Should I re-take the LSAT? Forum

[jimibabay]

So I recently got back my June LSAT scores and I didn't do as hot as I needed to. I'm interested in hearing advice as far as to re-taking it.

My situation: I did fantastic on every other section, as in missing at most 2 Q's per section. However, due to fatigue and due to my stupidity in keeping track of time, I bombed the Games section by not having enough time for the last 2 games. Games have always been my weakest link, but that was honestly the worst I'd ever done on a Games section ever. I think I could do better if I retook it and focused harder on studying for Games.

If anyone has been in a similar situation, know anyone who has, or has any insight into the question I'd love to know whether you think it's worth it to re-take it?

[Alaric]

What was your score?

[NedStark12]

.

[Micdiddy]

Obviously more info is needed. You say you got a lower score than you need so that would seem to imply you either retake or forego law school.
Besides that, Games are the easiest section to learn...so, hth.

[jimibabay]

Sorry for being vague: I had an GPA of 3.65, and this LSAT I scored a 164. I was aiming for about a 170 as, from my understanding, that would put me comfortably in range for many T1 schools. I'm mostly concerned about compensating for my GPA.

Looking at my breakdown, in terms of questions I was -7 going into games and ended up scoring -12 in that section, putting me at a total of -19. Again, this is honestly the worst I've ever done on a Games section. In practice tests I usually came out looking at about a -3-5 in Games.

I imagine I have a bit of room for improvement, but I'm also concerned because I've read that practice tests tend to overestimate your actual scoring ability. So, I guess my main question is whether that gap really exists. My fear is that I had an absolutely fantastic day on the other sections (which it did feel like), and a mediocre day on the Games. So if I were to re-take I might end up gaining a few points on Games and losing a few on the other sections, leaving me with perhaps only a slightly higher score of say around a 167.

From reading around today I'm leaning towards retaking and focusing harder on the Games this time around. That at least might compensate for any drop in the other sections. But if experiences seem to be that practice tests overestimate ability then I'd be interested to hear that point as well.

[seacow]

You should retake. I think everyone else will tell you to as well. Games are very learnable, far more so than the other sections. As you know, it's all about diagrams and executing. It's a relatively methodical process.

Games come naturally to me, whereas in RC and LR I have had to work very hard. It seems the other way around for you. I'd much rather be in your shoes.

[jimibabay]

Do you have any tips for games? I was atrocious at them before I started studying and I'm certainly better, but it's still a difficult process. I think my biggest conceptual hurdles are related to inferences. From all the examples I've seen, I diagram perfectly fine. I'm good with basic inferences that are related to the "paths" of certain games. As in, I have good general feel for the different general directions that a game can take. Yet, I have trouble realizing specific inferences about what isn't allowed, or what always must/cannot be true. Those questions always eat my time because I have to diagram most of them out. Is there some sort of trick for inferring rules quickly? It seems they're generally leaps as opposed to algorithmic.

[seacow]

The inferences are leaps but they are also algorithmic. The inferences are algorithmic leaps.

In my heyday, I was completing games at 20-25 minutes and at -0. I slipped to -1/-2 before the test because I stopped letting myself intuite the answers - or, rather, to make algorithmic leaps.

To answer your question: other than to do logic puzzles (i.e. Sudoku), I don't have any specific advice. In my experience, I have noticed that some people just get logic games and there is not much more to say. Once I learned the diagrams and the proper methods, I immediately excelled and LGs was never again a problem.

It was so easy because all deductions are very rational and, as you know, absolutely correct 100% of the time. Once K has to be in slot 4/5, K cannot be in any other slot, for example.

I think I work so quickly in games because (1) the deductions you can make are limited (i.e. there are not 25 entities and there are not 75 slots.) and (2) I can normally pick up when a deduction feels right (i.e. if R & T have to be two slots apart and S & V have to be two slots apart, it feels right to deduce that U & Z have to be two slots apart as well). Elementary examples but I hope you see the point.

-

I know that was long-winded and ultimately offered no substance, but stay tuned to the thread and when I pick up the prep again in a few weeks I'll try to articulate my thought process in LGs that will hopefully be more helpful.

In the interim, explain to me how you are naturally good at RC and LR.

[Yardbird]

If you're still in undergrad, take a calculus course (if you're up to it). It'll keep your mind sharp, uses the same part of the brain, and will help to draw inferences (in much the same way sudoku does). If you're a math beast, it'll boost your GPA too. calculus course (if you're up to it). It'll keep your mind sharp, uses the same part of the brain, and will help to draw inferences (in much the same way sudoku does). If you're a math beast, it'll boost your GPA too.

[jimibabay]

The inferences are leaps but they are also algorithmic. The inferences are algorithmic leaps.

In my heyday, I was completing games at 20-25 minutes and at -0. I slipped to -1/-2 before the test because I stopped letting myself intuite the answers - or, rather, to make algorithmic leaps.

To answer your question: other than to do logic puzzles (i.e. Sudoku), I don't have any specific advice. In my experience, I have noticed that some people just get logic games and there is not much more to say. Once I learned the diagrams and the proper methods, I immediately excelled and LGs was never again a problem.

It was so easy because all deductions are very rational and, as you know, absolutely correct 100% of the time. Once K has to be in slot 4/5, K cannot be in any other slot, for example.

I think I work so quickly in games because (1) the deductions you can make are limited (i.e. there are not 25 entities and there are not 75 slots.) and (2) I can normally pick up when a deduction feels right (i.e. if R & T have to be two slots apart and S & V have to be two slots apart, it feels right to deduce that U & Z have to be two slots apart as well). Elementary examples but I hope you see the point.

-

I know that was long-winded and ultimately offered no substance, but stay tuned to the thread and when I pick up the prep again in a few weeks I'll try to articulate my thought process in LGs that will hopefully be more helpful.

In the interim, explain to me how you are naturally good at RC and LR.

Thanks! Some of that makes a lot of sense, especially point 2. I think maybe it's a problem of trusting my intuition like you said. I know sometimes that something is true or limited to a few possibilities, but I don't have a good explanation for why. So maybe I just need to trust myself more.

It's a similar process for me with LR. RC is weird because those kinds of things I've always been good at. It seems really obvious to me exactly what part of the passage each question is referring to. It's probably mainly a memory thing for tracking words/concepts. I imagine practicing close reading will help you refer back to where you need to go as quickly as possible.

LR is a similar sort of thing, but it's always been frustrating because in the end I think LR is anything but. There's a lot of implicit assumptions in LR that mirrors the traditional assumptions of formal logic. For most people, I think, there's a recognition of the complexity that LR doesn't capture so it becomes frustrating to people because the right answer just doesn't "pop." I've learned to treat it very formulaically, like an equation. Premise-->Conclusion (/multiple premises, subsidiary conclusions, etc.). Generally the question will focus on a specific part of the argument, and that narrows your answers down to topical ones for that specific point.