Took a practice test cold and scored a 175. Now what? Forum

[gyarados]

The hardest part I don't believe is picking up the learning curve in 35 minutes and than acing the material.

I feel most of these people didn't take a truly 'cold' test but a mostly cold test.


Maybe I'm wrong, I just don't see it.

Each of these actions independently is whatever, but as a whole I become skeptical.


Edit: I can buy it if you practiced something similar as a kid or just out of passion that just so happened to be related to LG, I can buy it. But being "good at math" doesn't fit such a pre-requisite.

We had my 13 year old brother take an LSAT for fun and he got a 173. He'd never seen the thing before. Some people are naturally good at this stuff.

[sinfiery]

The hardest part I don't believe is picking up the learning curve in 35 minutes and than acing the material.

I feel most of these people didn't take a truly 'cold' test but a mostly cold test.


Maybe I'm wrong, I just don't see it.

Each of these actions independently is whatever, but as a whole I become skeptical.


Edit: I can buy it if you practiced something similar as a kid or just out of passion that just so happened to be related to LG, I can buy it. But being "good at math" doesn't fit such a pre-requisite.

We had my 13 year old brother take an LSAT for fun and he got a 173. He'd never seen the thing before. Some people are naturally good at this stuff.

Nothing is really inherent man.

By 19 (or 13 in some cases) I'd imagine if one had the ability, they were definitely able to be exposed to enough logical reasoning and reading comprehension in their days that they could ace the sections on a cold test.


But from my personal experience, I've never seen something like LG played out anywhere before. Maybe I'm being held captive by my personal experiences..(probably) but where does one get the experience one needs to attack LG on a pure cold test? Aside from being a puzzle enthusiast as a kid or something, I don't see it. Being good at math is definitely not enough...at least to me.

Of course I could be wrong. Or this could be 1 of those rare cases.

[unc0mm0n1]

Sure, one can do the questions in their head. But cold, without any diagramming, and in 35 minutes? No way. It would require going over too many variables in your head that the time restraint would be too much to overcome.

.

Eh I know a few people people who can do logic games in their head (I can't) and a few more people than that who also got 170+ cold. They're all good at math. If you're making the right logical deductions, there aren't actually very many variables to keep track of.

With practice, sure. Even in your head I can see it.


Do people really go -0 on LG, never having heard of what a logic game is, not knowing it exists on the section, finishing some 35 minute RC section then being thrown these LG scenarios they haven't seen in their entire life? Not knowing there are 4 different games beforehand?

The hardest part I don't believe is picking up the learning curve in 35 minutes and than acing the material.

I feel most of these people didn't take a truly 'cold' test but a mostly cold test.


Maybe I'm wrong, I just don't see it.

Each of these actions independently is whatever, but as a whole I become skeptical.


Edit: I can buy it if you practiced something similar as a kid or just out of passion that just so happened to be related to LG, I can buy it. But being "good at math" doesn't fit such a pre-requisite.

Ok we get it, you think no one could do good on LG's cold. Everyone on here saying otherwise is a liar. So why not let the liars give each other advice in peace.

[sinfiery]

Ok we get it, you think no one could do good on LG's cold. Everyone on here saying otherwise is a liar. So why not let the liars give each other advice in peace.

clearly you don't.

[paratactical]

I slaughtered logic games, even cold, and always had extra time on LG sections in diagnostics, practice and the real test. The only time I ever did badly on them was when I tried to learn to diagram. I am not sure why I'm good at them.

On the other hand, I'm an avid reader that generally doesn't have difficulty reading complex subject matter, but I do abhorrently on RC.

Different people have different strengths.

[unc0mm0n1]

Ok we get it, you think no one could do good on LG's cold. Everyone on here saying otherwise is a liar. So why not let the liars give each other advice in peace.

clearly you don't.

R u stupid? You rant about how you can't buy people getting -0 - -1 on the LG without practice then you said:

"I feel most of these people didn't take a truly 'cold' test but a mostly cold test."

So by the most elementary logic you're saying that the people who said they got the score cold are either lying about it or just don't remember they actually did LG before.

[unc0mm0n1]

I slaughtered logic games, even cold, and always had extra time on LG sections in diagnostics, practice and the real test. The only time I ever did badly on them was when I tried to learn to diagram. I am not sure why I'm good at them.

On the other hand, I'm an avid reader that generally doesn't have difficulty reading complex subject matter, but I do abhorrently on RC.

Different people have different strengths.

No you didn't. It was only "mostly cold"

[sinfiery]

I slaughtered logic games, even cold, and always had extra time on LG sections in diagnostics, practice and the real test. The only time I ever did badly on them was when I tried to learn to diagram. I am not sure why I'm good at them.

On the other hand, I'm an avid reader that generally doesn't have difficulty reading complex subject matter, but I do abhorrently on RC.

Different people have different strengths.

Did you write anything down cold? If so, what and why?

It's the least straight forward section and is the most unique to the LSAT relative to what you see in life/academia. Thus the probability of cold-acing this section is clearly the lowest.

Unless some people have a unique personal experience to mine, I don't buy that some minds just work differently.

[unc0mm0n1]

I slaughtered logic games, even cold, and always had extra time on LG sections in diagnostics, practice and the real test. The only time I ever did badly on them was when I tried to learn to diagram. I am not sure why I'm good at them.

On the other hand, I'm an avid reader that generally doesn't have difficulty reading complex subject matter, but I do abhorrently on RC.

Different people have different strengths.

Did you write anything down cold? If so, what and why?

It's the least straight forward section and is the most unique to the LSAT relative to what you see in life/academia. Thus the probability of cold-acing this section is clearly the lowest.

Unless some people have a unique personal experience to mine, I don't buy that some minds just work differently.

Ok we get it, you think no one could do good on LG's cold. Everyone on here saying otherwise is a liar. So why not let the liars give each other advice in peace.

[sinfiery]

Ok we get it, you think no one could do good on LG's cold. Everyone on here saying otherwise is a liar. So why not let the liars give each other advice in peace.

clearly you don't.

R u stupid? You rant about how you can't buy people getting -0 - -1 on the LG without practice then you said:

"I feel most of these people didn't take a truly 'cold' test but a mostly cold test."

So by the most elementary logic you're saying that the people who said they got the score cold are either lying about it or just don't remember they actually did LG before.

Lol.

Lock a child in a room from birth and give him the LSAT. He will get a 120.

Nothing is truly cold, obviously.


But you are shown LR and RC over and over as you age in this life.

LG? I think it would take a circumstance unique to the average man to be able to ace cold.

I am simply asking, for those that took it cold and aced LG, to state such event. Maybe they don't even realize it. I have said it could all be from my perspective over and over, but I keep getting retorted to so here I am responding to claims that don't seem to understand my point.

[sinfiery]

Ok we get it, you think no one could do good on LG's cold. Everyone on here saying otherwise is a liar. So why not let the liars give each other advice in peace.

I get it, you don't get my argument.

[paratactical]

I slaughtered logic games, even cold, and always had extra time on LG sections in diagnostics, practice and the real test. The only time I ever did badly on them was when I tried to learn to diagram. I am not sure why I'm good at them.

On the other hand, I'm an avid reader that generally doesn't have difficulty reading complex subject matter, but I do abhorrently on RC.

Different people have different strengths.

Did you write anything down cold? If so, what and why?

It's the least straight forward section and is the most unique to the LSAT relative to what you see in life/academia. Thus the probability of cold-acing this section is clearly the lowest.

Unless some people have a unique personal experience to mine, I don't buy that some minds just work differently.

I generally wrote down very little during LG. I took my diagnostic in 2008, though, so it's been a while. I'm not trying to brag or whatever. I just finish logic games quickly. They are easy for me. I see them and I go "Oh, well, these three answers have to be false" and then it just takes a few seconds of looking to see what makes sense. This is the kind of reasoning I'm good at. I was the kind of kid that took apart toasters and put them back together for fun as a kid. (Not that that's related).

On the other hand, questions about what would be the best title for the passage fucking destroy me and I can never figure out what they want the answer to be because I think all the answers are bad.

[sinfiery]

I slaughtered logic games, even cold, and always had extra time on LG sections in diagnostics, practice and the real test. The only time I ever did badly on them was when I tried to learn to diagram. I am not sure why I'm good at them.

On the other hand, I'm an avid reader that generally doesn't have difficulty reading complex subject matter, but I do abhorrently on RC.

Different people have different strengths.

Did you write anything down cold? If so, what and why?

It's the least straight forward section and is the most unique to the LSAT relative to what you see in life/academia. Thus the probability of cold-acing this section is clearly the lowest.

Unless some people have a unique personal experience to mine, I don't buy that some minds just work differently.

I generally wrote down very little during LG. I took my diagnostic in 2008, though, so it's been a while. I'm not trying to brag or whatever. I just finish logic games quickly. They are easy for me. I see them and I go "Oh, well, these three answers have to be false" and then it just takes a few seconds of looking to see what makes sense. This is the kind of reasoning I'm good at. I was the kind of kid that took apart toasters and put them back together for fun as a kid. (Not that that's related).

On the other hand, questions about what would be the best title for the passage fucking destroy me and I can never figure out what they want the answer to be because I think all the answers are bad.

Eh, over time it doesn't surprise me. Impressive, but nothing I wouldn't believe. My only question is with the diagnostic test.

Honestly, I personally think the amount of information given in each LG problem is the hardest part of it. Having to effectively go through that information and remember it all is the difficult part in a timed scenario. The actual logic isn't particularly difficult.

What teaches you to do that in life? I can't think of much. As someone said, "Some people are just good at math" doesn't really correlate to this type of skill, at least for me.

[vegso]

The hardest part I don't believe is picking up the learning curve in 35 minutes and than acing the material.

I feel most of these people didn't take a truly 'cold' test but a mostly cold test.


Maybe I'm wrong, I just don't see it.

Each of these actions independently is whatever, but as a whole I become skeptical.


Edit: I can buy it if you practiced something similar as a kid or just out of passion that just so happened to be related to LG, I can buy it. But being "good at math" doesn't fit such a pre-requisite.

We had my 13 year old brother take an LSAT for fun and he got a 173. He'd never seen the thing before. Some people are naturally good at this stuff.

Nothing is really inherent man.

By 19 (or 13 in some cases) I'd imagine if one had the ability, they were definitely able to be exposed to enough logical reasoning and reading comprehension in their days that they could ace the sections on a cold test.


But from my personal experience, I've never seen something like LG played out anywhere before. Maybe I'm being held captive by my personal experiences..(probably) but where does one get the experience one needs to attack LG on a pure cold test? Aside from being a puzzle enthusiast as a kid or something, I don't see it. Being good at math is definitely not enough...at least to me.

Of course I could be wrong. Or this could be 1 of those rare cases.

LG was my section that I was already some how good at when I started studying for the LSAT, like I could easily do them in time and completely accurately cold. I have no idea what i was exposed to that developed this ability. Some people just grow up in the right environment/with the right exposure and develop the skills naturally, it's not much different than someone growing up doing anything and being way better at that stuff than the people who have hardly any practice and try to learn in a few months what the former have been building on for years.

[paratactical]

Eh, over time it doesn't surprise me. Impressive, but nothing I wouldn't believe. My only question is with the diagnostic test.

Honestly, I personally think the amount of information given in each LG problem is the hardest part of it. Having to effectively go through that information and remember it all is the difficult part in a timed scenario. The actual logic isn't particularly difficult.

What teaches you to do that in life? I can't think of much. As someone said, "Some people are just good at math" doesn't really correlate to this type of skill, at least for me.

I don't know what to tell you. I did well on logic games, even on my cold test. I know I didn't diagram anything on the cold test. I don't recall how much I wrote down. To be honest, I don't understand what you mean by the amount of information being the hardest part of it. I don't know how you don't remember that. It's the simple parameters of a problem. It would be like forgetting to count for a friction coefficient in a physics problem: it's the framework for the whole thing. I read quickly and I remember what I read, especially when I realized I'm in a timed testing situation.

[unc0mm0n1]

Ok we get it, you think no one could do good on LG's cold. Everyone on here saying otherwise is a liar. So why not let the liars give each other advice in peace.

clearly you don't.

R u stupid? You rant about how you can't buy people getting -0 - -1 on the LG without practice then you said:

"I feel most of these people didn't take a truly 'cold' test but a mostly cold test."

So by the most elementary logic you're saying that the people who said they got the score cold are either lying about it or just don't remember they actually did LG before.

Lol.

Lock a child in a room from birth and give him the LSAT. He will get a 120.

Nothing is truly cold, obviously.

And of course nothing is truly cold, it's a lame argument and you know it. Let me break it down for you. When people say taking the LSAT cold they mean no LSAT studying or LSAT test taking.

LG? I think it would take a circumstance unique to the average man to be able to ace cold.

You're on TLS these people aren't average.

I am simply asking, for those that took it cold and aced LG, to state such event. Maybe they don't even realize it. I have said it could all be from my perspective over and over, but I keep getting retorted to so here I am responding to claims that don't seem to understand my point.

Or maybe they just get it. You keep saying you can't believe it even though people are telling you it's possible, improbable but possible.

[sinfiery]

LG was my section that I was already some how good at when I started studying for the LSAT, like I could easily do them in time and completely accurately cold. I have no idea what i was exposed to that developed this ability. Some people just grow up in the right environment/with the right exposure and develop the skills naturally, it's not much different than someone growing up doing anything and being way better at that stuff than the people who have hardly any practice and try to learn in a few months what the former have been building on for years.

I thought with my personal experience and so many on this board bolstering their LG score very quickly after their cold diagnostic that it really was an anomaly to be inherently good at it but it seems quite a few are coming out of the woodworks with the claim you are making.

Maybe it isn't as unique of a circumstance as I thought that taught you/others this skill.

It really is hard to tell anything relatively when on this forum though...but either way I guess I'm no longer curious as to the specifics of OP's life. lol.

[sinfiery]

Lol.

Lock a child in a room from birth and give him the LSAT. He will get a 120.

Nothing is truly cold, obviously.

And of course nothing is truly cold, it's a lame argument and you know it. Let me break it down for you. When people say taking the LSAT cold they mean no LSAT studying or LSAT test taking.

LG? I think it would take a circumstance unique to the average man to be able to ace cold.

You're on TLS these people aren't average.

I am simply asking, for those that took it cold and aced LG, to state such event. Maybe they don't even realize it. I have said it could all be from my perspective over and over, but I keep getting retorted to so here I am responding to claims that don't seem to understand my point.

Or maybe they just get it. You keep saying you can't believe it even though people are telling you it's possible, improbable but possible.

I think the only reason we disagree is because you think I mean it is impossible, where as what I mean is that it is impossible without explanation.

But seeing as enough people here committed such an action, I am not warranted to even ask for an explanation.

I don't know what to tell you. I did well on logic games, even on my cold test. I know I didn't diagram anything on the cold test. I don't recall how much I wrote down. To be honest, I don't understand what you mean by the amount of information being the hardest part of it. I don't know how you don't remember that. It's the simple parameters of a problem. It would be like forgetting to count for a friction coefficient in a physics problem: it's the framework for the whole thing. I read quickly and I remember what I read, especially when I realized I'm in a timed testing situation.

Well, the way the information is written in the problem is worded.
Glancing at it again and reading it is such a waste of time versus either memorizing it all or writing it in the margins.

I guess you just memorize it all without mixing things up instead of jotting it to the side... That is something I didn't think was common.

edit: by common = make me question OP's ability to do it

[609d]

Ah, to get back from the bars and see this open on my computer...

Anyway, I'm not sure what to say to the complaints. I don't particularly care about the various allegations, though I'm more than happy to send you screenshots of the pages of the LG section of my book if you think that'd be helpful. There's not that much in the way of work beyond a handful of scribbles--as people have intimated, most of it was done in my head. I was -2 total on LG (both, frankly, from dumb errors), if that matters.

Also, if only because debates are fun, let's see if I can't add a little bit of MECE (google it) consultant structure to this whole issue. Presumably, any differences in LSAT score have to come from one of three areas:

--Innate ability: This would be things like working memory or IQ. The former in particular seems to be relevant if we're talking about the difficulty holding all the LG information in your head at once. Either way, the point is that not everyone is the same. If you lock 1000 babies in a room from birth, they won't all score the same on the LSAT. It is to some degree (far from 100%) correlated with various heretic factors.

--"Preparation" prior to viewing the LSAT: This would be everything from doing logic puzzles as a kid to having lawyers as parents and discussing things in terms similar to the LR section at the dinner table every night. In other words, the kinds of things that "train" one to think in the way that the LSAT tests.

--LSAT Preparation: Should be pretty obvious


I'd imagine that the effects of 1+2 are going to equal your diagnostic score, and, of course, the effects of all three are going to result in your final LSAT score (likely with some randomness thrown in). The real value, then, is in figuring out what aspects of 1) and 2) cause certain people to score better initially than others, and how best to mimic those effects in LSAT prep training. And I (and it feels like others) are more than happy to contribute there where possible. It doesn't seem to be particularly useful to anybody to debate whether someone truly took the LSAT "cold" or not.

But, hey, whatever helps you sleep at night.

[sinfiery]

Ah, to get back from the bars and see this open on my computer...

Anyway, I'm not sure what to say to the complaints. I don't particularly care about the various allegations, though I'm more than happy to send you screenshots of the pages of the LG section of my book if you think that'd be helpful. There's not that much in the way of work beyond a handful of scribbles--as people have intimated, most of it was done in my head. I was -2 total on LG (both, frankly, from dumb errors), if that matters.

Also, if only because debates are fun, let's see if I can't add a little bit of MECE (google it) consultant structure to this whole issue. Presumably, any differences in LSAT score have to come from one of three areas:

--Innate ability: This would be things like working memory or IQ. The former in particular seems to be relevant if we're talking about the difficulty holding all the LG information in your head at once. Either way, the point is that not everyone is the same. If you lock 1000 babies in a room from birth, they won't all score the same on the LSAT. It is to some degree (far from 100%) correlated with various heretic factors.

--"Preparation" prior to viewing the LSAT: This would be everything from doing logic puzzles as a kid to having lawyers as parents and discussing things in terms similar to the LR section at the dinner table every night. In other words, the kinds of things that "train" one to think in the way that the LSAT tests.

--LSAT Preparation: Should be pretty obvious


I'd imagine that the effects of 1+2 are going to equal your diagnostic score, and, of course, the effects of all three are going to result in your final LSAT score (likely with some randomness thrown in). The real value, then, is in figuring out what aspects of 1) and 2) cause certain people to score better initially than others, and how best to mimic those effects in LSAT prep training. And I (and it feels like others) are more than happy to contribute there where possible. It doesn't seem to be particularly useful to anybody to debate whether someone truly took the LSAT "cold" or not.

But, hey, whatever helps you sleep at night.

Indeed. I was arguing about the "Preparation" point of view as I believe it to be the most influential in effecting a cold diagnostic score.

From my readings here on TLS (Which I believe to already be a better than average LSAT test taker's sample of participants) no one goes in cold and is able to ace LG in a manner in which you say you did. Which led me to ask what about your past made you able to do such things, or why are you lieing?

But as I questioned you in this thread, more than enough others have said they were able to reproduce the same scenario as you had.

So I doubt you are all lieing, and since enough of you were able to do such a task, asking about the scenario that made you different from all these other test takers is no longer my right, and likewise doesn't interest me as much as it did at my initial posting upon this topic.


Also:
knowing what MECE is(after googling, lol) would definitely lead one to believe that whatever taught you to know of that principle/idea/specific term probably aided you in your ability to conquer LG as most of us would determine from a "cold" LSAT

[Ioannis]

So, since I read all the powerscore books, told a timed LSAT test for the first time and got a 170, did I take the lsat "cold"?

[094320]

..

[CalAlumni]

I didn't read every single post in this thread, but it is definitely possible for an individual who has never seen the LSAT before, to ace the logic games completely cold with innate ability over and over again.

My brother he is a college freshman and a math God (800 math on SAT)...although he sucks in History/English/etc. basically everything except for Math and Science. 6-7 months ago I gave him a a few LG sections and he got -0 every time with just a bit of illegible chicken scratch for each problem and about 12 minutes remaining--he can't even explain to me how he does it. But as far as 100% in ones head...that I seriously, seriously doubt.

[msmith19]

13 old brother 173 lsat cold..I lol'd

[CyanIdes Of March]

I hate this thread and half of the people in it. I don't come here so people can make me feel like a neanderthal .