Meltdown cannot get to 160

ss27
Posts: 11
Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2010 4:15 pm

Re: Meltdown cannot get to 160

Postby ss27 » Sun Sep 26, 2010 6:04 pm

Thank you all for your comments, I appreciate the realism/pessimism/optimism and random others. I don't give up very easily, so I probably will study until the day before the exam and make my decision then about what to do. I wish you all luck with your studies, and hope to see you accepted to the law school you desire.

Thank you.

PostHawk
Posts: 40
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 5:11 pm

Re: Meltdown cannot get to 160

Postby PostHawk » Sun Sep 26, 2010 6:18 pm

You might try taking a practice test untimed. That way you can see if there is a particular type of problem(s) you are messing up on. It helped me to see that I didn't actually understand certain types of problems in the LR section, which allowed me to focus on learning those types and helped me go from -5 or -6 per LR section to -2 & -3 per LR section. If you take the untimed test and do great on it, that suggests that you understand the test it's just a matter of practicing under realistic (or as close to) conditions.

blsingindisguise
Posts: 1296
Joined: Thu Nov 26, 2009 1:08 am

Re: Meltdown cannot get to 160

Postby blsingindisguise » Sun Sep 26, 2010 11:57 pm

3|ink wrote:
blsingindisguise wrote:
This is absolute nonsense. Only about 1 in 5000 people get a 180. You might as well say that anyone could make the NBA with enough practice.


In a forum dedicated to a test of logic, this is a very surprising response. Your analogy requires the assumption that the limitations of physical prowess are similar in nature to the limitations of mental acuity. Moreover, your citation of the statistics of those who score a 180 is not a logical counter to my point, for it fails to consider the possibility that only 1 in 5000 people actually study as hard as I described in my original post.


What reason do you have to think that most people's minds have infinite capacity? I.e. why wouldn't minds have limitations that vary based on innate characteristics? Why shouldn't brains vary the same way other parts of the body do? Or to put it another way, by your logic, everyone should be capable of not only achieving a 180 LSAT, but independently coming up with the theory of relativity as long as they "work hard enough." Somehow Einstein must have just been the hardest working scientist ever because there's no innate variance in mental capacity.

I would add that the idea that only 1 in 5000 people would work to capacity on a test with stakes as high as the LSAT just doesn't add up.

User avatar
lennonist
Posts: 164
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2010 9:38 pm

Re: Meltdown cannot get to 160

Postby lennonist » Mon Sep 27, 2010 12:17 am

ss27 wrote:I speak about five languages, but am fluent in English. I learned English as my third language when I was in first grade in the United States, so I don't think that applies.


English is my 3rd as well. I've evolved from 140s to 170s. Feel free to message me :)

vstraight
Posts: 37
Joined: Mon Sep 27, 2010 12:44 am

Re: Meltdown cannot get to 160

Postby vstraight » Mon Sep 27, 2010 12:50 am

blsingindisguise wrote:
3|ink wrote:
blsingindisguise wrote:
This is absolute nonsense. Only about 1 in 5000 people get a 180. You might as well say that anyone could make the NBA with enough practice.


In a forum dedicated to a test of logic, this is a very surprising response. Your analogy requires the assumption that the limitations of physical prowess are similar in nature to the limitations of mental acuity. Moreover, your citation of the statistics of those who score a 180 is not a logical counter to my point, for it fails to consider the possibility that only 1 in 5000 people actually study as hard as I described in my original post.


What reason do you have to think that most people's minds have infinite capacity? I.e. why wouldn't minds have limitations that vary based on innate characteristics? Why shouldn't brains vary the same way other parts of the body do? Or to put it another way, by your logic, everyone should be capable of not only achieving a 180 LSAT, but independently coming up with the theory of relativity as long as they "work hard enough." Somehow Einstein must have just been the hardest working scientist ever because there's no innate variance in mental capacity.

I would add that the idea that only 1 in 5000 people would work to capacity on a test with stakes as high as the LSAT just doesn't add up.


This.

But I'm sure the OP will say something like "Oh, I'm sure everyone can independently come up with the theory of relativity if they try hard enough, it's just that they haven't".

Which is something that can't be proved wrong...but as the LSAT teaches us...just because you can't prove something wrong, it doesn't mean that it's right. :)

User avatar
Patriot1208
Posts: 7044
Joined: Tue May 18, 2010 11:28 am

Re: Meltdown cannot get to 160

Postby Patriot1208 » Mon Sep 27, 2010 8:42 am

vstraight wrote:
blsingindisguise wrote:
3|ink wrote:
blsingindisguise wrote:
This is absolute nonsense. Only about 1 in 5000 people get a 180. You might as well say that anyone could make the NBA with enough practice.


In a forum dedicated to a test of logic, this is a very surprising response. Your analogy requires the assumption that the limitations of physical prowess are similar in nature to the limitations of mental acuity. Moreover, your citation of the statistics of those who score a 180 is not a logical counter to my point, for it fails to consider the possibility that only 1 in 5000 people actually study as hard as I described in my original post.


What reason do you have to think that most people's minds have infinite capacity? I.e. why wouldn't minds have limitations that vary based on innate characteristics? Why shouldn't brains vary the same way other parts of the body do? Or to put it another way, by your logic, everyone should be capable of not only achieving a 180 LSAT, but independently coming up with the theory of relativity as long as they "work hard enough." Somehow Einstein must have just been the hardest working scientist ever because there's no innate variance in mental capacity.

I would add that the idea that only 1 in 5000 people would work to capacity on a test with stakes as high as the LSAT just doesn't add up.


This.

But I'm sure the OP will say something like "Oh, I'm sure everyone can independently come up with the theory of relativity if they try hard enough, it's just that they haven't".

Which is something that can't be proved wrong...but as the LSAT teaches us...just because you can't prove something wrong, it doesn't mean that it's right. :)


Coming up with your own theory =/= learning how to take a test. HTH

User avatar
3|ink
Posts: 7331
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2009 5:23 pm

Re: Meltdown cannot get to 160

Postby 3|ink » Mon Sep 27, 2010 9:50 am

blsingindisguise wrote:What reason do you have to think that most people's minds have infinite capacity?


having a mind with infinite capacity =/= being able to score a 180 on the LSAT

blsingindisguise wrote:I.e. why wouldn't minds have limitations that vary based on innate characteristics?


How does one differentiate between 'obstacles' and 'limitations'? I have known two people with dyslexia in my life. One graduated top 10 of his class from the US Naval Academy. The other went to Columbia Law School. I don't take that as direct evidence that all obstacles can be overcome. I do however take it as direct evidence that some people can overcome overwhelmingly difficult obstacles. That is all that is required for my argument that all people potentially could score a 180 on the LSAT. However, I will further qualify that by saying "All people with the will to overcome mental obstacles can score a 180 on the LSAT".

blsingindisguise wrote:Why shouldn't brains vary the same way other parts of the body do?

I’d rather not open up another can of worms (nature vs. nurture). However, I would argue that there are few if any genes that would completely prevent someone from playing in the NBA. Crippling disorders aside, I’d say those who make it to the NBA are those who spent a better part of their lives playing the sport (nurture). They could have easily focused their energies onto something else had fate seen fit.

blsingindisguise wrote:Or to put it another way, by your logic, everyone should be capable of not only achieving a 180 LSAT, but independently coming up with the theory of relativity as long as they "work hard enough." Somehow Einstein must have just been the hardest working scientist ever because there's no innate variance in mental capacity.


There’s a significant difference between having the imagination to postulate a theory regarding the physical characteristics of the universe and having the mental capacity to master a test with 19+ years of precedent and study materials.

User avatar
3|ink
Posts: 7331
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2009 5:23 pm

Re: Meltdown cannot get to 160

Postby 3|ink » Mon Sep 27, 2010 9:52 am

vstraight wrote:
blsingindisguise wrote:
3|ink wrote:
blsingindisguise wrote:
This is absolute nonsense. Only about 1 in 5000 people get a 180. You might as well say that anyone could make the NBA with enough practice.


In a forum dedicated to a test of logic, this is a very surprising response. Your analogy requires the assumption that the limitations of physical prowess are similar in nature to the limitations of mental acuity. Moreover, your citation of the statistics of those who score a 180 is not a logical counter to my point, for it fails to consider the possibility that only 1 in 5000 people actually study as hard as I described in my original post.


What reason do you have to think that most people's minds have infinite capacity? I.e. why wouldn't minds have limitations that vary based on innate characteristics? Why shouldn't brains vary the same way other parts of the body do? Or to put it another way, by your logic, everyone should be capable of not only achieving a 180 LSAT, but independently coming up with the theory of relativity as long as they "work hard enough." Somehow Einstein must have just been the hardest working scientist ever because there's no innate variance in mental capacity.

I would add that the idea that only 1 in 5000 people would work to capacity on a test with stakes as high as the LSAT just doesn't add up.


This.

But I'm sure the OP will say something like "Oh, I'm sure everyone can independently come up with the theory of relativity if they try hard enough, it's just that they haven't".

Which is something that can't be proved wrong...but as the LSAT teaches us...just because you can't prove something wrong, it doesn't mean that it's right. :)


Nope. I didn't have to go that far to defeat that silly argument.

User avatar
Patriot1208
Posts: 7044
Joined: Tue May 18, 2010 11:28 am

Re: Meltdown cannot get to 160

Postby Patriot1208 » Mon Sep 27, 2010 9:57 am

3|ink wrote:
blsingindisguise wrote:Why shouldn't brains vary the same way other parts of the body do?

I’d rather not open up another can of worms (nature vs. nurture). However, I would argue that there are few if any genes that would completely prevent someone from playing in the NBA. Crippling disorders aside, I’d say those who make it to the NBA are those who spent a better part of their lives playing the sport (nurture). They could have easily focused their energies onto something else had fate seen fit.



Ok I followed everything you said, except this silly argument. As far as sports guy Nature>>>>>>Nurture. But I think this is less true in academics. As someone who spent significant time in my life doing a sport k-college, it's just not going to happen on a professional level for most of us. Despite the 40 hours a week I put in doing everything possible I was never going to be taller or faster then I had already achieved. And these things are prohibitive when it comes to playing professional sports.

User avatar
3|ink
Posts: 7331
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2009 5:23 pm

Re: Meltdown cannot get to 160

Postby 3|ink » Mon Sep 27, 2010 10:38 am

Patriot1208 wrote:
3|ink wrote:
blsingindisguise wrote:Why shouldn't brains vary the same way other parts of the body do?

I’d rather not open up another can of worms (nature vs. nurture). However, I would argue that there are few if any genes that would completely prevent someone from playing in the NBA. Crippling disorders aside, I’d say those who make it to the NBA are those who spent a better part of their lives playing the sport (nurture). They could have easily focused their energies onto something else had fate seen fit.



Ok I followed everything you said, except this silly argument. As far as sports guy Nature>>>>>>Nurture. But I think this is less true in academics. As someone who spent significant time in my life doing a sport k-college, it's just not going to happen on a professional level for most of us. Despite the 40 hours a week I put in doing everything possible I was never going to be taller or faster then I had already achieved. And these things are prohibitive when it comes to playing professional sports.


How do you know you just weren't trying hard enough? For all you know, someone with a stronger will could have tried even harder within those 40 hours. I'm not saying that everything is just a matter of time and effort. It's also a matter of will. However, I realize that this is incredibly difficult to substantiate. This just comes from my experience with sports.

User avatar
Patriot1208
Posts: 7044
Joined: Tue May 18, 2010 11:28 am

Re: Meltdown cannot get to 160

Postby Patriot1208 » Mon Sep 27, 2010 10:42 am

3|ink wrote:
Patriot1208 wrote:
3|ink wrote:
blsingindisguise wrote:Why shouldn't brains vary the same way other parts of the body do?

I’d rather not open up another can of worms (nature vs. nurture). However, I would argue that there are few if any genes that would completely prevent someone from playing in the NBA. Crippling disorders aside, I’d say those who make it to the NBA are those who spent a better part of their lives playing the sport (nurture). They could have easily focused their energies onto something else had fate seen fit.



Ok I followed everything you said, except this silly argument. As far as sports guy Nature>>>>>>Nurture. But I think this is less true in academics. As someone who spent significant time in my life doing a sport k-college, it's just not going to happen on a professional level for most of us. Despite the 40 hours a week I put in doing everything possible I was never going to be taller or faster then I had already achieved. And these things are prohibitive when it comes to playing professional sports.


How do you know you just weren't trying hard enough? For all you know, someone with a stronger will could have tried even harder within those 40 hours. I'm not saying that everything is just a matter of time and effort. It's also a matter of will. However, I realize that this is incredibly difficult to substantiate. This just comes from my experience with sports.


Lol, ok, so you've never played a high level of competitive sports have you?

User avatar
3|ink
Posts: 7331
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2009 5:23 pm

Re: Meltdown cannot get to 160

Postby 3|ink » Mon Sep 27, 2010 10:43 am

Patriot1208 wrote:
Lol, ok, so you've never played a high level of competitive sports have you?


Division one track and CC.

Hedwig
Posts: 835
Joined: Sun Jun 27, 2010 1:56 am

Re: Meltdown cannot get to 160

Postby Hedwig » Mon Sep 27, 2010 10:46 am

And this is why I do yoga.

However, I do think that people are capable of hitting 180 in practice tests if they study for as long as it takes with whatever material/tutors/extra help that they need. On test day, that's a different story due to test day stresses and other factors.

User avatar
Patriot1208
Posts: 7044
Joined: Tue May 18, 2010 11:28 am

Re: Meltdown cannot get to 160

Postby Patriot1208 » Mon Sep 27, 2010 10:51 am

3|ink wrote:
Patriot1208 wrote:
Lol, ok, so you've never played a high level of competitive sports have you?


Division one track and CC.


Aww, now this makes more sense. So you were a long distance then? I'll agree with you, in the long distances it comes down to quite a bit about will power and hard work. But look at the other division one athletes around you. Many of us that played sports that required some sort of prerequisite ability that the vast majority of people cannot obtain. Athletic ability that stems from fast twitch fibers vary greatly from person to person. No matter how hard I worked I was never going to have a 40 inch vertical or a run a sub 4.5 forty. Just wasn't happening for a 5'7 white kid. The only reason I was able to play division one was the fact that I worked as hard as I did and was one of the most technical skilled people on the team. But that athletic ability was always going to stop me from playing professionally. This is even more profound in the NBA and NFL. You cannot even play in those leagues at a shorter stature unless you are the type of athlete that is only possible in a miniscule amount of people. I know kids who worked their asses off, as hard, if not harder, than I did. And they couldn't achieve what I had because they were even worse athletes. It's just the it works in these sports. It's absolute ludicrous and quite frankly confusing that anyone would try to make an argument that anyone can play professional sports if they want it enough. There are stories upon stories of people who have lived and bled for their sports and where just never able to make it.

Quite frankly, I take offense to this. I was always the kid who people just talked about how hard I worked. I was never supposed to get the awards I racked up in high school and I was never supposed to play division 1. I was able to overcome those odds with the fact that I left everything on the field everytime I was there. Every conditioning session I was running till I threw up. It's just the way I was. But realistically, it was only carrying me so far. I was specifically told by my number one college that I was quite easily good enough technically to play for that school, but I was just never going to be the athlete to play for them. (they were ranked in the top ten in the country).

User avatar
Patriot1208
Posts: 7044
Joined: Tue May 18, 2010 11:28 am

Re: Meltdown cannot get to 160

Postby Patriot1208 » Mon Sep 27, 2010 11:02 am

eit wrote:And this is why I do yoga.

However, I do think that people are capable of hitting 180 in practice tests if they study for as long as it takes with whatever material/tutors/extra help that they need. On test day, that's a different story due to test day stresses and other factors.


I do agree with this about the test though. Anyone can memorize a set of conceptual ideas and implement them. It may take some people longer then others and it may take much harder work for some then others, but in the end, everyone CAN do it.

User avatar
3|ink
Posts: 7331
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2009 5:23 pm

Re: Meltdown cannot get to 160

Postby 3|ink » Mon Sep 27, 2010 11:05 am

Patriot1208 wrote:
3|ink wrote:
Patriot1208 wrote:
Lol, ok, so you've never played a high level of competitive sports have you?


Division one track and CC.


Aww, now this makes more sense. So you were a long distance then? I'll agree with you, in the long distances it comes down to quite a bit about will power and hard work. But look at the other division one athletes around you. Many of us that played sports that required some sort of prerequisite ability that the vast majority of people cannot obtain. Athletic ability that stems from fast twitch fibers vary greatly from person to person. No matter how hard I worked I was never going to have a 40 inch vertical or a run a sub 4.5 forty. Just wasn't happening for a 5'7 white kid. The only reason I was able to play division one was the fact that I worked as hard as I did and was one of the most technical skilled people on the team. But that athletic ability was always going to stop me from playing professionally. This is even more profound in the NBA and NFL. You cannot even play in those leagues at a shorter stature unless you are the type of athlete that is only possible in a miniscule amount of people. I know kids who worked their asses off, as hard, if not harder, than I did. And they couldn't achieve what I had because they were even worse athletes. It's just the it works in these sports. It's absolute ludicrous and quite frankly confusing that anyone would try to make an argument that anyone can play professional sports if they want it enough. There are stories upon stories of people who have lived and bled for their sports and where just never able to make it.

Quite frankly, I take offense to this. I was always the kid who people just talked about how hard I worked. I was never supposed to get the awards I racked up in high school and I was never supposed to play division 1. I was able to overcome those odds with the fact that I left everything on the field everytime I was there. Every conditioning session I was running till I threw up. It's just the way I was. But realistically, it was only carrying me so far. I was specifically told by my number one college that I was quite easily good enough technically to play for that school, but I was just never going to be the athlete to play for them. (they were ranked in the top ten in the country).



I didn't mean to offend. I have no idea how hard to worked. You may have very well worked as hard as was possible. However, the fact that I don't know leaves open the possibility.

I was a walk-on. My high school didn't have a track team, so I wasn't even scouted for recruitment or offered a scholarship until after my first year of track and CC in college. In high school, my coach said that running D1 CC or track required a certain lung capacity that I didn’t have. When I ran in college, I start out as our #5 and gradually moved my way up to # 2 by the end of the CC season (fall). I remained our second-fastest long distance guy throughout the track seasons. But how did I overcome my lung capacity issues? I just had to learn to pace my breathing while running. I could have spent my workouts breathing like an idiot and wasting time. Instead, my coach taught me to breathe so that my disability wasn’t so crippling.

Anyway, I eventually quit running in college because it was depressing my grades significantly. I barely got away with a 3.15 in college thanks to CC. The scholarship CC gave me was for books only so I said fuck it.

User avatar
acrossthelake
Posts: 4432
Joined: Sat May 16, 2009 5:27 pm

Re: Meltdown cannot get to 160

Postby acrossthelake » Mon Sep 27, 2010 1:02 pm

Ok, yes, biology sets limits for individuals. However, this isn't really relevant for the individual at the individual level because you won't know where your limit is until you've worked so hard and put in so much time as to truly push up against it, which very few of us ever do with very much of anything in our lives. More crucially, if something is important to you, it is not worth guesstimating and falling short and giving up too soon. What you might think is your limit might just be a plateau in improvement that you need to get past.

Nature might limit your pace of improvement and limit your ratio of effort to payoff. This applies here in the LSAT. Some people don't have to try very hard. I know people who had diagnostics in the 170s, while others start in the 130s and put in months of time and don't break 160. With ~0.5-2/3 of your admission decision riding on the LSAT, though, and the relative prestige of a law school limiting opportunities of employment at graduation, there's a fair bit of incentive to put in a lot of effort. Maybe it might take someone *hundreds* of hours to hit the 170s. Maybe that person doesn't have that kind of time or doesn't think it's worth it. The effort/payoff ratio gets worse as one gets closer and closer to the top.
I don't think the LSAT is an advanced enough or difficult enough test to think that it's beyond anybody's limit. It just might require more time than one has.

hijodehombre
Posts: 251
Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2010 3:29 pm

Re: Meltdown cannot get to 160

Postby hijodehombre » Mon Sep 27, 2010 1:35 pm

My chances of becoming the next Oakland Raiders' kicker are just as good as anyone else's right about now.

User avatar
GoGetIt
Posts: 88
Joined: Thu Jun 24, 2010 2:53 am

Re: Meltdown cannot get to 160

Postby GoGetIt » Tue Sep 28, 2010 1:04 pm

almostthereee wrote:I honestly believe there's a LSAT "ceiling" for everyone. There's just people that can read, absorb, and deduce information faster and more accurately than others and that's something no prep course or any amount of practice can teach. People that just pick up an LSAT book, do a preptest or two and hit 170+ or people who score 158 or higher on their diagnostic cold, for example. I believe those people are the ones that have the potential to even flirt with a 180. This is just purely from my observations but I haven't seen someone that scores say a 140 cold and end up with a 170+.


I don't believe that there's a ceiling for everyone. Yes, some may have a peak score to a certain degree. However, I know a 3L that scored a 133 on his diagnostic and scored a 172 on test day. Granted, this is very rare, but possible.

Miracle
Posts: 929
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2008 9:25 pm

Re: Meltdown cannot get to 160

Postby Miracle » Tue Sep 28, 2010 1:46 pm

OP,

When my cousin and I started studying for the test I experienced the same struggle. She was getting 170+ on hers yet I understood all of the material and was getting 150-159 on mine. I would often read the question, and then review the answers and after checking my answers would realize what an easy question that was.

What you have to do is asses what you're doing wrong. Are you reading too fast which is causing you to overlook the correct answers? Are you having hard time understanding curtain words-phrases? If you know the material, but are still receiving low score there is a little error that’s causing you huge points. I know, because it happened to me. By just analyzing and seeing that I'm reading too fast-slowing down and doing 9 prep test in the row (I was committed), i was receiving -0, and -1 on my LR, RC.

With that said, if you know the material as you stated that you do, you still have time to see what's wrong and improve on it. It could be a simple error that could be fixed within minutes-you just have t know what that error is. It would be different if you didn't understand the material.

twb136
Posts: 45
Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2010 9:05 am

Re: Meltdown cannot get to 160

Postby twb136 » Tue Sep 28, 2010 2:08 pm

I also took Test Masters. Last year I officially scored a 158. I have only scored above the 158 twice on all my practice exams up to this point but I am so much more prepared for this exam this time around. Coincidentally, when I take the proctored exams I score above 165 every time. I found that I cannot properly focus on practice tests because I really do not take them seriously, as bad as that sounds. So I practice a lot of Type 1's and 2's and focus on the theory more than identifying question types. I generally get less than 3 wrong on LG and RC butt then I will literally get 9 wrong on one section on LR and then 15 wrong on the second LR.

Also, what Miracle does is also what I do with reviewing the test. When I go back and review, its crazy how obvious the answer choice is compared to the 4 incorrect answers. This weekend is the final diagnostic so I hope to get close to a 170. I say this as encouragement that you may just be like me in that you prepare well for the exam but since you are not in the actual test you do not focus as much as you can.

Miracle
Posts: 929
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2008 9:25 pm

Re: Meltdown cannot get to 160

Postby Miracle » Tue Sep 28, 2010 2:20 pm

twb136 wrote:I also took Test Masters. Last year I officially scored a 158. I have only scored above the 158 twice on all my practice exams up to this point but I am so much more prepared for this exam this time around. Coincidentally, when I take the proctored exams I score above 165 every time. I found that I cannot properly focus on practice tests because I really do not take them seriously, as bad as that sounds. So I practice a lot of Type 1's and 2's and focus on the theory more than identifying question types. I generally get less than 3 wrong on LG and RC butt then I will literally get 9 wrong on one section on LR and then 15 wrong on the second LR.

Also, what Miracle does is also what I do with reviewing the test. When I go back and review, its crazy how obvious the answer choice is compared to the 4 incorrect answers. This weekend is the final diagnostic so I hope to get close to a 170. I say this as encouragement that you may just be like me in that you prepare well for the exam but since you are not in the actual test you do not focus as much as you can.


That was part of my problem as well. I woud sit to take exam and after few questions get up and get glass of water etc., In summary, he has to figure out what the problem is on his own.

almostthereee
Posts: 76
Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2010 9:16 pm

Re: Meltdown cannot get to 160

Postby almostthereee » Tue Sep 28, 2010 4:21 pm

twb136 wrote:I also took Test Masters. Last year I officially scored a 158. I have only scored above the 158 twice on all my practice exams up to this point but I am so much more prepared for this exam this time around. Coincidentally, when I take the proctored exams I score above 165 every time. I found that I cannot properly focus on practice tests because I really do not take them seriously, as bad as that sounds. So I practice a lot of Type 1's and 2's and focus on the theory more than identifying question types. I generally get less than 3 wrong on LG and RC butt then I will literally get 9 wrong on one section on LR and then 15 wrong on the second LR.

Also, what Miracle does is also what I do with reviewing the test. When I go back and review, its crazy how obvious the answer choice is compared to the 4 incorrect answers. This weekend is the final diagnostic so I hope to get close to a 170. I say this as encouragement that you may just be like me in that you prepare well for the exam but since you are not in the actual test you do not focus as much as you can.


Same here. I found the first PTs I did I was zoned in from beginning to end. Now, after doing (what has felt like) a billion PTs, I start having the feeling of zoning out by mid section 3 knowing it's not the real thing. It's bad, I know, but I still don't know why it happens. I'm just hoping on test day I'll realize the severity of the situation and not have that feeling creep up on me.

ss27
Posts: 11
Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2010 4:15 pm

Re: Meltdown cannot get to 160

Postby ss27 » Thu Sep 30, 2010 12:50 pm

Hi everyone OKAYISH news... i just scored a 159 (-3 on logic games) still doing worst in LR and doing baddish in RC. Somewhat good news is that 80% of what I got wrong were blanks I left.

In any case, I am definitely going to go over the ones I got wrong (as soon as time ran out on LG i knew instantaneously what i did wrong on each game and was really annoyed). But I do need a lot of work on logical reasoning 1,2,4, 5 type questions for people who understand testmaster's lingo.

Plan of action is to just keep practicing, will keep you all updated. Thank you for the advice, I'm definitely going to spend the next 2 hours before class to see and understand what I did wrong on the exam.

Thanks.

User avatar
Lokomani
Posts: 67
Joined: Sun Jun 27, 2010 3:54 am

Re: Meltdown cannot get to 160

Postby Lokomani » Thu Sep 30, 2010 1:01 pm

ss27 wrote:Hi everyone OKAYISH news... i just scored a 159 (-3 on logic games) still doing worst in LR and doing baddish in RC. Somewhat good news is that 80% of what I got wrong were blanks I left.

In any case, I am definitely going to go over the ones I got wrong (as soon as time ran out on LG i knew instantaneously what i did wrong on each game and was really annoyed). But I do need a lot of work on logical reasoning 1,2,4, 5 type questions for people who understand testmaster's lingo.



You should probably not take the LSAT in October. Be realistic, if you're seeing this much headway after not improving for so long, it means things are just now clicking for you on some level. Imagine where you could be in a few months if you actually stayed dedicated to learning the material. Why are you so persistent in taking the Oct LSAT?




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: ari1, BobBoblaw and 5 guests