Mid-160s to Mid-170s: the hardest jump?

User avatar
carboncopyx
Posts: 671
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2012 10:30 am

Mid-160s to Mid-170s: the hardest jump?

Postby carboncopyx » Wed Aug 29, 2012 8:46 pm

So it's been about three weeks since my first diag of 156 and my most recent PTs have been 168 and 166. At this rate, it seems that it would be possible for me to hit the mid-170s by the time October rolls around (given linear progress). However, I've heard that breaking the 170s is an infinitely harder process than jumping the same number of points in the lower scores. Does anyone have any insight into the mid-160s to mid-170s improvement? Does it take longer than previous 10+ point jumps did? Are there different things that should be of focus in this improvement range?

I'm trying to figure out what I should be PTing at by Sept 14 in case I need to push my test date back. Any help appreciated, thanks!

User avatar
NoodleyOne
Posts: 2358
Joined: Fri May 25, 2012 7:32 pm

Re: Mid-160s to Mid-170s: the hardest jump?

Postby NoodleyOne » Wed Aug 29, 2012 10:22 pm

I'd say that jump is the most difficult, or at least the most time consuming. Simply put, you just have less room for error. The difference between a 16x scorer and a 17x scorer, in my opinion, is simply knowing the LSAT. It's the internalization of concepts, the quick identifying of flaws and NA/SA and other things, and the automatic identification of conclusions and the like. It's thinking the LSAT.

Sorry I don't have more tangible advice at the moment. The thread about 170+ scorers is really enlightening on this subject, though.

User avatar
06102016
Posts: 13466
Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2011 1:29 pm

Re: Mid-160s to Mid-170s: the hardest jump?

Postby 06102016 » Wed Aug 29, 2012 10:30 pm

..

User avatar
carboncopyx
Posts: 671
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2012 10:30 am

Re: Mid-160s to Mid-170s: the hardest jump?

Postby carboncopyx » Thu Aug 30, 2012 12:40 am

NoodleyOne wrote:I'd say that jump is the most difficult, or at least the most time consuming. Simply put, you just have less room for error. The difference between a 16x scorer and a 17x scorer, in my opinion, is simply knowing the LSAT. It's the internalization of concepts, the quick identifying of flaws and NA/SA and other things, and the automatic identification of conclusions and the like. It's thinking the LSAT.

Sorry I don't have more tangible advice at the moment. The thread about 170+ scorers is really enlightening on this subject, though.


Would you say that's pretty much achieved through taking a lot of PTs and drilling the various question types/stimuli until they are immediately recognizable?

User avatar
NoodleyOne
Posts: 2358
Joined: Fri May 25, 2012 7:32 pm

Re: Mid-160s to Mid-170s: the hardest jump?

Postby NoodleyOne » Thu Aug 30, 2012 12:26 pm

Manhattan LR helped me a ton (haven't gone more than -3 on an LR section in forever, and even that was a high outlier). Other than that, drilling absolutely helps. When you see 50 NA questions in a row, you start seeing the patterns. Make sure you're studying smart though. Too many people hear about drilling and PTing and try to brute force improvement. PTs and drilling are CRUCIAL to success, but the time in between needs to be spent wisely.

User avatar
wtrc
Posts: 2057
Joined: Mon May 30, 2011 9:37 pm

Re: Mid-160s to Mid-170s: the hardest jump?

Postby wtrc » Thu Aug 30, 2012 12:26 pm

What are you missing points on? Is it something like 3 or 4 in each section; or most in a single section?

User avatar
carboncopyx
Posts: 671
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2012 10:30 am

Re: Mid-160s to Mid-170s: the hardest jump?

Postby carboncopyx » Thu Aug 30, 2012 12:39 pm

weathercoins wrote:What are you missing points on? Is it something like 3 or 4 in each section; or most in a single section?


My LG is consistently -0/-1, RC is about -2, and LR is where I'm getting -4 to -6 on each section.

User avatar
carboncopyx
Posts: 671
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2012 10:30 am

Re: Mid-160s to Mid-170s: the hardest jump?

Postby carboncopyx » Thu Aug 30, 2012 12:40 pm

NoodleyOne wrote:Manhattan LR helped me a ton (haven't gone more than -3 on an LR section in forever, and even that was a high outlier). Other than that, drilling absolutely helps. When you see 50 NA questions in a row, you start seeing the patterns. Make sure you're studying smart though. Too many people hear about drilling and PTing and try to brute force improvement. PTs and drilling are CRUCIAL to success, but the time in between needs to be spent wisely.


Great, I'll check out Manhattan LR since LR has become by far my weakest section. Is Manhattan's method/categorization substantially different from the LRB?

User avatar
NoodleyOne
Posts: 2358
Joined: Fri May 25, 2012 7:32 pm

Re: Mid-160s to Mid-170s: the hardest jump?

Postby NoodleyOne » Thu Aug 30, 2012 1:16 pm

It's different, but not so different that you can't figure it out. They lump both SA and NA together, but it works just fine. Also Parallel Reasoning is Matching, stuff like that. Nothing too different.

User avatar
carboncopyx
Posts: 671
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2012 10:30 am

Re: Mid-160s to Mid-170s: the hardest jump?

Postby carboncopyx » Thu Aug 30, 2012 1:32 pm

NoodleyOne wrote:It's different, but not so different that you can't figure it out. They lump both SA and NA together, but it works just fine. Also Parallel Reasoning is Matching, stuff like that. Nothing too different.


What about Manhattan helped you significantly improve over LRB, then? I just ordered the book but am curious as to why you advocate Manhattan LR so much (in other threads as well, I've seen).

User avatar
Darienk
Posts: 25
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 2:22 pm

Re: Mid-160s to Mid-170s: the hardest jump?

Postby Darienk » Thu Aug 30, 2012 2:59 pm

carboncopyx wrote:
weathercoins wrote:What are you missing points on? Is it something like 3 or 4 in each section; or most in a single section?


My LG is consistently -0/-1, RC is about -2, and LR is where I'm getting -4 to -6 on each section.



I'm in the same boat. My LG and RC scores are pretty consistent. Will try drilling and finishing Manhattans LR book to get it down.

User avatar
wtrc
Posts: 2057
Joined: Mon May 30, 2011 9:37 pm

Re: Mid-160s to Mid-170s: the hardest jump?

Postby wtrc » Thu Aug 30, 2012 3:04 pm

Check if there are patterns of what you are missing on the LR (necessary assumption questions; weaken question; etc.)... it could be a simple fix of drilling a certain type of LR. If you're doing that well on the RC then you probably have the skills to bring LR to about the same level.

(Note: I'm no expert, I'm still stuck in the high 160's/low 170's)

User avatar
NoodleyOne
Posts: 2358
Joined: Fri May 25, 2012 7:32 pm

Re: Mid-160s to Mid-170s: the hardest jump?

Postby NoodleyOne » Thu Aug 30, 2012 4:11 pm

carboncopyx wrote:
NoodleyOne wrote:It's different, but not so different that you can't figure it out. They lump both SA and NA together, but it works just fine. Also Parallel Reasoning is Matching, stuff like that. Nothing too different.


What about Manhattan helped you significantly improve over LRB, then? I just ordered the book but am curious as to why you advocate Manhattan LR so much (in other threads as well, I've seen).


I really like their approach more. You look at the core of the argument and look for the gaps, which automatically helps NA, SA, Strengthen, Weaken, and Flaw. I'm of the opinion that if you study those chapters closely, you're going to absolutely rock those sections (paired with drilling, of course).

They also helped me in parallel reasoning (although we'll see if that sticks). I tend to get pretty daunted by those for some reason, but after I read over the section and drilled PR and PF, I went -0 on those question types my last PT. I still prefer LRB for Formal Logic, but MLR still isn't bad for it.

User avatar
BlaqBella
Posts: 869
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 9:41 am

Re: Mid-160s to Mid-170s: the hardest jump?

Postby BlaqBella » Thu Aug 30, 2012 4:43 pm

Weathercoins and NoodleyOne, did you individually drill question types using Cambridge bundle packages? If not, how did you drill?

User avatar
NoodleyOne
Posts: 2358
Joined: Fri May 25, 2012 7:32 pm

Re: Mid-160s to Mid-170s: the hardest jump?

Postby NoodleyOne » Thu Aug 30, 2012 4:44 pm

I use Cambridge personally. I guess you could get the PTs from the topic that's stickied and just cut them up, too. Drilling by type though definitely is worth it though.

User avatar
BlaqBella
Posts: 869
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 9:41 am

Re: Mid-160s to Mid-170s: the hardest jump?

Postby BlaqBella » Thu Aug 30, 2012 4:48 pm

NoodleyOne wrote:I use Cambridge personally. I guess you could get the PTs from the topic that's stickied and just cut them up, too. Drilling by type though definitely is worth it though.


Thanks! My only concern is that Cambridge only goes up to PT38 for their bundles.

User avatar
NoodleyOne
Posts: 2358
Joined: Fri May 25, 2012 7:32 pm

Re: Mid-160s to Mid-170s: the hardest jump?

Postby NoodleyOne » Thu Aug 30, 2012 4:53 pm

That's a good thing. 39 on is there for full PTs.

User avatar
BlaqBella
Posts: 869
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 9:41 am

Re: Mid-160s to Mid-170s: the hardest jump?

Postby BlaqBella » Thu Aug 30, 2012 4:55 pm

NoodleyOne wrote:That's a good thing. 39 on is there for full PTs.


**thumbs up** Great point. Thanks Noodley!!!




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Instrumental, jdanz, Lahtso Nuggin and 16 guests