How to improve with timing... Forum

[Geetar Man]

When I do a LR section with 45 minutes as my time-limit, I can easily achieve a -1 to -3 on the section, but when I do strict timing (35 minutes), I miss far more, around -7 to -10.

I know that I understand the questions fairly well. (I've been diligently prepping for a few months now, shooting for the June Exam) The only questions I miss on the less restricted time-limit are ones that are inherently difficult (though, I can see why the correct answer is right/wrong answers are wrong after the fact). Whereas, when I'm under the strict time-limit, I miss them across the board.

Has anyone had a similar issue?

tl;dr,
Im missing a lot more questions when the 35 minute time limit is in place than when I am testing with a 45 minute time limit. -8 and -3 respectively. Is their something I can do to foster better practice and answer questions better/faster, assuming I have the fundamentals down with regards to what the answers should be?

TIA!

[breadbucket]

most underrated advice ever: skip questions, everything is worth the same amount of points; if a question is particularly hard, it will be curved out anyway. if you are missing the hard questions under both time scenarios, then just skip them; the key is to get the less difficult questions right because everyone else is getting those right, there are no extra points for getting a difficult question correct. clearly, you are are spending too much time on something, and it sounds like you may be unwilling to let some questions go.

[Geetar Man]

most underrated advice ever: skip questions, everything is worth the same amount of points; if a question is particularly hard, it will be curved out anyway. if you are missing the hard questions under both time scenarios, then just skip them; the key is to get the less difficult questions right because everyone else is getting those right, there are no extra points for getting a difficult question correct. clearly, you are are spending too much time on something, and it sounds like you may be unwilling to let some questions go.

I definitely have a huge problem with letting questions go. I find myself trying to move on when its hard, but my intuition wants me to stick with it since I've already invested time into it. Further, having the mentality to skip a question, after I've already spend a minute+ on it, just seems like I'm running away from it during the test and would have wasted valuable time.

[Mr.Binks]

When I do a LR section with 45 minutes as my time-limit, I can easily achieve a -1 to -3 on the section, but when I do strict timing (35 minutes), I miss far more, around -7 to -10.

I know that I understand the questions fairly well. (I've been diligently prepping for a few months now, shooting for the June Exam) The only questions I miss on the less restricted time-limit are ones that are inherently difficult (though, I can see why the correct answer is right/wrong answers are wrong after the fact). Whereas, when I'm under the strict time-limit, I miss them across the board.

Has anyone had a similar issue?

tl;dr,
Im missing a lot more questions when the 35 minute time limit is in place than when I am testing with a 45 minute time limit. -8 and -3 respectively. Is their something I can do to foster better practice and answer questions better/faster, assuming I have the fundamentals down with regards to what the answers should be?

TIA!

Think it would help tenfold if you just start drilling on the questions so you can really understand the fundamentals to solving each question type. Once you do that, you should be able to move much more quickly with higher accuracy.

[rinkrat19]

How long does it take you to read the selection? I'd say anything over 2-2 1/2 minutes is too long, and some can do it in as little as 30-45 seconds. You need as much time as possible to answer questions.

How long does it take you to locate the relevant bits when a question refers to something in the selection? You shouldn't need to re-read whole paragraphs to find things. If you don't have a visual impression of where something was, then at least be able to skim quickly to find it.

[vodkashot]

most underrated advice ever: skip questions, everything is worth the same amount of points; if a question is particularly hard, it will be curved out anyway. if you are missing the hard questions under both time scenarios, then just skip them; the key is to get the less difficult questions right because everyone else is getting those right, there are no extra points for getting a difficult question correct. clearly, you are are spending too much time on something, and it sounds like you may be unwilling to let some questions go.

I agree.


Also, have you tried doing the easier questions at the beginning faster? If you finish those ones faster, you'll have more time to work on the trickier ones at the middle/end. Try doing the first 10 questions in (under) 10 minutes, or the first 15 in (under) 15 minutes.....

[bceagles182]

Try doing at PT hungover. The next one will seem so easy.

[breadbucket]

Try doing at PT hungover. The next one will seem so easy.

three 40's of bud ice, never do that again, score went up 9 points after that

[breadbucket]

most underrated advice ever: skip questions, everything is worth the same amount of points; if a question is particularly hard, it will be curved out anyway. if you are missing the hard questions under both time scenarios, then just skip them; the key is to get the less difficult questions right because everyone else is getting those right, there are no extra points for getting a difficult question correct. clearly, you are are spending too much time on something, and it sounds like you may be unwilling to let some questions go.

I definitely have a huge problem with letting questions go. I find myself trying to move on when its hard, but my intuition wants me to stick with it since I've already invested time into it. Further, having the mentality to skip a question, after I've already spend a minute+ on it, just seems like I'm running away from it during the test and would have wasted valuable time.

The key here is to know what the question is before you invest time in it. A quick glance should tell you that a particular question involves parallel reasoning; this is a notoriously hard type of question, and should be avoided until later if you struggle with the difficult question types. Just looking at a parallel reasoning question should highlight the amount of time it would take to read the stim plus answers, diagram every answer choice, snd then select one. In short, determine the difficulty of a question within a few seconds, take a second to either begin or move on, enjoy your higher score.

[Geetar Man]

Try doing at PT hungover. The next one will seem so easy.

three 40's of bud ice, never do that again, score went up 9 points after that

I'm going to try this tonight, minus the bud ice you hobo.

haha JK. But Yeah, I guess it's time for me to try and work on skipping the questions I forsee giving me problems, and then coming back to them at the end once Ive finished. I just hope I don't fuck up the bubbling come test day!

[Jeffort]

Try doing at PT hungover. The next one will seem so easy.

three 40's of bud ice, never do that again (yes you will! lol), score went up 9 points after that

Three 40s is hardcore, glad your score went up. Do you have German DNA in you or something along those lines?

***Disclaimer, the text below is NOT a prep recommendation or suggestion. It is just from anecdotal evidence, observation, and some verified cases***

A bunch of students I've taught/tutored during the many years I've been helping people prepare for the LSAT have reported to me, I've noticed it in their proctored diagnostic score reports, practice test scores and final test day scores that they performed better on timed practice tests and/or on test day when mildly hungover.

It was apparent that the overwhelming majority of them were people into partying like a rock star as often as possible.

[ExcelBaller]

You responded to another post about timing and reading the stem but try this:

What I did to increase my speed is time, literally, each question with the stop watch feature on my phone. (start, stop) then write out the amount of time it took me to answer the question, knowing you only have like 1:20 or something for each one. Then at the end of the section get out your calculator, add up the number of seconds it took for the whole test and divide by sixty. I did this for probably 8 LR sections and before I knew it I was easily getting through the first ten in 10 minutes and on test day I finished with a couple extra minutes to spare. I think this helped me in two ways, I stopped focusing on the "countdown" when I started timing myself going up, so my focus not on how much time I had left (tick,tick,tick) but on how quick I could recognize the questions type, read the stimulus, breakdown the argument core, and get to the answer choices - it made it kind of fun (cheesy I know, but make yourself enjoy what you're doing). The second way it helped me was that it allowed me to recognize where I burned the most time on each individual question type. Obviously, parallel question took the most time, but so did necessary assumption and weaken questions. So it allows you to gauge what you need to work in on terms of timing, what part of the section you need to focus on (ie first 10, second 10, last 5/6) and then develop a game plan for how you want to go about it (should i bubble after each page, every two pages, where is this test going to get tougher, why do I always start to slow down at question 9) Hope this answered your question more directly, if not, hope you found it useful

[breadbucket]

Try doing at PT hungover. The next one will seem so easy.

three 40's of bud ice, never do that again (yes you will! lol), score went up 9 points after that

Three 40s is hardcore, glad your score went up. Do you have German DNA in you or something along those lines?

***Disclaimer, the text below is NOT a prep recommendation or suggestion. It is just from anecdotal evidence, observation, and some verified cases***

A bunch of students I've taught/tutored during the many years I've been helping people prepare for the LSAT have reported to me, I've noticed it in their proctored diagnostic score reports, practice test scores and final test day scores that they performed better on timed practice tests and/or on test day when mildly hungover.

It was apparent that the overwhelming majority of them were people into partying like a rock star as often as possible.

While some may perform well hungover, i think what eagles and I were getting at, is that doing anything hungover makes you appreciate doing it sober, i.e. do better. my scores went like this- 152 - 157(Bud Ice) - 167 - 160 -165 - 171 - 160 - 169(real deal)

I suppose after I "improved" on bud ice, i figured it would be easy sober haha. Nobody cares about mauve dinosaurs when their head just encountered an andes sized freight train.

[born4law]

.

[Geetar Man]

You responded to another post about timing and reading the stem but try this:

What I did to increase my speed is time, literally, each question with the stop watch feature on my phone. (start, stop) then write out the amount of time it took me to answer the question, knowing you only have like 1:20 or something for each one. Then at the end of the section get out your calculator, add up the number of seconds it took for the whole test and divide by sixty. I did this for probably 8 LR sections and before I knew it I was easily getting through the first ten in 10 minutes and on test day I finished with a couple extra minutes to spare. I think this helped me in two ways, I stopped focusing on the "countdown" when I started timing myself going up, so my focus not on how much time I had left (tick,tick,tick) but on how quick I could recognize the questions type, read the stimulus, breakdown the argument core, and get to the answer choices - it made it kind of fun (cheesy I know, but make yourself enjoy what you're doing). The second way it helped me was that it allowed me to recognize where I burned the most time on each individual question type. Obviously, parallel question took the most time, but so did necessary assumption and weaken questions. So it allows you to gauge what you need to work in on terms of timing, what part of the section you need to focus on (ie first 10, second 10, last 5/6) and then develop a game plan for how you want to go about it (should i bubble after each page, every two pages, where is this test going to get tougher, why do I always start to slow down at question 9) Hope this answered your question more directly, if not, hope you found it useful

I have seen this advice and even though I didn't pay much attention to it before, I'll probably try this out to see whats up with my timing.

[Geetar Man]

I've taken many PTs and have messed around with in-section pacing a lot. Please, learn from my experiments and advice.

I think a great strategy for LR timing is the following:

15:00 - Get to the 15th question
24:00 - Get to the 20th question
32:00 - Get to the 25th/26th question (finish the section)

Don't shoot for getting to #10 by 10:00.

Why? Because sometimes you may have to finish the first 10 in about 8 minutes to leave time for the teens (it won't always take a minute per question through 10-15)

(Also, EXCEPTION: December 2011 had LR sections with some hard ones in the first 10. I'm not saying my rubric is to be followed strictly. But basically, get to 15 by 15.)

Don't be tricked into thinking the difficulty scales linearly through the section: the mid-to-late teens typically have the hardest questions. More often than not, #20+ questions are varied: some hard, some easy.

If you stick to this timing schedule, you'll have 3 minutes left at the end of the section to go back to the ones you know you were iffy on. You're going to have a few if you're going this fast.

As others have said, it's very important to "know when to say when" (to borrow a phrase from PowerScore LRB) and just move on.

But then you rightly mention the "supermarket check-out line problem," which is: if you've been waiting in a long line at the supermarket, and another line opens up, do you go to that new line, despite all the time you've spent in the other one? Of course you do! (I also just explained the basis of the economic theory of 'opportunity cost.')

So, translating this back to the LSAT: learn to spot the questions that will force your hand (suck your time). For example, with me, when I see anything like "but all those who are of morally sound judgement are not always morally righteous" or something, I know "OK, this is going to be a sh*tshow, let's leave this one for later." When you spot the "mouthfuls" ... back off. It's a gnarly beast. It's going to be a time-suck and you may never get it right, even if you spent 4-5 minutes.

Also: don't skip Parallel / Parallel Flaw questions (or anything else that literally looks very long).

I was doing this and my LR scores were always -7/-8 per section. I stopped being selective with my questions and just did them all in order. Scores went up to 4-6 wrong per section.

Why? Because sometimes P/PF can be gamed easily. You can match just the conclusions, weed out a bunch of ACs, or match just the premises, weed out a bunch of ACs. You can also get a quick motto, and match it. Sometimes, you'll match the stim to (A), and A'll be a winner. OK: moving on. Easy points.

Basically: when I learned to stop equating question length to difficulty, my score went up.

You'll also notice that a lot of short stims have very dense logic. They can often be some of the hardest. You'll be surprised.

Some of my other experiments have included spending the first 2 minutes literally going through each stem, identifying the question type, then doing each question type in order, like a strip-mining approach. So I'd do all the flaws, all the must-be-trues, in order, etc...

That wasn't as good. You'd think it would be, because your mind gets into the flow of each question type.

What really works is that your mind gets into the flow of difficulty. You breeze through the first 10 because you build up a high. Question after question, bam bam bam. Then the teens hit, you slow down. You get really cautious. You're always on the lookout for tricks LSACs pulling. You know you're in the muddy swamp now. Then you ramp up speed again toward the end: the end is near, you get excited, you're almost there, confidence comes back.

Work with this type of flow. Feel the flow. It's so psychological.

Timing and accuracy are tied to the understanding of this flow.

I am now down to -2 / -4 per LR section, still working on perfection.

Sweet. I can easily do the 10 in 10 minutes, so I think that it's a noble goal to reach 15 by 15 minutes. I do notice myself missing a lot more in the latter part of the sections.

I agree about not skipping the parallel questions; I feel as if they seem very daunting due to the size of the stimulus and answer choices. But I do see that these can be handled if I just stick with it. So that's one of the type of questions that I don't feel as if I should skip unless Im like, over 2 minutes for the question.

Okay, so I'm honestly not having any problems finishing the sections. What I AM having problems with is that when I speed up, I lose accuracy. I think the best way to alleviate this is through practicing slowing down while reading the question.

I think its better, from a mathematical standpoint, to answer as many as possible at my own pace (since i can get them right at my own pace) compared to answering all of the questions. Lets see, answering 21 questions in the time frame (lets say I miss 2 and guess on the last 4, maybe getting 1 correct) would be better than answering them all but missing more in the first 21 questions. SO if I answer 20 correctly (in the former scenario), it would be better than what I'm doing now which is missing like 7-10!

Fuck, all these things to consider. I guess I should just keep practicing.

[Geetar Man]

Bump, looking for others help.

[afnaidel]

I was in the similar situation before I took the October test last year.

Before the October test, I was able to score 178-179 if I didn't time at all. However, whenever I timed, my score when down to 168-170, mainly because of LR sections. Although I felt that I wasn't really ready, I took the October test anyway hoping that some miracle would happen and I would have enough time. However, I couldn't finish LG and LR sections, so I ended up canceling the score.


Now I've been preparing for the February test, and I've seen a great improvement in my performance.
I usually have no problem finishing in time or even with 2-5 min of extra time, and I haven't lost more than 4 points on each LR sections.

The key was to completely understand each question types, get rid of obvious wrong answers quickly, and compare remaining options.
Before the October test I was trying to solve an LR question by "full reasoning," meaning that I considered possible scenarios, looked at the answer options, and considered each of them via reasoning process. Now, I usually read the passage quickly without over-thinking it, quickly eliminate any answer questions that seems to be out of scope or opposite. Then I usually end up with two choices (even one - the answer), and I compare the two choices carefully, often with the original passage, and pick the answer (sometimes it doesn't even involve a formal reasoning process).
Although it seems like the "full reasoning" process is more accurate, the latter approach seems to be a better option for LSAT. LSAT is not about getting everything right, but getting as much as you can in limited time. It's better to get 22/25 right in 35min than getting 25/25 right in 45 min in LSAT. Unless you are really good at this and can do the "full reasoning" process in 35 min, trying to rush through with "full reasoning" process will result in not-so-good result.

[Geetar Man]

I was in the similar situation before I took the October test last year.

Before the October test, I was able to score 178-179 if I didn't time at all. However, whenever I timed, my score when down to 168-170, mainly because of LR sections. Although I felt that I wasn't really ready, I took the October test anyway hoping that some miracle would happen and I would have enough time. However, I couldn't finish LG and LR sections, so I ended up canceling the score.


Now I've been preparing for the February test, and I've seen a great improvement in my performance.
I usually have no problem finishing in time or even with 2-5 min of extra time, and I haven't lost more than 4 points on each LR sections.

The key was to completely understand each question types, get rid of obvious wrong answers quickly, and compare remaining options.
Before the October test I was trying to solve an LR question by "full reasoning," meaning that I considered possible scenarios, looked at the answer options, and considered each of them via reasoning process. Now, I usually read the passage quickly without over-thinking it, quickly eliminate any answer questions that seems to be out of scope or opposite. Then I usually end up with two choices (even one - the answer), and I compare the two choices carefully, often with the original passage, and pick the answer (sometimes it doesn't even involve a formal reasoning process).
Although it seems like the "full reasoning" process is more accurate, the latter approach seems to be a better option for LSAT. LSAT is not about getting everything right, but getting as much as you can in limited time. It's better to get 22/25 right in 35min than getting 25/25 right in 45 min in LSAT. Unless you are really good at this and can do the "full reasoning" process in 35 min, trying to rush through with "full reasoning" process will result in not-so-good result.

Dude, I'm sorry and I don't mean this in a bad way. I tried really hard but I didn't really see advice or anything in what you said. Are you from the U.S?

If what you're trying to say is that I should basically not be a pussy and just go with my gut instinct (because it seems like I would/could be "over-thinking it), you could be right. I'm going to give this a go on my next pt. I know that I am really cautious with my answer choices; I tend to double/triple-check a lot of them. But when I don't have time to double-check, I will choose a different answer than my "gut" feeling.

I hopefully am using "full reasoning" during all of my prep haha

Thanks bro!

[afnaidel]

Dude, I'm sorry and I don't mean this in a bad way. I tried really hard but I didn't really see advice or anything in what you said. Are you from the U.S?

If what you're trying to say is that I should basically not be a pussy and just go with my gut instinct (because it seems like I would/could be "over-thinking it), you could be right. I'm going to give this a go on my next pt. I know that I am really cautious with my answer choices; I tend to double/triple-check a lot of them. But when I don't have time to double-check, I will choose a different answer than my "gut" feeling.

I hopefully am using "full reasoning" during all of my prep haha

Thanks bro!

Sorry, when I was writing my reply I was really tired and I guess I wasn't thinking clear. (And yes, I'm from the U.S.)

It is somewhat hard to explain anyway, but I'll try again.

I didn't mean that you have you follow your instinct. I meant that instead of actually examining and reasoning with each answer choices, it's much faster if you can cut down answer choices quickly just by looking at them quickly.

--
Let's say that you're solving a question that asks you what weakens the argument.
Argument: In Grant high school, some students in soccer team spend less time on homework than other students.

A) Researchers have discovered that the average time students spend on homework is related to their average grades.
B) According to the official Grant high school report, most students in soccer team spend more time on homework than other students.
C) All high school students spend exactly the same amount of time on homework.
--

If you're using what I originally called "full reasoning" process, you would try to figure out whether each answer choice is right or wrong by looking back at the original passage and reasoning.
For example, when you see A, you might think for a while whether or not the relationship between average grades and homework time has to do with some soccer player spending less time on homework. It is tempting, because a lot of people assumes in real life that sports players are dumber than average students.
You might eventually arrive at the conclusion that A has nothing to do with the argument, but it takes a long time.

However, if you took the quicker approach (the one I use and originally recommended in my reply), you just look at "average grade," and quickly removes A because
you know that a word that is not mentioned in the original passage has nothing to do with the correct answer in general.
(Be careful though - it takes a lot of practice to distinguish these "out-of-scope" answers quickly without reasoning fully.)

Same thing goes for B. Instead of full reasoning process, you look at the word "most" and immediately know that it is not the right choice because the original passage says "some" students.

And you know C is the right choice when you see the word "All," because it excludes all other possibility, therefore effectively removing the possibility stated in the original passage (C sounds ridiculous in real life, but that's what LSAC often do when making LSAT).


In conclusion, instead of solving the problems by formal reasoning, you should get to know types of questions and what to look for in answer choices.
It is not about following your instinct - It's about solving each questions by knowing what types of choices are usually the right choices to that specific type of question.

Hope this is more clear. I recommend Manhattan LR Guide if you're interested in this approach. In my opinion, Manhattan LR explains this process much better than Powerscore LR bible.

[Geetar Man]

Dude, I'm sorry and I don't mean this in a bad way. I tried really hard but I didn't really see advice or anything in what you said. Are you from the U.S?

If what you're trying to say is that I should basically not be a pussy and just go with my gut instinct (because it seems like I would/could be "over-thinking it), you could be right. I'm going to give this a go on my next pt. I know that I am really cautious with my answer choices; I tend to double/triple-check a lot of them. But when I don't have time to double-check, I will choose a different answer than my "gut" feeling.

I hopefully am using "full reasoning" during all of my prep haha

Thanks bro!

Sorry, when I was writing my reply I was really tired and I guess I wasn't thinking clear. (And yes, I'm from the U.S.)

It is somewhat hard to explain anyway, but I'll try again.

I didn't mean that you have you follow your instinct. I meant that instead of actually examining and reasoning with each answer choices, it's much faster if you can cut down answer choices quickly just by looking at them quickly.

--
Let's say that you're solving a question that asks you what weakens the argument.
Argument: In Grant high school, some students in soccer team spend less time on homework than other students.

A) Researchers have discovered that the average time students spend on homework is related to their average grades.
B) According to the official Grant high school report, most students in soccer team spend more time on homework than other students.
C) All high school students spend exactly the same amount of time on homework.
--

If you're using what I originally called "full reasoning" process, you would try to figure out whether each answer choice is right or wrong by looking back at the original passage and reasoning.
For example, when you see A, you might think for a while whether or not the relationship between average grades and homework time has to do with some soccer player spending less time on homework. It is tempting, because a lot of people assumes in real life that sports players are dumber than average students.
You might eventually arrive at the conclusion that A has nothing to do with the argument, but it takes a long time.

However, if you took the quicker approach (the one I use and originally recommended in my reply), you just look at "average grade," and quickly removes A because
you know that a word that is not mentioned in the original passage has nothing to do with the correct answer in general.
(Be careful though - it takes a lot of practice to distinguish these "out-of-scope" answers quickly without reasoning fully.)

Same thing goes for B. Instead of full reasoning process, you look at the word "most" and immediately know that it is not the right choice because the original passage says "some" students.

And you know C is the right choice when you see the word "All," because it excludes all other possibility, therefore effectively removing the possibility stated in the original passage (C sounds ridiculous in real life, but that's what LSAC often do when making LSAT).


In conclusion, instead of solving the problems by formal reasoning, you should get to know types of questions and what to look for in answer choices.
It is not about following your instinct - It's about solving each questions by knowing what types of choices are usually the right choices to that specific type of question.

Hope this is more clear. I recommend Manhattan LR Guide if you're interested in this approach. In my opinion, Manhattan LR explains this process much better than Powerscore LR bible.

Ah, I see what you're trying to say. Basically you've practiced so much that you can easily spot trap answer or answers that are out of scope, etc... and move on to "full reasoning" with 2 of the answer choices instead of all 5.

I think that I'm starting to finally get that notorious "sense" of what the right answer will look like and what answers are trick answers. Looks like all that I need to do is keep on drilling!

Thanks for your response. It gives me some stuff to think about.