Top Law Schools

Fellow Retakers,

Looking for some suggestions about LR which most people here seem to have down cold. Here is my breakdown from PT 69:

Inference (-3)
Assumption (-2)
Principle (-2)

Main Point, Method of Argument, Must be True, Weaken (-1) each

Based on my drilling before the test, I thought I would have to focus on specific question types (strengthen/weaken was my worst category pretest). After looking at the breakdown, I get the sense that I just need to "get better" at all types of LR. Does anyone see an underlying pattern here that I might be missing or is my best plan of attack just to "drill baby drill" on all types?

Additional info: Currently working through the PS LRB (first time). Current materials include full sections of LR and questions grouped by type as well as access to all released PTs

golfboy wrote:Fellow Retakers,

Looking for some suggestions about LR which most people here seem to have down cold. Here is my breakdown from PT 69:

Inference (-3)
Assumption (-2)
Principle (-2)

Main Point, Method of Argument, Must be True, Weaken (-1) each

Based on my drilling before the test, I thought I would have to focus on specific question types (strengthen/weaken was my worst category pretest). After looking at the breakdown, I get the sense that I just need to "get better" at all types of LR. Does anyone see an underlying pattern here that I might be missing or is my best plan of attack just to "drill baby drill" on all types?

Additional info: Currently working through the PS LRB (first time). Current materials include full sections of LR and questions grouped by type as well as access to all released PTs

We're not going to be able to get an "underlying pattern" off of four very similar numbers. Drill baby drill is good, but make sure your review every question you get wrong, and every answer choice for every question. This will allow you to pick up on patterns and the third or fourth time that tricky style of assumption or whatever comes up, you'll know how to deal with it.

Post removed...

PatriotP74 wrote:Ordered the Manhattan set today from amazon, which book should i start with or is it better to work through all 3 at once just slowly?

I have no first hand experience with the Manhattan method books, but I would say begin with LR. LG and RC both draw on key elements that you learn from LR, so if you master that first, you should find that LG and RC are easier to grasp.

isuperserial wrote:

PatriotP74 wrote:Ordered the Manhattan set today from amazon, which book should i start with or is it better to work through all 3 at once just slowly?

I have no first hand experience with the Manhattan method books, but I would say begin with LR. LG and RC both draw on key elements that you learn from LR, so if you master that first, you should find that LG and RC are easier to grasp.

I would start with the LG book. Get those techniques down quickly, and start PTing an LG section per night, while also studying for the LR and RC sections. If you're not consistently scoring -0 on the LG section, you have the potential to make substantive improvements relatively quickly.

I always begin my study session with a timed LG section, and then move on to studying the other sections. Right now that means re-reading the Manhattan LR guide, and working through an RC section, with careful review of any mistakes I've made.

When I was going through the Manhattan LR book, everything "clicked" for me once I got through the Assumption Family Questions (Necessary/Sufficient, Strengthen/Weaken, Flaw, Principle) and I went from getting -3 to -5 on every LR to -0 to -2. This will obviously vary for a lot of people using the book, but I found that the Assumption Question chapters really help you to get to the core of the argument (and therefore, the test!) very intuitively.

I restarted my prep yesterday with some light LG drilling. Will probably do some light RC tonight. I'm going to gradually get into this as I've been feeling really down since I got my score (166 after PTing 174-176) last Monday. I really think I can get 178-180 this time if I can overcome careless mistakes/test anxiety.

Took my retake "diagnostic"

PT42:

LG (-1) Careless mistake
LG2 exp (-1) Got an orientation question wrong..wtf!
LR1 (-0)
LR2 (-3)
RC (-7)

170

Makes me sad again that I couldn't do this on test day, but happy that I can hit 170 3 months before October. My skills still seem intact.

Some pretty strange LR questions in this section. Hate how weirdly worded some of them are. Definitely a few questions that were familiar. For the life of me, I hope I never see something like question 7 in section 4 again.

Ambitious1 wrote:Took my retake "diagnostic"

PT42:

LG (-1) Careless mistake
LG2 exp (-1) Got an orientation question wrong..wtf!
LR1 (-0)
LR2 (-3)
RC (-7)

170

Makes me sad again that I couldn't do this on test day, but happy that I can hit 170 3 months before October. My skills still seem intact.

Some pretty strange LR questions in this section. Hate how weirdly worded some of them are. Definitely a few questions that were familiar. For the life of me, I hope I never see something like question 7 in section 4 again.

Good job, ambitious! Just drilled 25 lr must be true and aced them. Feels good man. What are you planning on doing for rc? We seem to be in similar boats.

After getting -8 on LG due to misbubbling (and still ending up w a 166), my plan is to do 1 LG section a day (PTs 7-38) until I ace them all. This is my "LG Hitlist." I don't care what it takes, I'm going to guarantee -0 on LG this time around.

For RC, I'm going to practice passages without underlining/notes, forcing myself to internalize main point, purpose, types of evidence, etc. I'll gradually work myself back up to full underlining. I plan to do a section every other day. I've always been naturally good at RC, but I feel like it's the biggest crapshoot of the sections. I hope to get it to -1/-2 consistently from -2/-3.

For LR, I just plan to maintain where I was (averaging -1 to -2 per section), and hope that drilling every other day will be able to get me to the -0/-1 range. I'll drill 25 of a certain question type every other day, along with my daily LG section.

I'm going to take a diagnostic (PT 40 or something) in the next two weeks, then I'll resume PTing bi-weekly in mid-August.

So a sample week:

Mon:

PT 7 LG Section / 25 Flaw questions + Review

Tues:

PT 8 LG Section / 1 RC Section [no underlining] + Review

Weds:

PT 9 LG Section / 25 Necessary Assumption + Review

etc.

Here it go

isuperserial wrote:

Ambitious1 wrote:Took my retake "diagnostic"

PT42:

LG (-1) Careless mistake
LG2 exp (-1) Got an orientation question wrong..wtf!
LR1 (-0)
LR2 (-3)
RC (-7)

170

Makes me sad again that I couldn't do this on test day, but happy that I can hit 170 3 months before October. My skills still seem intact.

Some pretty strange LR questions in this section. Hate how weirdly worded some of them are. Definitely a few questions that were familiar. For the life of me, I hope I never see something like question 7 in section 4 again.

Good job, ambitious! Just drilled 25 lr must be true and aced them. Feels good man. What are you planning on doing for rc? We seem to be in similar boats.

For RC, I plan on drilling individual passages before I move on to sections. I have all the science and humanitarian passages grouped for PTs 1 to 40 and have been using that so far. By starting off with individual passages, I hope to first develop an effective and consistent strategy in approaching the questions.

I started using that method where after each paragraph, you write a short summary (5 words or less) next to the passage of the paragraph and that helps you remember where specific things are in the passage. I've also noticed that this method helps me see how the paragraphs relate to each other structurally, and also makes me more engaged/focused on the passage. Unfortunately, during yesterday's PT the time crunch made me abandon this method rather quickly. But when I have stuck with it, it is effective. Just need to be more efficient in getting the passage read in ~4 minutes.

What are you doing for RC? And LR for that matter? I've picked up a copy of the LSAT Trainer and plan to supplement each chapter with corresponding Cambridge LR drilling.

so after drilling reading comp for the past two weeks, i took a timed section today. really i just wanted to see where my timing was in relation to my new methods and reassure myself that i wasn't taking like 10 hours.

but i just finished scoring it and i actually finished right under time (34 minutes) and only got 4 wrong. 2 of which i'd second guessed myself on and changed at the last minute! i don't think i can explain how excited i am to see improvement like this, just after two weeks. trust me drilling RC is no fun, but it really does help. i just felt the need to share my small little success with the rest of you retakers. i know how frustrating going through this whole process again can be, especially when so many of us hoped it wouldn't be the case.

if i can consistnetly stay here and even get it down to -2...october you better watch out.

logicgames_darling wrote:so after drilling reading comp for the past two weeks, i took a timed section today. really i just wanted to see where my timing was in relation to my new methods and reassure myself that i wasn't taking like 10 hours.

but i just finished scoring it and i actually finished right under time (34 minutes) and only got 4 wrong. 2 of which i'd second guessed myself on and changed at the last minute! i don't think i can explain how excited i am to see improvement like this, just after two weeks. trust me drilling RC is no fun, but it really does help. i just felt the need to share my small little success with the rest of you retakers. i know how frustrating going through this whole process again can be, especially when so many of us hoped it wouldn't be the case.

if i can consistnetly stay here and even get it down to -2...october you better watch out.

What approach do you take when attacking RC? Notate heavily? Write a 5 word summary after each paragraph? I got 6 wrong in RC in June, but I'm looking to get that down to 2 or less.

I'm starting to get the feeling that RC strat really depends on your strength and weaknesses and reading.

If you're a strong reader, then notations probably not necessary. If you're prone to forgetting stuff, then notations are key, etc.

So just experiment until you find what works for you.

PatriotP74 wrote:Ordered the Manhattan set today from amazon, which book should i start with or is it better to work through all 3 at once just slowly?

Manhattan is mostly good for LR.

Manhattan LG is aiiiight but the "tree" is hot garbage because it doesn't address what to do with and/or conditionals. Start with Manhattan LG before LGB because the former is a bit lighter and friendlier, which would be a good intro to the more comprehensive material in the latter.

Manhattan RC is OK -- not much substance, not that many techniques. I think the example passages and explanations themselves take up most of the pages in the book.

caffedriade wrote:

PatriotP74 wrote:Ordered the Manhattan set today from amazon, which book should i start with or is it better to work through all 3 at once just slowly?

Manhattan is mostly good for LR.

Manhattan LG is aiiiight but the "tree" is hot garbage because it doesn't address what to do with and/or conditionals. Start with Manhattan LG before LGB because the former is a bit lighter and friendlier, which would be a good intro to the more comprehensive material in the latter.

Manhattan RC is OK -- not much substance, not that many techniques. I think the example passages and explanations themselves take up most of the pages in the book.

I don't think you're giving Manhattan RC enough credit. You're right that there aren't too many techniques in there, but I think in RC less can be more. Powerscore's notation system for RC is way too involved. Manhattan's book focuses more on helping you understand what to look for in correct and incorrect answers, and emphasizes paying attention to the structure and arguments in the passage. The book probably won't lead to a quick increase like reading a LG or LR book would, but it gives you info that will help you figure out your own approach.

Also, the Manhattan sequencing tree is much more useful than the Powerscore's pure sequencing diagrams.

SteelPenguin wrote:

caffedriade wrote:

PatriotP74 wrote:Ordered the Manhattan set today from amazon, which book should i start with or is it better to work through all 3 at once just slowly?

Manhattan is mostly good for LR.

Manhattan LG is aiiiight but the "tree" is hot garbage because it doesn't address what to do with and/or conditionals. Start with Manhattan LG before LGB because the former is a bit lighter and friendlier, which would be a good intro to the more comprehensive material in the latter.

Manhattan RC is OK -- not much substance, not that many techniques. I think the example passages and explanations themselves take up most of the pages in the book.

I don't think you're giving Manhattan RC enough credit. You're right that there aren't too many techniques in there, but I think in RC less can be more. Powerscore's notation system for RC is way too involved. Manhattan's book focuses more on helping you understand what to look for in correct and incorrect answers, and emphasizes paying attention to the structure and arguments in the passage. The book probably won't lead to a quick increase like reading a LG or LR book would, but it gives you info that will help you figure out your own approach.

Also, the Manhattan sequencing tree is much more useful than the Powerscore's pure sequencing diagrams.

Ya, Buddy didn't really get a good use out of his MLSAT collection... You should reread them... and for you to say MLG is easier than LGB is crazy, It is much more difficult (caliber of questions involved)

This seems to be the main thread for re-takers who took the June LSAT.

I just released explanations for the June 2013 LSAT, for free. I'm not linking to the site here, because I'm waiting to hear from mods on whether an outside link is allowed in this case.

But if you know about any of the other LSAT stuff I do, you should be able to find the site. I worked pretty much non-stop from when the test came out: writing the explanations, and putting them up on a new site. I think you'll find them very useful for reviewing your test.

That's all. Good luck on your retake journey!

Thanks Graeme! Looking forward to it!

Here's to that 170+ for those who fell below!

Theopliske8711 wrote:Thanks Graeme! Looking forward to it!

Here's to that 170+ for those who fell below!

It's actually already out. Just don't want to post without mods permission, as they've tightened up on linking to your own stuff, recently.

So....you'll have to figure it out

If the site is well received, I'll be adding my explanations for other recents tests soon.

Graeme (Hacking the LSAT) wrote:

Theopliske8711 wrote:Thanks Graeme! Looking forward to it!

Here's to that 170+ for those who fell below!

It's actually already out. Just don't want to post without mods permission, as they've tightened up on linking to your own stuff, recently.

So....you'll have to figure it out

If the site is well received, I'll be adding my explanations for other recents tests soon.

Haha, I was actually saying that because I'm not in a position to look at it from my immediate circumstances; but, yea, I'll look for it.

mvonh001 wrote:

SteelPenguin wrote:

caffedriade wrote:

PatriotP74 wrote:Ordered the Manhattan set today from amazon, which book should i start with or is it better to work through all 3 at once just slowly?

Manhattan is mostly good for LR.

Manhattan LG is aiiiight but the "tree" is hot garbage because it doesn't address what to do with and/or conditionals. Start with Manhattan LG before LGB because the former is a bit lighter and friendlier, which would be a good intro to the more comprehensive material in the latter.

Manhattan RC is OK -- not much substance, not that many techniques. I think the example passages and explanations themselves take up most of the pages in the book.

I don't think you're giving Manhattan RC enough credit. You're right that there aren't too many techniques in there, but I think in RC less can be more. Powerscore's notation system for RC is way too involved. Manhattan's book focuses more on helping you understand what to look for in correct and incorrect answers, and emphasizes paying attention to the structure and arguments in the passage. The book probably won't lead to a quick increase like reading a LG or LR book would, but it gives you info that will help you figure out your own approach.

Also, the Manhattan sequencing tree is much more useful than the Powerscore's pure sequencing diagrams.

Ya, Buddy didn't really get a good use out of his MLSAT collection... You should reread them... and for you to say MLG is easier than LGB is crazy, It is much more difficult (caliber of questions involved)

lol didn't say MLG was "easier," bro. I meant that the study material is presented in a much more idk, welcoming way than the verbosity of LGB. It's a good leeway into the dense LGB stuff, in my opinion, especially since MLG gives you more strategic advice.

MRC is the only RC book I have, so granted, I don't gots much to compare it to, but having had the expectations that MLR set (which is gold), I didn't learn too many new things that transformed my RC score. By no means did I mean to downplay Manhattan (oops my b) because Manhattan has helped me the most out of all the other study tools I have, and in any case, its series are a good place to start!! I'd start with LR simply because it's 50% of the exam, and the material can help you with RC.

BFlanagan wrote:

caffedriade wrote:I've been a lurker and I think the retake thread can teach me more about the LSAT than the regular Oct 2013 thread just because (1) test anxiety is a huge handicap for me, and the retakers have already faced it, and (2) I've been studying since effing February and I've plateaued in the high 160s (would like the high 170s on the PTs) so obviously I'm a n00b but sadly has studied probably longer than many retakers D';

A popular reason many retakers attribute their lower than expected performance is test anxiety. Retakers, what do you plan on doing now to prepare for it come October?

A proper warm-up process. I did it before every PT with great results. Nerves got the best of me and I spent the 30 minutes before the exam stuffing granola bars down my throat instead of warming up as always. I couldn't even focus on a basic logic game before the test.

I'm going for *two* warm up sections this time so that I am in the zone for Section 1, PT70. But, others have had great success without any warm up due to fear of fatigue.

You do TWO full sections before Section 1?
What's your warm-up routine like?

Ambitious1 wrote:

logicgames_darling wrote:so after drilling reading comp for the past two weeks, i took a timed section today. really i just wanted to see where my timing was in relation to my new methods and reassure myself that i wasn't taking like 10 hours.

but i just finished scoring it and i actually finished right under time (34 minutes) and only got 4 wrong. 2 of which i'd second guessed myself on and changed at the last minute! i don't think i can explain how excited i am to see improvement like this, just after two weeks. trust me drilling RC is no fun, but it really does help. i just felt the need to share my small little success with the rest of you retakers. i know how frustrating going through this whole process again can be, especially when so many of us hoped it wouldn't be the case.

if i can consistnetly stay here and even get it down to -2...october you better watch out.

What approach do you take when attacking RC? Notate heavily? Write a 5 word summary after each paragraph? I got 6 wrong in RC in June, but I'm looking to get that down to 2 or less.

i tried a number of different methods, but it's all about finding what works best for your brain. if i were to try and break it down though, here's how it goes. after each paragraph i write a short little summary/main ideas in the margin next to it. i try not to limit my "words" since i think trying to focus on how to get my ideas down in five words or less is even more stressful and time consuming. and i don't underline anything while i read the paragraph, but i do however go back and circle words that show strong language after writing my summary (irreversible, unavoidable, etc.). and the last thing i make sure i pay attention to is authors attitude. i tend to underline a phrase or two that exemplifies this and then make note of it on the right side of my passage, just that way it's an easy point of reference. it's taken a lot of practice and drilling for me to figure out what actually is "testable material" in reading comp, but between drilling and this method i am pretty consistently down to -4 or less.

Took my first timed PT since I started prepping again in late-June.

PT 45
LG -0
RC -6 (ouch)
LR1 -4
LR2 -3

169

I'm trying to improve to 170+ from the high 150s on the actual exam (diagnostic was 144) and am trying to get a sense of what I need to focus on drilling-wise moving forward. RC will definitely be a focus along with in and out games, which give me trouble when I take them timed.

Going to review tonight and tomorrow morning then take PT 62 in the afternoon to see some newer material after drilling with the 20s/30s.

October Retaker checking in and ready for action!

This will be my 3rd time taking the test (fourth if you count the first LSAT I had cancelled). Having gotten 170 and then 169 on the subsequent retake, I'm really hoping that third times a charm. Aiming for 175+ and will be posting here to keep myself honest.

Any quick advice for somebody who is already at the low 170s range and trying to break into the high 170s? I've already exhausted most of my prep tests save 3 or 4 of the very recent ones.

My plan for the next 2.5 months is to perfect fundamentals via the Bibles and drilling for the first month, and then start doing timed sections and move into timed prep tests for the last month.

Last time around, I was PTing in the low 170s (swings from 168 - 174), with my weakness being RC (anywhere from -0 to -8). I am reasonably strong in LR (average -1 to -2 per section) and strong in LG (-0 to -1 on 90% of LGs, with 2-3 minutes left).