Final Prep Advice (reposted in proper forum) Forum

[admisionquestion]

My LSAT started below 160 6 months ago. Then it peaked at 167 and a hit a wall for a few months constantly getting 167 or slightly under. Then it peeked at 169 until about a week ago when I started hitting 173's. The problem the entire way up was typical---Logic games.

Now after spending months getting better and better at these games I'm finally to the point where it actually makes sense to pay attention to arguments and reading also.

So the question is, what sort of prep advice would you suggest for me? I'm taking the October test and would love to push my range up by 1-2 points. I have literally not done anything to get better and reading comp or arguments (and my scores have been consistently 1-2 wrong per arg section and 2-3 wrong per reading comp section)

Bland statements like "read actively" aren't helpful to me at this point... I don't mark anything when I read and seem to do okay with this. But an example of a helpful tip would be some explanation for what I should be marking as I read the passages etc that is more specific than "the important stuff."

TLDR: What do you recommend to boost a reading comp score/argument score from 1-2 wrong to 0 wrong.

[The Gentleman]

Bring a luck charm on test day?

[Sandro]

This is kind of like a "How do I get from 177-180" type of question. To move from -2 to -1 to -0 you must... miss 1 less question each time. What do you want us to tell you? Each time you go through an LR section you miss something - its not as if some theory, or approach will enable you to not miss any - it all comes down to your knowledge of LR and how you apply it. If you find you are missing assumption questions the most, drill those. Your question in reality asks "How do I not make a mistake on the LSAT" because at -2 -1 -0 unless you have a glaring weakness in some specific type, its all kind of *random*

And this is assuming you already know that you should have gone through the LR Bible, but at -2/-1 you might not want to even pick it up since you seem to already get the lsat. Find out what specifically is causing each of your mistakes and attack that.

[The Gentleman]

^ Is that Tony Soprano in your avatar? The Gentleman has a hard time seeing without his monocle. lol

[Sandro]

^ Is that Tony Soprano in your avatar? The Gentleman has a hard time seeing without his monocle. lol

Maurice Levy from The Wire

[karasevda]

Regarding the RC, In order for you to ace it, the format must become second nature to you.
They ask virtually the same questions for each passage, so the key is being able to determine what parts will most likely be addressed in the questions.

In other words the 'important stuff' is almost always the same in every passage.
You need to know the the Main Point, the purpose of the passage, opposing view points (if any) and the evidence used to support those view points, the author's tone, the purpose of each paragraph and how each paragraph relates to one another etc.

Focus on adjectives to get a feel for the author's viewpoint and look for descriptive sentences related to the topic at hand.

For example: In as much as it conveys graphic symbolism, satirical wit, and employs a first-person narrative, Butter's style in the "Poop that took a Pee" is much more representative of the realist school of literature than the "talk-story" format its critics allude to. Indeed Butter's brilliant narration is evocative of the works of Tolstoy.

From this statement you could answer several questions.

The author's feelings toward Butter's or his book could be determined by the author's use of the word brilliant.
A question regarding the characteristics of realist literature, a question regarding the characteristics of the book, or a question regarding Butter's writing style could all be answered using the description at the beginning.

A question regarding the view to which some of his critics allude to could be answered by the "talk story" bit.

[JJDancer]

It's really hard to give advice on how to go from missing -3 to -0 since by that point you are either intuitively doing it right or know most of the right things to do.

If you want to make any notations on RC you can note the conclusion of the argument in the passage as MP (main point).
circle anything that shows tone such as "miles davis ingenously created bla bla" or "miles davis has been unfairly criticized by traditional blues artists"
(im just making up stuff there)

If there is a scientific process mentioned in the passage you can draw a little diagram for it.

If they mention specific people who did experiments or studies, I box their names so that I can easily find the section that relates to their contributions.

Remember that when they reference line #s or specific exact words from the passage, the answer might be a little before/after it.