Top Law Schools

Hello Guys,

I recently moved up to the prep test book containing tests 52-61 and I noticed a precipitous drop in my score. I went from scoring over a 172 consistently to being stuck again in the mid 160s or so.

I assume this is due to more recent tests being harder and having a harder curve. I'm planning on taking the test in 3 weeks...did anyone have a similar experience and if so how did you guys address this situation?

.

thand42292 wrote:
I assume this is due to more recent tests being harder and having a harder curve.

Theyre not. They dont.

Stick with reviewing the modern tests till test day.

I had a similar situation happen last year, I think more info would help in identifying your issues.

Are you running out of time on LR? or falling for trap answers?
How have your LG scores changed?

Most prep material I found focused heavily on 30-40's and while I felt comfortable with that, the newer tests do employ different tricks that expose weaknesses you maybe got away with in the past. These issues can be addressed in the next 3 weeks (and its good that you noticed this trend), but you'll have to be aggressive about fixing them before test day.

This is actually relevant to me. The new tests, especially LR is definitely different and im looking for ways/advice to really help me out.

This is relevant to my interests.

This happened to me too. Especially on LG I find its starting to expose my weaknesses in very open diagrams, not seeing when it helps to frame, the best way to frame things, etc. So I drilled a couple of games I had trouble with tonight, hopefully that will help when i take another practice test tomorrow.

LR was getting bad too but now it's back up. I think I've gotten used to the new style.

chadbrochill wrote:I had a similar situation happen last year, I think more info would help in identifying your issues.

Are you running out of time on LR? or falling for trap answers?
How have your LG scores changed?

I feel like falling for trap answers all around definitely describes it.

thand42292 wrote: I feel like falling for trap answers all around definitely describes it.

This is just my experience, and I'm certainly not an expert: So like one thing about the newer LR's is that the testmakers have definitely savvied up to the mental shortcuts we've been abusing to instantly get the right answer. For instance during the 30-40's the LR really punished people for missing scope shifts/detail creeps. You got huge dividends from simply identifying the conclusion and searching for missing gaps, keeping rigid and not being tempted by bait. You didn't even have to read the answer or fit the logic.

This is something to test plans on punishing now. Assume the test is smart: they know you are going to bite on any word that is missing a link, they know you are scanning for "some" on Inference/MBT questions, or "all/none" on sufficient assumptions. Its up to you to check back with the question stem + premises and see if the answer is really doing what its supposed to do (Like doing the left-right-left look when learning to drive and making right turns).

mcs268 wrote:This happened to me too. Especially on LG I find its starting to expose my weaknesses in very open diagrams, not seeing when it helps to frame, the best way to frame things, etc. So I drilled a couple of games I had trouble with tonight, hopefully that will help when i take another practice test tomorrow..

This was exactly what I encountered last year, and I feel like that is the main difference in the now-modern LG's. I feel like the LG's of the 40's heavily rewarded having a diagram and powerful rule inferences (a.k.a LGB readers). There was few if any instances that warranted different templates.

The main difference in modern games is that they are withholding "gamebreaking" rules until the actual questions. Questions that start (If...blah blah blah) are adding an additional premise, that when combined with the rules only lead to a couple scenarios. Your main diagram is no longer your central focus, if anything just your starting base for how you will start your hypotheticals (new diagrams tailored to each individual question).

Many games are similar to this in the 30's before the diagram-craze, I also suspect that the 20's emphasize a different skillset that could be useful as well to modern games. It sucks drilling games, but I think of it as broadening your skill-set to shave seconds off what you already can do, and possibly break a modern game you might not be able to otherwise. Questions/Comments encouraged!

Modern games are just as easy if not easier than the games in the 40s. The problem is they are more time consuming due to the lack of game changing inferences.

Can anybody comment on RC difficulty on these tests? I was getting -3's in PTs in the 20's, but got cleaned out with a -11 on my 54 (my first of this grouping). Hoping it was a fluke.

I posted the other day how great I felt after PT 55 RC section and when i got to the scorers table I was gravely mistaken.

However, I think the difficulty is more so in the questions than the actual passages.

This has definitely happened to me. As mentioned above I'm having to really analyze each detail in the question and make sure the answers work. Before I could just get to the answer based on "instinct" because I've seen some form of it before. I'm in the process of stepping back and really adapting my method of attack on these questions. I'm taking a PT today and I'll see how it goes.

I just started taking these tests too, and I think the biggest change in RC is the answer choices themselves. The passages aren't any harder, the questions are not too different in terms of what they ask, but the answer choices are really tough. They are more likely to require you to synthesize information from multiple locations than just find a single line that supports the answer.

Also, I think my problem with it is I am never 100% comfortable with the right answer. It's not that there's a concrete reason the answer choice is wrong, just that they seem...off a little, you know? The right answers don't seem like "perfect" answers to me. Right now, I'm focusing on being able to *confidently* (that's the key) rule out the wrong answer choices.

Funkycrime wrote:Can anybody comment on RC difficulty on these tests? I was getting -3's in PTs in the 20's, but got cleaned out with a -11 on my 54 (my first of this grouping). Hoping it was a fluke.

I think RC definitely changed from the 20s to the 50s. -11 has to be a fluke, but I also noticed an RC drop in my scores on later tests. Spend a LOT of time reviewing PT 54, and hopefully your next PT will go better!

Thanks Shifty, and Flip, I completely agree.

I am having the same problem as the first poster-- consistent 170's to a sudden drop to mid 160's in the most recent PTs. I think I became more vulnerable to the 'trap' choices in LR. The more difficult RC answer choices aren't helping either... For some reason, I'm doing similarly well in LG (0~2 wrong) but RC is surfacing more and more as my weak section which wasn't really apparent before.

Now I'm wondering if this drop in scores is a common trend, or have I been missing something the whole time I've been prepping? And any tips on how to avoid traps?

I am also having a similar problem. I was scoring consistently 170+ on PT 30-40, but then after hitting PT 50+ I noticed my score dropping significantly. RC varied based on the test but was overall manageable. I lost most of my points on LR (about 8 per test from LR), and I see that it is just because I am falling for the trap answers. I feel like i understand LR , I usually have it narrowed down to two and then fall for the wrong one.

Any tips on how to improve? I just keep reviewing and drilling. I feel like I should have hit these newer tests earlier in my studying.

Same problem. Hit 174 on PT33 yesterday and 164 on PT 55 today. -__-

This is exactly what is happening to me. Best timed score was 172 on PT 18 two weeks prior.
But now that I'm focusing just on the most recent exams (60s) I am back in the mid-160s. I do not want to be back in the mid-160s.

The current LG are killing me because I feel like I'm lost when I can't make inferences, and then I end up getting -4/section instead of my typical -0/-1. Some LR questions just feel weird, so I'm back at -10/exam. And some of the RC answer possibilities are tough and confusing, which leads to -5/-7/exam.

Overall the test is like a whole new animal. Clearly I need to spend the rest of my time focusing on just the new exams, but I don't know whether to drill them or save them for full practice tests.

Anyone experience this? Any tips for overcoming this hurdle?

As some other posters said, the test isn't harder--- it's different. You've finally "cracked" the early tests, so LSAC changes it around a bit. Keep practicing with 60's tests, they can be cracked too . Good luck!

blergh. definitely going to believe you because that definitely beats feeling like crap about this. thank you!