Questions for "Naturals"

ben4848
Posts: 5
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2012 3:58 pm

Re: Questions for "Naturals"

Postby ben4848 » Sun Nov 04, 2012 4:03 pm

I used to read books before law school. I basically browsed the "new non fiction" shelf at the public library and read anything that looked interesting. Probably was reading about 2 books a weeks.

Also, I drink beer which is shown to have one of the highest levels of nutrients (calories) per ounce of any drink.

cynthiad
Posts: 163
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2012 1:16 pm

Re: Questions for "Naturals"

Postby cynthiad » Sun Nov 04, 2012 4:07 pm

ben4848 wrote:Also, I drink beer which is shown to have one of the highest levels of nutrients (calories) per ounce of any drink.


LOL

lawschool2014hopeful
Posts: 554
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2010 8:48 pm

Re: Questions for "Naturals"

Postby lawschool2014hopeful » Sun Nov 04, 2012 5:19 pm

Desert Fox wrote:
lawschool2014hopeful wrote:By "naturals" I am referring to people who scored 170+ with minimum effort (~ 1 month of study). I am just curious what are your hobbies? E.g., do you read political columns/fantasy novels/literature for fun on a consistent basis? Do you think your lifestyle choices/certain class made you specifically effective at taking this test?


They are smarter than you bro.


I dont doubt that. But intelligence is shaped by your activities, the least I can do is to catch up.

lutcf2021
Posts: 94
Joined: Thu Nov 10, 2011 8:26 pm

Re: Questions for "Naturals"

Postby lutcf2021 » Sun Nov 04, 2012 5:50 pm

Desert Fox wrote:
lawschool2014hopeful wrote:By "naturals" I am referring to people who scored 170+ with minimum effort (~ 1 month of study). I am just curious what are your hobbies? E.g., do you read political columns/fantasy novels/literature for fun on a consistent basis? Do you think your lifestyle choices/certain class made you specifically effective at taking this test?


They are smarter than you bro.



+1
LOLLLLLLLLLLLLL

uvabro
Posts: 405
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2012 9:44 pm

Re: Questions for "Naturals"

Postby uvabro » Sun Nov 04, 2012 5:54 pm

I started with -16 logic games, but after i met with a tutor for 1 hour realized what they were testing and had -0 on every game i subsequently did.

As a kid, i used to love sport video games but would only play them in franchise mode and draft teams. I was never good at math in school, but would be very good at analyzing numbers like building teams around certain skill numbers, and would always win ncaa tournament brackets (won my class all 4 yrs in hs) by analyzing specific numbers.

In general, I just approached life trying to fit disparate pieces of info together so it favored me there.

On lr, I started getting near perfect scores when I stripped myself of any sense of humor or imagination and just read everything literally. It also made me better in social and personal relationships because I was more patient w ppl and less inclined to be needy.

RC i always struggled w' because before law school i only ever read short sport articles on espn. i never read in college. i'd just use wikipedia.

User avatar
LSAT Hacks (Graeme)
Posts: 371
Joined: Wed May 30, 2012 9:18 pm

Re: Questions for "Naturals"

Postby LSAT Hacks (Graeme) » Sun Nov 04, 2012 6:14 pm

I got a 167 on my diagnostic, scored 173-175 in PTs after a month of (fairly intense) study and got 177 on test day. The preptests were fake Kaplan tests, which might explain the difference.

I read a LOT. Fiction as a kid, newspapers and the economist in school. I don't recommend newspapers or the economist now, but they probably helped. I can read VERY fast, with good comprehension and familiarity with a wide range of subjects. This makes RC fairly easy, and it helps on LR.

I was very good at math, which I am convinced is a big factor in logic games and LR logic.

I used to be a pedantic nerd, obsessed with logical correctness. Which meant that I could see why any statement might not be true. This is a useful skill for LR.

I've lost the pedantism, but kept the skill for seeing how a statement might be false. That's a useful skill to cultivate, as long as you remember it's inapplicable to ordinary conversation (but very useful for business/life planning).

lawschool2014hopeful
Posts: 554
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2010 8:48 pm

Re: Questions for "Naturals"

Postby lawschool2014hopeful » Thu Apr 25, 2013 10:59 pm

Bumping this thread, since the conversation in this thread I have just finished perhaps the most intensive semester ever:

4 essay courses, all senior/graduate level, + 1 Computer science.

Here is to hoping it helped.

User avatar
VegasLaw702
Posts: 92
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2013 5:40 am

Re: Questions for "Naturals"

Postby VegasLaw702 » Thu Apr 25, 2013 11:28 pm

cynthiad wrote:I haven't taken the LSAT yet, but I scored above 175 on a cold diagnostic.


Classic

User avatar
johnreagan
Posts: 15
Joined: Fri Mar 01, 2013 1:43 am

Re: Questions for "Naturals"

Postby johnreagan » Fri Apr 26, 2013 6:37 am

170 diag - I play soccer, plan startups, and enjoy culinary arts, I listen to talk radio quite a bit. Growing up I read a lot, now not as much, it has always been about 50/50 nonfiction and classics, lots of biographies and business books. Preferred math/science growing up but fared slightly better in lit/social science. Econ major, also took some math and logic out of interest. light on literature in college.

I think the test comes naturally to me partially because of critical reading skills developed over time, partially natural intelligence, and partially because the test aligns with my natural personality and way of thinking about things. I analyze everything I ever hear or read. I am always finding flaws and looking for solutions.
Last edited by johnreagan on Fri Apr 26, 2013 6:54 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
johnreagan
Posts: 15
Joined: Fri Mar 01, 2013 1:43 am

Re: Questions for "Naturals"

Postby johnreagan » Fri Apr 26, 2013 6:40 am

graeme wrote:I used to be a pedantic nerd, obsessed with logical correctness. Which meant that I could see why any statement might not be true. This is a useful skill for LR.

I've lost the pedantism, but kept the skill for seeing how a statement might be false. That's a useful skill to cultivate, as long as you remember it's inapplicable to ordinary conversation (but very useful for business/life planning).



This. Doing LR is like my normal way of thinking just with oddly written little passages.

Uncle Ruslan
Posts: 17
Joined: Sun Apr 21, 2013 9:08 pm

Re: Questions for "Naturals"

Postby Uncle Ruslan » Fri Apr 26, 2013 8:51 am

Is there such a thing as being a natural in LG? I studied for less than a month before taking it and getting a 170. My improvements in LR and RC after my diagnostic were nominal, but less than a month of LG prep helped immensely (at least a 10-question bump in average). IMHO I think all the sections are learned skills, but LG skills are way more specific and rare in us simple folk (unless you played logic games as a kid or currently engineer traffic signal systems or something). I felt at home with LR and RC because I do words for a living.

wisdom
Posts: 43
Joined: Mon Apr 22, 2013 8:05 pm

Re: Questions for "Naturals"

Postby wisdom » Fri Apr 26, 2013 9:16 am

Uncle Ruslan wrote:Is there such a thing as being a natural in LG? I studied for less than a month before taking it and getting a 170. My improvements in LR and RC after my diagnostic were nominal, but less than a month of LG prep helped immensely (at least a 10-question bump in average). IMHO I think all the sections are learned skills, but LG skills are way more specific and rare in us simple folk (unless you played logic games as a kid or currently engineer traffic signal systems or something). I felt at home with LR and RC because I do words for a living.


This will come off as a brag, so I apologize in advance, but I would consider myself a "natural" at the LG. Took the LSAT without preparing and was -0 on LG and I think -3/4 on LR for a 176. When I went in the only thing I had done was take some practice questions from the LSAC website the day before, and I had done the logic games by diagramming in the way that felt natural to me. But it took a fair amount of time so I assumed that the LG section would be 12 questions on test day. When I saw it was 20+ I just did them in my head, often by process of elimination (I could just look at the multiple choice options and very quickly see flaws in the wrong ones, e.g., "Oh, that's impossible because of condition 1").

I think people who are naturally good at logic games have some background in either mathematics or philosophy (especially formal logic, but just anything that forces you to pry apart arguments and figure out what logical mistake that someone made is very useful for LG). I was actually a non-Philosophy humanities major but had taken some math and philosophy courses (although not formal logic) in college. I did not play logic games as a kid as a hobby.

As for reading material, I read a random mix of fiction, non-fiction, serious, not so serious stuff. I don't know that what you read is necessarily correlated with LG, I'd assume that would be more important for RC, unless one was reading philosophy from a young age. I was a Star Wars fan (esp. Timothy Zahn) myself.

User avatar
phillywc
Posts: 3043
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2013 12:17 am

Re: Questions for "Naturals"

Postby phillywc » Fri Apr 26, 2013 6:22 pm

Haven't taken a LSAT yet, but got a 175 on my second diagnostic (first was taken late at night after work, I did relatively little review between the two. I knew the question types and all but not much more than that.)

I'd say the biggest advantage I have is reading quickly. My technique wouldn't work well for most people, but because I can read/comprehend fairly quickly, I can re-read (sometimes whole RC passages) and still have time left over to review anything I'm unsure of.

I read a ton as a kid, and my parents also got me those logic game books from the supermarket. I think it's a skill that is pretty easy to build up, but it has to be done over a much longer period of time than learning LG or something. I mainly read fantasy and sci-fi (I stopped counting a few years ago, but I'm 20 and have read Ender's Game over 30 times) so it doesn't have to be super high quality literature or anything. The passages on the LSAT aren't super meaty imo.

User avatar
mephistopheles
Posts: 1947
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 11:43 am

Re: Questions for "Naturals"

Postby mephistopheles » Fri Apr 26, 2013 6:40 pm

i think the key is reading and having done math/logic as a child.

i never really read any fiction past when i was first learning to read, so yeah. now, i tend to read philosophy of mathematics and theoretical physics when i have time for non-class reading (when i'm not keeping up on news).

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

Re: Questions for "Naturals"

Postby NoodleyOne » Fri Apr 26, 2013 6:42 pm

phillywc wrote: but I'm 20 and have read Ender's Game over 30 times)

Dear God, why? I'm not saying it's a bad book or anything, but Card is about as subtle as Ayn Rand most of the time and... well... the book isn't that good.

Mik Ekim
Posts: 102
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2012 12:06 pm

Re: Questions for "Naturals"

Postby Mik Ekim » Fri Apr 26, 2013 7:31 pm

In order to score 170+ without any prep, you need very strong reading skills and very strong reasoning skills. That's a given -- however, in my experience there seem to be plenty of people out there who naturally have strong enough reading and reasoning skills to get 170+ --

I think the other two characteristics necessary are

1) you need to be able to bring your reading and reasoning skills together --

this is what standardized tests are in large part about --

the mathematical word problem is the quintessential standard test question -- most people are fine w/the math involved, and most people are fine reading the words involved, but bring the two together, and you end up with people wanting to rip their hair out.

2) you need strong mental discipline --

i think this second issue is really what prevents a lot of talented underachievers from getting into the 170's -- in order to get, say, a tough LG question correct, you need to make six or seven layers of inferences, and you need to be able to retain and organize them--that requires some serious brain muscle.

In terms of number one, I think some of that is how we're built -- I consider myself a natural at standardized exams, in large part because I am much better at them than I am at other things in life (such as schoolwork or talking with other humans), and I am also "wired" strangely -- most prominently, I am mixed-handed, meaning I am left-handed in some ways and right-handed in others, and I have a very easy time (compared to others) learning certain things and a very hard time (compared to others) learning other things.

In terms of number two -- one thing I noticed when I worked at Manhattan Prep was the crazy percentage of teachers who came from a musical background -- I would say, off the top of my head, that roughly a third of them were serious practicing musicians. I think that perhaps the discipline needed for music crosses over.

Lastly, also wanted to mention that it seems chemistry majors have a unique advantage when it comes to Logic Games, but I've only run across a few.

racrfish
Posts: 208
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2013 10:31 am

Re: Questions for "Naturals"

Postby racrfish » Fri Apr 26, 2013 8:28 pm

Loving all the "well, I haven't taken it yet..." folks.
Last edited by racrfish on Mon Jan 06, 2014 12:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.

lawschool2014hopeful
Posts: 554
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2010 8:48 pm

Re: Questions for "Naturals"

Postby lawschool2014hopeful » Fri Apr 26, 2013 9:26 pm

Thanks for all of the responses so far,

A follow up question is then, do you ever doubt your answer? If so how do you deal with it? How much consideration do you give to answers that does not exactly match what you had in mind after reading the question, but prior to the answer choices?

On a somewhat related note, I feel like I have a problem of over-justifying an an attractive, but wrong answer choice, like I feel like I can over-stretch the truth, does anyone have any technique or had experience dealing with this? Do you all just go with an answer in mind prior to A.C and just kind ignore the rest as a strategy? Thats what I feel like the only thing that is slightly working for me at the moment.

Lastly, do you ever explicitly justify all your answer picks? or is like, I kind of feel like this is right and go with it?

User avatar
mephistopheles
Posts: 1947
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 11:43 am

Re: Questions for "Naturals"

Postby mephistopheles » Sat Apr 27, 2013 12:18 pm

lawschool2014hopeful wrote:Thanks for all of the responses so far,

A follow up question is then, do you ever doubt your answer? If so how do you deal with it? How much consideration do you give to answers that does not exactly match what you had in mind after reading the question, but prior to the answer choices?

On a somewhat related note, I feel like I have a problem of over-justifying an an attractive, but wrong answer choice, like I feel like I can over-stretch the truth, does anyone have any technique or had experience dealing with this? Do you all just go with an answer in mind prior to A.C and just kind ignore the rest as a strategy? Thats what I feel like the only thing that is slightly working for me at the moment.

Lastly, do you ever explicitly justify all your answer picks? or is like, I kind of feel like this is right and go with it?



nope, i don't second guess my answers. there's not really time for that. re: justifying wrong answers, you're spinning your wheels and wasting time. i'd focus immediately on what the right answer was and why my choice was wrong.

racrfish
Posts: 208
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2013 10:31 am

Re: Questions for "Naturals"

Postby racrfish » Sat Apr 27, 2013 3:06 pm

lawschool2014hopeful wrote:Thanks for all of the responses so far,

A follow up question is then, do you ever doubt your answer? If so how do you deal with it? How much consideration do you give to answers that does not exactly match what you had in mind after reading the question, but prior to the answer choices?

On a somewhat related note, I feel like I have a problem of over-justifying an an attractive, but wrong answer choice, like I feel like I can over-stretch the truth, does anyone have any technique or had experience dealing with this? Do you all just go with an answer in mind prior to A.C and just kind ignore the rest as a strategy? Thats what I feel like the only thing that is slightly working for me at the moment.

Lastly, do you ever explicitly justify all your answer picks? or is like, I kind of feel like this is right and go with it?


I sometimes doubted an answer but there's no point in hemming and hawing over it, that just wastes time. Pick the one that's the most right and move on.

Regarding your second paragraph-- if something doesn't jump out as correct, eliminate the obviously wrong ones, usually there'll be two left and again, pick the one that's most right and move on. Don't overthink the test. If you start to overthink a question, move on and come back to it with fresh eyes later.

rockclimber2013
Posts: 22
Joined: Wed Apr 17, 2013 3:48 am

Re: Questions for "Naturals"

Postby rockclimber2013 » Sat Apr 27, 2013 3:59 pm

I got a 174 cold diagnostic, then did a few practice sections and took 10 practice tests over the course of 3-4 weeks before the test and got 180s on most of them. I got a 180 on the actual test.

I'll echo what posters above have said about doing math/logic puzzles as a child. I also do a lot of social science/economics reading, and I think that helps a lot - doing real econometrics/stats or quantitative social science papers develops skills that are very helpful for LR. (I think this is a lot more valuable than reading the Economist, which seems to be the usual advice people give around here). More than anything, though, I did debate at a high competitive level in high school, and I attribute most of my success in college and on the LSAT to that. It encourages you to think in a structured, clear, analytical way more than any courses I took in high school or college.

User avatar
phillywc
Posts: 3043
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2013 12:17 am

Re: Questions for "Naturals"

Postby phillywc » Sat Apr 27, 2013 7:55 pm

NoodleyOne wrote:
phillywc wrote: but I'm 20 and have read Ender's Game over 30 times)

Dear God, why? I'm not saying it's a bad book or anything, but Card is about as subtle as Ayn Rand most of the time and... well... the book isn't that good.



I really loved the universe. I read it like, monthly as a young kid. Probably only 5-7 of those times were after I turned 12. IDK what I was thinking though. Looking back it is kinda sad how much of a loon Card is. I still enjoy it enough to read the new ones when they come out, but I am no where near as infatuated.

That said, Andrew Wiggins being the next top prospect for basketball made me go back and almost read it again a few months ago.

User avatar
VegasLaw702
Posts: 92
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2013 5:40 am

Re: Questions for "Naturals"

Postby VegasLaw702 » Sat Apr 27, 2013 11:21 pm

rockclimber2013 wrote:I got a 174 cold diagnostic, then did a few practice sections and took 10 practice tests over the course of 3-4 weeks before the test and got 180s on most of them. I got a 180 on the actual test.



I call SHENANIGANS on your 180 bro, your post history states otherwise. Everyone's input is always valued, but dont be a chump.

lunaraeon
Posts: 186
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 9:07 pm

Re: Questions for "Naturals"

Postby lunaraeon » Mon Jul 29, 2013 2:06 pm

lawschool2014hopeful wrote:Thanks for all of the responses so far,

A follow up question is then, do you ever doubt your answer? If so how do you deal with it? How much consideration do you give to answers that does not exactly match what you had in mind after reading the question, but prior to the answer choices?

On a somewhat related note, I feel like I have a problem of over-justifying an an attractive, but wrong answer choice, like I feel like I can over-stretch the truth, does anyone have any technique or had experience dealing with this? Do you all just go with an answer in mind prior to A.C and just kind ignore the rest as a strategy? Thats what I feel like the only thing that is slightly working for me at the moment.

Lastly, do you ever explicitly justify all your answer picks? or is like, I kind of feel like this is right and go with it?

I did sometimes doubt my answers for LR and RC (logic games I didn't, they're either right or wrong and you can prove it). If I'm unsure between choices I haven't eliminated, I mark the question and come back. I re-read anything relevant (like the prompt/parts of the passage) and see if I can eliminate anything else. (Often, just having the break and re-reading the question caused me to realize what the answer was.) If still nothing, I skip it again. I keep cycling through the section until none of those questions are left. It probably helps that I read fast. On the test I had two wrong answers--one I didn't expect, and one that I had swapped from the correct answer when I second-guessed myself--and scored 179. On some sections I think at least half the questions had marks at some point, and I double checked the rest anyways since I had time, but with the exception of my swapped answer, I felt confident in my final choices.

For learning to deal with it, you need to write preptests and go over anything you got wrong and anything you were unsure about (sometimes these are different sets of questions) to figure out why. In high school I did standardized testing for English that was like a bunch of super ambiguous RC and LR sections, and it was the same then--I started off making mistakes because I couldn't differentiate between two choices. Once I was used to it from taking practice sections and could be confident in my initial gut feeling and my strategies for eliminating ambiguity on certain questions, I pretty much stopped making mistakes.

blsingindisguise
Posts: 1296
Joined: Thu Nov 26, 2009 1:08 am

Re: Questions for "Naturals"

Postby blsingindisguise » Mon Jul 29, 2013 2:43 pm

170 on my first cold PT.

I read a lot growing up ("classic" novels, The New Yorker, the New York Times etc.). Reading a lot was expected in my family -- I forced myself to read "highbrow" things I didn't even really want to read and pretended to enjoy them. I think this actually helped, as I was always challenging and pushing my reading ability.

I was also naturally pretty good at math (though probably not MIT material) and logic, and I always liked analytical and logical reasoning. My mom was always picking apart political arguments at the dinner table and that sort of thing. Really pretty annoying when I think about it, but again it taught me to always think critically.




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests