145 to 160 next step 170

6lehderjets
Posts: 226
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2011 11:01 pm

145 to 160 next step 170

Postby 6lehderjets » Mon Oct 17, 2011 7:48 pm

Hi there,

I was hoping to get some advice from you guys have made the jump into the 170s and beyond. I started my prep when I got a cold diagnostic score of 145, I have busted my hump to learn the basics of this test and worked my way up to the average of 160. Now I am focusing on my problem areas and advanced techniques like pattern recognition. I have made my study plan more specific to my problem areas to focus on the 3-4 question types on LR that give me trouble consistently. Focusing on grouping games and slowing down just a touch to avoid diagramming wrong. Finally, working on RC by using the Velocity system. I have been putting serious emphasis into recognizing patterns, such as understanding the similarities between question types and finding common elements within RC passages.

I have searched for threads for similar questions and glossed over the how to score 160+ thread but have not seen anything directly relevant to my situation.

If anyone has any more tips/suggestions for how I can improve my LSAT score to the level I'd like to be at I would really appreciate it. If you have any suggestions on tweaking the generalized study plan I outlined above I would welcome suggestions to that as well.

Thanks in advance for checking out the post and for your advice.

EDIT: This is NOT a flame. I am genuinely seeking advice for improvement.

CodyRuegger
Posts: 58
Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2011 11:12 pm

Re: 145 to 160 next step 170

Postby CodyRuegger » Tue Oct 18, 2011 1:27 am

Sounds like you're on the right path. Honestly, there's no one answer to this question - if you keep working at it, your score will continue to improve. If you really dig through the 'Advice to get 160+' thread, you'll find a common tie between the 175+ testers - they all took oodles of practice tests.

When you answer a problem, it is not enough to know that you are correct or probably correct, you have to know exactly why you are correct. Sometimes you will be genuinely stumped - perhaps two answers look right, or none of them do - put a question mark next to these trickier problems and come back to them later. Know that every question will have 1 answer that is 100% right and 4 that are 100% wrong.

Practice will help you develop a sense of intuition on the test, which will allow you to plow through easy and medium difficulty questions quickly and efficiently. After enough time spent with on LR sections, for instance, you'll likely be naturally prephrasing everything, and have a good idea of what the answer to the question is or could be before you even read the stem.

At the point you're at now, I would focus on analyzing every problem you get wrong. You're at a threshold where you get most of the easy and medium difficulty problems correct, but the tough ones often get the best of you. To score 170+, these tough problems need to become easy problems.

User avatar
gaud
Posts: 5790
Joined: Sat Feb 05, 2011 2:58 am

Re: 145 to 160 next step 170

Postby gaud » Tue Oct 18, 2011 1:40 am

How many incorrect answers (on average per test) LR? RC? LG?

6lehderjets
Posts: 226
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2011 11:01 pm

Re: 145 to 160 next step 170

Postby 6lehderjets » Tue Oct 18, 2011 7:23 pm

CodyRuegger wrote:Sounds like you're on the right path. Honestly, there's no one answer to this question - if you keep working at it, your score will continue to improve. If you really dig through the 'Advice to get 160+' thread, you'll find a common tie between the 175+ testers - they all took oodles of practice tests.

When you answer a problem, it is not enough to know that you are correct or probably correct, you have to know exactly why you are correct. Sometimes you will be genuinely stumped - perhaps two answers look right, or none of them do - put a question mark next to these trickier problems and come back to them later. Know that every question will have 1 answer that is 100% right and 4 that are 100% wrong.

Practice will help you develop a sense of intuition on the test, which will allow you to plow through easy and medium difficulty questions quickly and efficiently. After enough time spent with on LR sections, for instance, you'll likely be naturally prephrasing everything, and have a good idea of what the answer to the question is or could be before you even read the stem.

At the point you're at now, I would focus on analyzing every problem you get wrong. You're at a threshold where you get most of the easy and medium difficulty problems correct, but the tough ones often get the best of you. To score 170+, these tough problems need to become easy problems.


I'd agree that the above emphasis is an accurate statement of my standing currently. Doing more P/Ts are the next step in my prep after I complete drilling me weaker areas. Thanks for your suggestions.

User avatar
Kabuo
Posts: 1114
Joined: Tue Aug 31, 2010 8:53 am

Re: 145 to 160 next step 170

Postby Kabuo » Tue Oct 18, 2011 7:32 pm

6lehderjets wrote:
CodyRuegger wrote:Sounds like you're on the right path. Honestly, there's no one answer to this question - if you keep working at it, your score will continue to improve. If you really dig through the 'Advice to get 160+' thread, you'll find a common tie between the 175+ testers - they all took oodles of practice tests.

When you answer a problem, it is not enough to know that you are correct or probably correct, you have to know exactly why you are correct. Sometimes you will be genuinely stumped - perhaps two answers look right, or none of them do - put a question mark next to these trickier problems and come back to them later. Know that every question will have 1 answer that is 100% right and 4 that are 100% wrong.

Practice will help you develop a sense of intuition on the test, which will allow you to plow through easy and medium difficulty questions quickly and efficiently. After enough time spent with on LR sections, for instance, you'll likely be naturally prephrasing everything, and have a good idea of what the answer to the question is or could be before you even read the stem.

At the point you're at now, I would focus on analyzing every problem you get wrong. You're at a threshold where you get most of the easy and medium difficulty problems correct, but the tough ones often get the best of you. To score 170+, these tough problems need to become easy problems.


I'd agree that the above emphasis is an accurate statement of my standing currently. Doing more P/Ts are the next step in my prep after I complete drilling me weaker areas. Thanks for your suggestions.


This seems kind of on point. I don't even remember my exact study habits now, but I know I was at first really focused on LG, which was my biggest problem area. Eventually, I would just notice answers sort themselves out. On the first 20 I improved my average from mid 160s to high 160s to low 170s. Then It went to 175+ and stayed there for the rest of them. I ended up taking every released PT, and some more than once. I kind of feel like once you've seen 60 full LSATs, nothing can surprise you. The answer just becomes obvious before you even see the choices. Cool feeling, but it took a lot of practice.

6lehderjets
Posts: 226
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2011 11:01 pm

Re: 145 to 160 next step 170

Postby 6lehderjets » Tue Oct 18, 2011 7:36 pm

gaud wrote:How many incorrect answers (on average per test) LR? RC? LG?


For LR I'm at anywhere from -10 to -12 combined between the two sections. I am consistently getting the same types of LR questions wrong so I have put serious effort into finding out what I am doing wrong and fixing those mistakes.

For LG I'm anywhere from -2 to -6. With grouping games, that involve subgroups within the main groups giving me the most trouble. I'm drilling grouping games consistently so I have begun to see some improvement. Generally when I'm getting the minus -6 its because I have misread a rule or diagrammed something incorrectly because I was going too fast so I am trying to discipline myself to find that perfect balance of speed and accuracy.

RC is a major area of practice currently because I get anywhere from -6 to -10 wrong. Its going to be difficult to get 170 if I don't get that # down and since I have begun using Velocity's system I am getting a lot better but I think its just going to take more practice. I have a finance background within my work history and undergrad so I got away not being able to read for content because I did well in math but that caught up with me now.

Any advice based on that description?

User avatar
gaud
Posts: 5790
Joined: Sat Feb 05, 2011 2:58 am

Re: 145 to 160 next step 170

Postby gaud » Tue Oct 18, 2011 7:52 pm

For LR since you know what types you are missing you are at a good starting point. Cambridge LSAT (and i'm sure many other places do) offers publications purely based upon type. I would work on those and really focus on why each answer is right, wrong, et cetera .. the review is CRUCIAL to the whole process.
if you are still having trouble i would recommend checking out manhattan, powerscore, and possibly even velocity's guides for help

For LG, fixing this will get you easier points. I would recommend you redo each game AT LEAST twice and the more you do this the more you will practice diagramming correctly and making inferences... time and practice will create progress.

RC is hard to say.. manhattan's guide really helped me out and so did the many of tips on dave's (three 180 thread)..


all in all i would say redoing problems helped me understand the foundations a lot... try and not to get lost in the content and realize that since this test is standardized that there IS a reoccuring structure to almost all of the problems. when i was able to read based upon structure and not content my points skyrocketed.

i know this was not too much advice, but i hope it helps at least a little

User avatar
gaud
Posts: 5790
Joined: Sat Feb 05, 2011 2:58 am

Re: 145 to 160 next step 170

Postby gaud » Tue Oct 18, 2011 7:58 pm

how do you set up your grouping games too? for me I literally just drew a line and had 'in' on the left side and 'out' on the right... keeping diagrams simple may help you not lose track or become confused

6lehderjets
Posts: 226
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2011 11:01 pm

Re: 145 to 160 next step 170

Postby 6lehderjets » Tue Oct 18, 2011 8:09 pm

gaud wrote:how do you set up your grouping games too? for me I literally just drew a line and had 'in' on the left side and 'out' on the right... keeping diagrams simple may help you not lose track or become confused



I used exclusively PS for LG improvement so I'm not too sure about the in-out concept because the logic games bible doesn't use that terminology. What my general approach is when the game involves things like cities, tour guides, seminars etc with another set of variables (such as people going to the respective locations or being paired up with them) I pick the most static variable as my base so the cities or seminars will be my bases. With games like the CD game from June 00 when no obvious diagram can be drawn I generally try to just identify the rules the best I can and diagram the conditional rules and contrapositives clearly.

If you could elaborate a bit more on in and out concept and your approach I'd be curious to see if that could help out.

User avatar
gaud
Posts: 5790
Joined: Sat Feb 05, 2011 2:58 am

Re: 145 to 160 next step 170

Postby gaud » Tue Oct 18, 2011 8:13 pm

6lehderjets wrote:
gaud wrote:how do you set up your grouping games too? for me I literally just drew a line and had 'in' on the left side and 'out' on the right... keeping diagrams simple may help you not lose track or become confused



I used exclusively PS for LG improvement so I'm not too sure about the in-out concept because the logic games bible doesn't use that terminology. What my general approach is when the game involves things like cities, tour guides, seminars etc with another set of variables (such as people going to the respective locations or being paired up with them) I pick the most static variable as my base so the cities or seminars will be my bases. With games like the CD game from June 00 when no obvious diagram can be drawn I generally try to just identify the rules the best I can and diagram the conditional rules and contrapositives clearly.

If you could elaborate a bit more on in and out concept and your approach I'd be curious to see if that could help out.



I see what you're saying. I think that your approach, or at least how it sounds, is solid right now. To me, I would consider those games 'matching' so I guess there was a terminology fail between the two of us. What I meant with regards to the 'line' and the 'in' 'out' setup was aimed more towards games like "birds in the forest"

6lehderjets
Posts: 226
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2011 11:01 pm

Re: 145 to 160 next step 170

Postby 6lehderjets » Wed Oct 19, 2011 12:44 am

gaud wrote:
6lehderjets wrote:
gaud wrote:how do you set up your grouping games too? for me I literally just drew a line and had 'in' on the left side and 'out' on the right... keeping diagrams simple may help you not lose track or become confused



I used exclusively PS for LG improvement so I'm not too sure about the in-out concept because the logic games bible doesn't use that terminology. What my general approach is when the game involves things like cities, tour guides, seminars etc with another set of variables (such as people going to the respective locations or being paired up with them) I pick the most static variable as my base so the cities or seminars will be my bases. With games like the CD game from June 00 when no obvious diagram can be drawn I generally try to just identify the rules the best I can and diagram the conditional rules and contrapositives clearly.

If you could elaborate a bit more on in and out concept and your approach I'd be curious to see if that could help out.



I see what you're saying. I think that your approach, or at least how it sounds, is solid right now. To me, I would consider those games 'matching' so I guess there was a terminology fail between the two of us. What I meant with regards to the 'line' and the 'in' 'out' setup was aimed more towards games like "birds in the forest"


What did you use to prep for LG? I have heard some people say that for in/out games some methods are more preferable than the methods suggested by PS. I did well on the birds in the forest game but I'd be curious to know if it could be done in a more efficient manner.

User avatar
gaud
Posts: 5790
Joined: Sat Feb 05, 2011 2:58 am

Re: 145 to 160 next step 170

Postby gaud » Wed Oct 19, 2011 3:18 am

Pm'd

CodyRuegger
Posts: 58
Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2011 11:12 pm

Re: 145 to 160 next step 170

Postby CodyRuegger » Wed Oct 19, 2011 3:49 am

Hey, to the OP-

WRT grouping games, I started with the PS system but sort of evolved it a little into something that made more sense to me.

In the PS bible, they basically tell you to make a list of all the rules in conditional reasoning format. This is fine and good, but instead of integrating these rules together in a way that's cohesive and easy to read, they want you to crunch out every inference into its own line. This, imo, is really inefficient and can lead to mistakes.

What I do instead is I link every rule together in a conditional reasoning graph - and they do tend to all link together somehow, so you'll find that the games lend themselves naturally to this type of approach. It's important to diagram in a way that will remain clear - ie, keep your one-way arrows going in more or less the same way, and try to write each variable only once on the final graph if you can help it. This way, you can see how each variable in the game relates to each other variable - and you don't really have to worry about finding each inference, since you can find them on the fly in this format.

This gets a little bit trickier when you have multi-group games, of course, but I still find it helpful to map as many rules together as you can.

I used an alternative method with pure sequencing games as well, but if you're acing those I won't bother you with more drivel. :)

Also, with the LR.. I've recommended this to other users. I purchased the Cambridge 'LSAT Challenge' book, which contains only and all of the tough problems from PT's 1-40. (I probably should have just purchased the LR section of that book, in retrospect) A bit dated, but an effective study tool. It was surprising to me how many tough LR problems went right under my nose when I first starting working through the 400 or so problems. But, by number 200 or so I had grown accustomed to the difficulty level of the super-tough LR problems and had more or less been answering with the accuracy I would aim for on an actual section, which is, of course, mixed with plenty of easier problems.

6lehderjets
Posts: 226
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2011 11:01 pm

Re: 145 to 160 next step 170

Postby 6lehderjets » Wed Oct 19, 2011 12:07 pm

CodyRuegger wrote:Hey, to the OP-

WRT grouping games, I started with the PS system but sort of evolved it a little into something that made more sense to me.

In the PS bible, they basically tell you to make a list of all the rules in conditional reasoning format. This is fine and good, but instead of integrating these rules together in a way that's cohesive and easy to read, they want you to crunch out every inference into its own line. This, imo, is really inefficient and can lead to mistakes.

What I do instead is I link every rule together in a conditional reasoning graph - and they do tend to all link together somehow, so you'll find that the games lend themselves naturally to this type of approach. It's important to diagram in a way that will remain clear - ie, keep your one-way arrows going in more or less the same way, and try to write each variable only once on the final graph if you can help it. This way, you can see how each variable in the game relates to each other variable - and you don't really have
to worry about finding each inference, since you can find them on the fly in this format.

This gets a little bit trickier when you have multi-group games, of course, but I still find it helpful to map as many rules together as you can.

I used an alternative method with pure sequencing games as well, but if you're acing those I won't bother you with more drivel. :)

Also, with the LR.. I've recommended this to other users. I purchased the Cambridge 'LSAT Challenge' book, which contains only and all of the tough problems from PT's 1-40. (I probably should have just purchased the LR section of that book, in retrospect) A bit dated, but an effective study tool. It was surprising to me how many tough LR problems went right under my nose when I first starting working through the 400 or so problems. But, by number 200 or so I had grown accustomed to the difficulty level of the super-tough LR problems and had more or less been answering with the accuracy I would aim for on an actual section, which is, of course, mixed with plenty of easier problems.


For the graph format you mentioned, your basically linking the common variables together from either the original rules or contrapositives to have a master diagram that efficiently captures the rules, am I understanding that correctly? Is there any games that come to mind that lend themselves to this so I can practice your approach?

User avatar
ColtsFan88
Posts: 1432
Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2011 5:05 pm

Re: 145 to 160 next step 170

Postby ColtsFan88 » Sat Oct 22, 2011 2:22 am

6lehderjets wrote:
CodyRuegger wrote:Hey, to the OP-

WRT grouping games, I started with the PS system but sort of evolved it a little into something that made more sense to me.

In the PS bible, they basically tell you to make a list of all the rules in conditional reasoning format. This is fine and good, but instead of integrating these rules together in a way that's cohesive and easy to read, they want you to crunch out every inference into its own line. This, imo, is really inefficient and can lead to mistakes.

What I do instead is I link every rule together in a conditional reasoning graph - and they do tend to all link together somehow, so you'll find that the games lend themselves naturally to this type of approach. It's important to diagram in a way that will remain clear - ie, keep your one-way arrows going in more or less the same way, and try to write each variable only once on the final graph if you can help it. This way, you can see how each variable in the game relates to each other variable - and you don't really have
to worry about finding each inference, since you can find them on the fly in this format.

This gets a little bit trickier when you have multi-group games, of course, but I still find it helpful to map as many rules together as you can.

I used an alternative method with pure sequencing games as well, but if you're acing those I won't bother you with more drivel. :)

Also, with the LR.. I've recommended this to other users. I purchased the Cambridge 'LSAT Challenge' book, which contains only and all of the tough problems from PT's 1-40. (I probably should have just purchased the LR section of that book, in retrospect) A bit dated, but an effective study tool. It was surprising to me how many tough LR problems went right under my nose when I first starting working through the 400 or so problems. But, by number 200 or so I had grown accustomed to the difficulty level of the super-tough LR problems and had more or less been answering with the accuracy I would aim for on an actual section, which is, of course, mixed with plenty of easier problems.


For the graph format you mentioned, your basically linking the common variables together from either the original rules or contrapositives to have a master diagram that efficiently captures the rules, am I understanding that correctly? Is there any games that come to mind that lend themselves to this so I can practice your approach?


This is basically the idea on all in/out binary grouping games. Birds in the forest is the most known example. I can't think of any others off the top of my head but there are plenty to practice with.

These became my favorite type of game because if you can get good at linking the conditional statements together they are so easy.




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests