Law School Discussion Forums
https://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/
https://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=195603
People asked... it'll be hilarious if I end up with a 170 or something though. Tutoring is going to wait until i finish my apps.relevantfactor wrote:oh boy u couldnt wait for the official scores could you lol. Anyways, always a good post Noodley!Btw, hows tutoring going?
I really hope it doesn't happen because you are one of those people who I think actually deserved a 180. But if that does happen all you have to do is change the topic name to Noodley's Foolproof guide to a 180 on Pts lol.NoodleyOne wrote:People asked... it'll be hilarious if I end up with a 170 or something though. Tutoring is going to wait until i finish my apps.relevantfactor wrote:oh boy u couldnt wait for the official scores could you lol. Anyways, always a good post Noodley!Btw, hows tutoring going?
True..NoodleyOne wrote:Just focused on my ps right now... kind of shifting my focus a bit and taking a break from lsat.
And I'm 98% sure i went -0 on games. Zones was odd but i didn't find it difficult. The whole test actually seemed really easy to me so here's hoping. I was accurate about my feelings in June, so here is hoping I am right again.
I didn't use it as much for games since i didn't need much drilling there, but it is crucial for LR. I drilled extensively.carboncopyx wrote:How helpful/to what extent did you use the Cambridge LG and LR by type? The prices for three volumes each is pretty substantial...
Mucho gracias for the post, btw! Will definitely refer to it as I study for December.
That makes sense. Just ordered the two volumes for LR!NoodleyOne wrote:I didn't use it as much for games since i didn't need much drilling there, but it is crucial for LR. I drilled extensively.
Reading the stim first and focusing on the core of the argument/picking it apart dont have to be mutually exclusive you know. I mixed up stim first and not stim first a lot and barely noticed a difference in my ability to answer the questions. However when reading the stim first I noticed I shaved off about 3 minutes, at least, on my average time because reading with a purpose can be really useful.relevantfactor wrote:You can totally do it. I used to be one of those stimulus-first-fools. Took me about 2 weeks to change that habit (drill baby drill). And oh my god, does it make a huge difference.M.M. wrote:NoodleyOne wrote:The key to Manhattan is their focus on looking at argument structure. Looking at the argument core is the most effective way to "get" the test. Powerscore's family is in my opinion unintuitive and unnecessary while being of little practical use. Basically, if you don't have the time, you have to make the time. There are no shortcuts.M.M. wrote:Hey NoodleyOne, I like this guide, but here's the thing for me: I bought the MLSAT books a while ago and for a short time tried to implement their strategies ... but I think the initial dip I experienced in scores scared me away from doing so. As someone who currently uses the PowerScore strategies for LG, and really just intuition and a few barebones strategies (e.g. the negation test for necessary assumption questions) do you think I have time to start using MLSAT's strategies and truly internalize them such that they are intuitive on test day - or do you think I should take a course between now and December to help me do so? I did a few chapters in the LR strategy guide, but it seriously seems to take me SO long to do even a chapter, and then drilling, getting it down, etc... I just don't know if I have enough time, and I don't think I'm a very good self teacher. But if I take a course, it seems like I won't have enough time to eliminate weaknesses.
I know you can't really answer this, but I'm just worried whether I'll have time to reverse the 6 months or so of habits I've built on (e.g. reading the stimulus first) and incorporate MLSAT's method. I really don't know if I can :/ but I also don't know if just using intuition to answer choices will and has proved fruitful in say, eliminating weaknesses.
Think I'd get any use drilling by type if I'm already scoring -1 to -3? A lot of my mistakes seem to boil down to dumb mistakes, but it'd be nice to make the -2/-3 less common and the -0/-1 more common.NoodleyOne wrote:I didn't use it as much for games since i didn't need much drilling there, but it is crucial for LR. I drilled extensively.carboncopyx wrote:How helpful/to what extent did you use the Cambridge LG and LR by type? The prices for three volumes each is pretty substantial...
Mucho gracias for the post, btw! Will definitely refer to it as I study for December.
Still your recommendation? Any elaboration?NoodleyOne wrote:One thing I recommend, for LR and RC, is a very time consuming approach to drilling.
Note: This isn't all drilling, but a good sized chunk (maybe 1/3rd of your drilling using this method).
For LR: In a notebook, write down why you're eliminating each answer. Out of scope, term shifts, etc. If you're down to two answers, don't look for the right one, look for the wrong one. Break each word apart, and be precise. This will get you thinking of answer choices in that manner, which will translate well to drilling.
For RC: RC is tough to improve, but it's not impossible. You have to train yourself to read critically. For each answer, make a note of where in the passage you get your justification. Why did you choose D? Lines 8-10, of course! If you can't find justification in the passage, then why are you choosing the answer? It takes awhile, but it can be worth it. Another little addendum though... some RC sections are tricky, so you may think there is justification when there isn't. It's not foolproof, but it certainly will help.
The LSAT is strong with this one.vegso wrote:is this proofed against those of us that arent fools!?
Largely yes, especially if you're in the -3 to -5 per section LR scoring. If you're -0/-4 and timing issues make up most of the time, focus a bit more on that.North wrote:Noodles, this is beautiful and exactly what I was hoping for.
I have a question about drilling LR. What did the process look like for you? Did you burn through questions or take your time with them? Is it quantity, quality, or some combination of the two that maximizes the proficiency and efficiency one builds through extensive drilling? I've been struggling with finding the appropriate balance for a while.
Found this from you a while back:
Still your recommendation? Any elaboration?NoodleyOne wrote:One thing I recommend, for LR and RC, is a very time consuming approach to drilling.
Note: This isn't all drilling, but a good sized chunk (maybe 1/3rd of your drilling using this method).
For LR: In a notebook, write down why you're eliminating each answer. Out of scope, term shifts, etc. If you're down to two answers, don't look for the right one, look for the wrong one. Break each word apart, and be precise. This will get you thinking of answer choices in that manner, which will translate well to drilling.
For RC: RC is tough to improve, but it's not impossible. You have to train yourself to read critically. For each answer, make a note of where in the passage you get your justification. Why did you choose D? Lines 8-10, of course! If you can't find justification in the passage, then why are you choosing the answer? It takes awhile, but it can be worth it. Another little addendum though... some RC sections are tricky, so you may think there is justification when there isn't. It's not foolproof, but it certainly will help.
Personally i didn't use it but i have it. If you still have problems with lg another perspective may help.A.Taarabt7 wrote:is it worth buying manhattan LG as well? i just got the rc and lr manhattan, both very good good guides. the reason i am a little heisitant is because i already have powerscore lg, outside lsat lg, and another book of LG's.