Top Law Schools

I just finished my first preptest (second if you count the initial, cold diagnostic). I got 20 questions wrong. I'm keeping track of all the problems I got wrong in a word document, along with question type and reason for getting it wrong. I'm also trying to work through the problem again, but I don't know why I'm getting some of them wrong, or how to approach them. LG is not a problem in this regard since magickware linked me to 7sage's game explanations; are there open explanations for the other sections as well?

Basically, what do you guys do - specifically - when you review preptests? Just re-do the problems?

Also, people talk about drilling quite often. The powerscore books (workbook & bible) have "drills," but I don't think that's what people are referring to. When TLS'ers encourage extensive drilling, are they referring to doing problems in a specifc section or specific types of problems within a section, etc.?

How accurate (generally) is this conversion chart?

http://www.alphascore.com/resources/lsa ... onversion/

Are most of the recent LSAT curve/conversions similar to this? I took the June 07 test, and got -20. On the J07 preptest, -20 translates to 161. On the general conversion chart, -20 translates to 166. Alphascore's chart was 5 points off; does this mean this chart is not reliable? Generally, what is the range for a 170+ score? On the J07, -8 = 170. Alphascore's general chart says -8 = 175, and -14 = 170. Alphascore says it uses the scores from 07-10, with an '11 update.

-10/-11 is pretty average for a 170.

When I wasnt using PTs with scales, I would just take off 1 LSAT point for every missed problem. This created a pretty normal scale at the top and a really strict scale below about 166

Nova wrote:-10/-11 is pretty average for a 170.

That extra -2/-3 is a lot of breathing room. Thanks for the info.

Basically, what do you guys do - specifically - when you review preptests? Just re-do the problems?

You basically have no choice but to redo the problem when you review. Another thing to do while reviewing (other than say why you got the answer wrong) is to say why each answer choice is wrong and and why the right answer choice is right. Its boring but effective.

When TLS'ers encourage extensive drilling, are they referring to doing problems in a specifc section or specific types of problems within a section

Specific type of problem. Like doing 5 simple ordering/linear games in a row or 10-20 paradox questions in a row followed by review. This helps you recognize patterns.

http://www.manhattanlsat.com/forums/

You can find explanation to just about every LR question on that forum.

Manhattan LSAT and J.Y of 7sage are both awesome for making certain resources available for free. I'm not sure how well people would do on the LSAT without these.

Regarding drilling-
I think most people are referring to the packets they get from cambridge LSAT that divides PT 1-39 up into question types. You can find them here-
http://www.cambridgelsat.com/bookstore/ ... lications/

Regarding review-
Basically know exactly why an answer choice is wrong, and why an answer choice is right.
If you want to be extra thorough, then you would also spend time finding out what is the common thread that holds that particular question to its general question type. There is one, however tenuous it may seem.