Top Law Schools

I have no prior exposure to the LSAT and just started a course.

I have the LG and LR bibles, but am hesitant to use them thinking that they might contradict methods taught in the course I'm taking.

Q: Should I stay away from the bibles? or should I work through them along side the course?

Diag: 154
LG: -15
RC: -10
LR: -12

*On RC and LR, my main problem was speed.

Thanks.

Who's course?

First, well played Kurst.

Second, your "concern" seems unfounded. If you're any kind of sophisticated, being taught two slightly different "methods" of doing something shouldn't be counterproductive; synthesize them into a method that works best for you.

Also, 154 is a pretty decent diagnostic.

First, well played Kurst.

+1, thanks dood.

and rest assured, i'm not the least kind of sophisticated.

Since for some reason I'm still awake, I'll elaborate.

If you're any kind of sophisticated, being taught two slightly different "methods" of doing something shouldn't be counterproductive; synthesize them into a method that works best for you.

The prep course I took decided to teach basic logic differently than I had learned it in a college logic course. Modus ponens and modus tollens became positive and negative "argument structure", ~ was replaced by a diagonal slash, etc. Different companies undoubtedly teach slightly different symbols and diagrams for the LG section, but the process is essentially the same. My course also sorted LR passages into something like 15 different "question types." I never found it helpful to think of them this way, but I guess this helped some people recognize what type of answer they were looking for. In the end, I'd say the most important thing is repetition.

Also, 154 is a pretty decent diagnostic.

Between diagnostics and real tests, I sat for a timed LSAT a grand total of seven times (IIRC): 152-164-167-172-170-174-172. On these boards you will find tons of people who took 40 or 50 tests, which is probably a more effective approach (both in terms of cost and, probably, results). Either way, you're in a good position. I, too, began by getting less than half right on LG.

splitterfriendly wrote:I have no prior exposure to the LSAT and just started a course.

I have the LG and LR bibles, but am hesitant to use them thinking that they might contradict methods taught in the course I'm taking.

Q: Should I stay away from the bibles? or should I work through them along side the course?

Diag: 154
LG: -15
RC: -10
LR: -12

*On RC and LR, my main problem was speed.

Thanks.

I am using Kaplan and the bibles, they are blending well together. I personally didn't have a clue and one can throw you off but as the material begins to sink in, I am getting better. I am using the bibles with the LSAT Blog schedule and I feel like the way he has set up the material is great. I have the Kaplan on Demand and Logic Games on Demand. The Kaplan course gives you every prep test, it does about 4 diagnostics, you get books that contain all of the test questions and they have it set up by question type. I like having both, and I am starting to get it together, I just wish that I had more time before the June Test.

Lieut Kaffee wrote:First, well played Kurst.

Second, your "concern" seems unfounded. If you're any kind of sophisticated, being taught two slightly different "methods" of doing something shouldn't be counterproductive; synthesize them into a method that works best for you.

Also, 154 is a pretty decent diagnostic.

+1 I get so tired of hearing that learning two methods can be confusing. If knowing two ways to do something sets you back, then the LSAT will not be the last time you have problems.

kwais wrote:+1 I get so tired of hearing that learning two methods can be confusing. If knowing two ways to do something sets you back, then the LSAT will not be the last time you have problems.

In my experience teaching, people who try to mix methods show less improvement than people who don't. The multi-method people tend to spend all their time trying to reinvent the wheel coming up with some Voltron-style approach that "works for them" rather than just picking a tried and true method and mastering it.

Any course worth the $1500 you paid for it is going to give you everything you need to improve and then some. If you need to supplement your class with someone else's book, you picked the wrong class.

EarlCat wrote:people who try to mix methods show less improvement than people who don't.

I posit a correlation where you suggest a causation.

Lieut Kaffee wrote:

EarlCat wrote:people who try to mix methods show less improvement than people who don't.

I posit a correlation where you suggest a causation.

Well sure, if you ignore the part of that paragraph where I suggested a reason why mixing methods likely causes reduced performance.

Obviously I didn't prove anything or perform any scientific analysis, but having heard method-mixers try to articulate their thinking on particular questions, I'd say there's at least some causal element there. Maybe it's not entirely causal. Perhaps students who are, say, overly nervous about the test are both more likely to mix methods and less likely to improve significantly.