatocowpower and 10 guests