Powerscore Bibles sufficient? Forum

[supernma]

I'm planning on going through all the Powerscore bibles + workbooks and all 40 tests to prepare for the June 2014 lsat. Up until January I'm just getting the actual study plan together.

Would using only the bibles and past tests be sufficient enough do get a 170+? Is there any other crucial book I should get before January?

[objection_your_honor]

Some of the older guides on here have 180s saying they just used PS. A lot of people (including myself) also find the Manhattan LSAT bundle to be a great resource. Since you're planning so far ahead I think you shouldn't definitely plan on working through MLSAT.

[supernma]

Some of the older guides on here have 180s saying they just used PS. A lot of people (including myself) also find the Manhattan LSAT bundle to be a great resource. Since you're planning so far ahead I think you shouldn't definitely plan on working through MLSAT.

Well this is effectively a life and death issue for me so yea. You're referring to Manhattan's classes?

[rebexness]

Depending on how much you need to increase your score, you may want to consider starting before January. Also depends on how much time you are dedicating per day.

[supernma]

Depending on how much you need to increase your score, you may want to consider starting before January. Also depends on how much time you are dedicating per day.

I'm still going to be in undergrad at that point. I'm planning on about two hours or so per day? And yea January would be the starting point. Aiming for a minimum of a 170.

[monadologist]

Depending on how much you need to increase your score, you may want to consider starting before January. Also depends on how much time you are dedicating per day.

I'm still going to be in undergrad at that point. I'm planning on about two hours or so per day? And yea January would be the starting point. Aiming for a minimum of a 170.

To be honest, I was able get into the high score bands without Powerscore (keep in mind I'm talking about PTs, not the real dealio). With that said, I really do believe that Manhattan guides, some 7sage chillin, LSAT Blog and these here forums is all a young buck needs to do well. It was after doing this that I browsed the LGB, and to be honest, besides the double-not arrow which represents EXCLUSIVE OR (which I think is fuckin' brilliant logically and could hold its own water in formal logic), I didn't really use any of the techniques I read.

Edit - Unless you are in love with the notion of taxonomizing/categorizing games and LR types, if that's the case, then there is no better. But I find recently that instead of going "okay, this is a blah blah fixed, undefined, overfunded etc etc etc" just to remain flexible, diagram consistently, and just do the game like that, HTH

[Daily_Double]

The LSAT isn't a life and death issue for anyone, unless you consider the decreased probability of scholarship money at a t14 sufficient for suicide... If that's true, then I'd consider therapy in addition to the bibles.

But to answer your question, because you're planning so far ahead and not spending your time wisely at a bar, I'm assuming you need a score above 172. Now while the Manhattan Books are not necessary to achieve this score, being as others have done so without these books, they can contribute to this goal. Since you're looking for advice to score highly, I would recommend that you begin with BPLG, then move through the Bibles, then Manhattan, then drilling with Camrbidge, then timed PTs. Good luck.

[monadologist]

The LSAT isn't a life and death issue for anyone, unless you consider the decreased probability of scholarship money at a t14 sufficient for suicide... If that's true, then I'd consider therapy in addition to the bibles.

TITCR

[ManoftheHour]

The LSAT isn't a life and death issue for anyone, unless you consider the decreased probability of scholarship money at a t14 sufficient for suicide... If that's true, then I'd consider therapy in addition to the bibles.

TITCR

Dude might have a gun to his head. Don't judge.

[CardozoLaw09]

The LSAT isn't a life and death issue for anyone, unless you consider the decreased probability of scholarship money at a t14 sufficient for suicide... If that's true, then I'd consider therapy in addition to the bibles.

TITCR

[supernma]

The LSAT isn't a life and death issue for anyone, unless you consider the decreased probability of scholarship money at a t14 sufficient for suicide... If that's true, then I'd consider therapy in addition to the bibles.

But to answer your question, because you're planning so far ahead and not spending your time wisely at a bar, I'm assuming you need a score above 172. Now while the Manhattan Books are not necessary to achieve this score, being as others have done so without these books, they can contribute to this goal. Since you're looking for advice to score highly, I would recommend that you begin with BPLG, then move through the Bibles, then Manhattan, then drilling with Camrbidge, then timed PTs. Good luck.

Appreciate the input. Main issue is that I'd rather not spend time on stuff that isn't seriously necessary. Is there a major difference between the bibles and Manhattan's books? If so I might do both.

[Daily_Double]

Is there a major difference between the bibles and Manhattan's books? If so I might do both.

Yes. While I could probably go into it in detail, I'd rather not because it would take me hours. Basically, Powerscore treats the test very mechanically, which has its benefits. For example, the LRB goes into detail about words which signal premises, conclusions, sub-conclusions, it also goes into detail about the wrong answers for each question type, and what to look for in the right answers. But in my opinion, Powerscore focuses too much on the trees and not the forrest that is the LSAT. Manhattan makes up for this lack of emphasis, by concentrating on the broad overall patterns of the test with a focus, for example, upon the core of the stimuli in LR and the structure of RC passages.

[supernma]

Is there a major difference between the bibles and Manhattan's books? If so I might do both.

Yes. While I could probably go into it in detail, I'd rather not because it would take me hours. Basically, Powerscore treats the test very mechanically, which has its benefits. For example, the LRB goes into detail about words which signal premises, conclusions, sub-conclusions, it also goes into detail about the wrong answers for each question type, and what to look for in the right answers. But in my opinion, Powerscore focuses too much on the trees and not the forrest that is the LSAT. Manhattan makes up for this lack of emphasis, by concentrating on the broad overall patterns of the test with a focus, for example, upon the core of the stimuli in LR and the structure of RC passages.

Wow. Interesting. It's looking like I might end up going through both..

[supernma]

Not planning on bothering with Princeton Review or Kaplan books either unless there are any serious objections.

[monadologist]

Not planning on bothering with Princeton Review or Kaplan books either unless there are any serious objections.

Princeton review is a very, very, very, VERY shitty book. It's a shock that they publish horseshit like this. Same goes for Kaplan, Mcgraw Hill's LSAT and LSAT for Dummies.
Those books are insulting to the test itself, the test is a lot more complicated than what can be covered in some half-assed 300 page book. Notice how Powerscore/Manhattan need like 500 pages to properly cover LR/LG? That's cuz the LSAT is not a Psyc 100 exam

[supernma]

Not planning on bothering with Princeton Review or Kaplan books either unless there are any serious objections.

Princeton review is a very, very, very, VERY shitty book. It's a shock that they publish horseshit like this. Same goes for Kaplan, Mcgraw Hill's LSAT and LSAT for Dummies.
Those books are insulting to the test itself, the test is a lot more complicated than what can be covered in some half-assed 300 page book. Notice how Powerscore/Manhattan need like 500 pages to properly cover LR/LG? That's cuz the LSAT is not a Psyc 100 exam

Very fair. You would advise using Powerscore and Manhattan in tendem as well then?

[monadologist]

Not planning on bothering with Princeton Review or Kaplan books either unless there are any serious objections.

Princeton review is a very, very, very, VERY shitty book. It's a shock that they publish horseshit like this. Same goes for Kaplan, Mcgraw Hill's LSAT and LSAT for Dummies.
Those books are insulting to the test itself, the test is a lot more complicated than what can be covered in some half-assed 300 page book. Notice how Powerscore/Manhattan need like 500 pages to properly cover LR/LG? That's cuz the LSAT is not a Psyc 100 exam

Very fair. You would advise using Powerscore and Manhattan in tendem as well then?

I answered this earlier, you'll be all good with ML

[Clearly]

I would go straight manhattan honestly. Wouldn't bother with PS unless you finish manattan and are still lost.

[supernma]

I would go straight manhattan honestly. Wouldn't bother with PS unless you finish manattan and are still lost.

Seeing as how people rave about PS, I feel not using them would be a risk. I'll probably use both I suppose. Gotta do what you gotta do to cop dat 180

[Clearly]

I would go straight manhattan honestly. Wouldn't bother with PS unless you finish manattan and are still lost.

Seeing as how people rave about PS, I feel not using them would be a risk. I'll probably use both I suppose. Gotta do what you gotta do to cop dat 180

Start with Manhattan, then ADD PS if you need to. You're assuming combining the books will bring you some benefit, when much of it is redundant, and trying to understand two different techniques might do more harm than good. I've personally read and worked with both, and would recommend MLSAT hands down over PS in every section, especially RC.

[Daily_Double]

In my opinion, if you're looking for efficiency, then the LGB and RCB are unnecessary, however the LRB is at least important. Manhattan does a better job at both LG and RC, however going through both the LGB and RCB allowed me to look at different approaches, and while I ended up not using any of the methods in those books, doing them helped me see things differently.

[supernma]

In my opinion, if you're looking for efficiency, then the LGB and RCB are unnecessary, however the LRB is at least important. Manhattan does a better job at both LG and RC, however going through both the LGB and RCB allowed me to look at different approaches, and while I ended up not using any of the methods in those books, doing them helped me see things differently.

What method did you end up using? Just curious. Did they have any negative effect on you? Did they confuse you more?

[Daily_Double]

I've personally read and worked with both, and would recommend MLSAT hands down over PS in every section, especially RC.

I personally disagree with this, respectfully, but the LRB does some things very well. These things include, but are not limited to, conditionality, formal logic, causation, the list and definitions of flaws, and sufficient assumptions. These things are the foundation of LR and I feel that powerscore does a better job than Manhattan in this regard. That being said, I do feel they put too much emphasis on some specific details, for example, I'm not a fan of their classification of the families, and I think the LRB's approach overall is too mechanical.

[Daily_Double]

In my opinion, if you're looking for efficiency, then the LGB and RCB are unnecessary, however the LRB is at least important. Manhattan does a better job at both LG and RC, however going through both the LGB and RCB allowed me to look at different approaches, and while I ended up not using any of the methods in those books, doing them helped me see things differently.

What method did you end up using? Just curious. Did they have any negative effect on you? Did they confuse you more?

Well, I've developed a method for each section, it's basically the same as Manhattan in every regard except for LG. I guess there are some differences in LR as well. I'll provide a broad overview of how I see things real quick:

LG - there's three types of games. Grouping, Sequencing, and Hybrids. That's it. For every single game, I use basic conditionals, I diagram the rules, then I connect them, if possible, after those steps, I do a quick hypo, at this point I know what questions commonly show up, so for example, if I'm looking at an in-out game, I'll do hypos with max/min. Doing this hypo at the beginning reinforces the rules for me and it's also when I look for inferences. I don't use any methods mentioned in the books except for Manhattan's Open Board method, which is the best way to solve the Zephr Airlines game.

LR - Besides the differences in classifying the families, I try to prephrase answers often. And I define prephrasing as diagramming, looking at the gap, and/or actually prephrasing an answer. Usually I do two of these at least. My main difference here is really diagramming, I diagram a lot. I diagram MBT questions, I diagram formal logic questions, I diagram S/A questions, I diagram parallel questions. And I still finish LR in 29/30 minutes. Diagramming makes me more accurate, and accuracy increases timing.

Did they have any negative effect on you? Did they confuse you more?

Hard to say really, I suppose the only method that may have had a negative effect on me was Manhattan's method of solving In-Out games, but even then, the book itself recommends using basic conditionals, and honestly I think that doing Manhattan's methods and Powerscore's methods helped me to simplify LG into it's most base form. In terms of LR, no real negative things here. Powerscore was a great intro, and Manhattan was great for looking at the broad picture. Once again, I think Powerscore suffers from an emphasis on the trees, whereas Manhattan looks at the forrest. This is also the case for RC.

[supernma]

In my opinion, if you're looking for efficiency, then the LGB and RCB are unnecessary, however the LRB is at least important. Manhattan does a better job at both LG and RC, however going through both the LGB and RCB allowed me to look at different approaches, and while I ended up not using any of the methods in those books, doing them helped me see things differently.

What method did you end up using? Just curious. Did they have any negative effect on you? Did they confuse you more?

Well, I've developed a method for each section, it's basically the same as Manhattan in every regard except for LG. I guess there are some differences in LR as well. I'll provide a broad overview of how I see things real quick:

LG - there's three types of games. Grouping, Sequencing, and Hybrids. That's it. For every single game, I use basic conditionals, I diagram the rules, then I connect them, if possible, after those steps, I do a quick hypo, at this point I know what questions commonly show up, so for example, if I'm looking at an in-out game, I'll do hypos with max/min. Doing this hypo at the beginning reinforces the rules for me and it's also when I look for inferences. I don't use any methods mentioned in the books except for Manhattan's Open Board method, which is the best way to solve the Zephr Airlines game.

LR - Besides the differences in classifying the families, I try to prephrase answers often. And I define prephrasing as diagramming, looking at the gap, and/or actually prephrasing an answer. Usually I do two of these at least. My main difference here is really diagramming, I diagram a lot. I diagram MBT questions, I diagram formal logic questions, I diagram S/A questions, I diagram parallel questions. And I still finish LR in 29/30 minutes. Diagramming makes me more accurate, and accuracy increases timing.

Did they have any negative effect on you? Did they confuse you more?

Hard to say really, I suppose the only method that may have had a negative effect on me was Manhattan's method of solving In-Out games, but even then, the book itself recommends using basic conditionals, and honestly I think that doing Manhattan's methods and Powerscore's methods helped me to simplify LG into it's most base form. In terms of LR, no real negative things here. Powerscore was a great intro, and Manhattan was great for looking at the broad picture. Once again, I think Powerscore suffers from an emphasis on the trees, whereas Manhattan looks at the forrest. This is also the case for RC.

Good info. How were you scoring after reviewing both books.