How I got a perfect score on the LSAT.

[chewdak]

I started out with a 140 on the December '08 test. I recently scored a 144 on the February '93 test (PT #7). Given enough time (maybe a year or two of dedicated 3-4 hour per day studying) I think I could get a 180 or very close to it.

You could get 180 on June 8, 2009, without any more practice. But not very likely.

[RVP11]

I started out with a 140 on the December '08 test. I recently scored a 144 on the February '93 test (PT #7). Given enough time (maybe a year or two of dedicated 3-4 hour per day studying) I think I could get a 180 or very close to it

Sorry, but that's just delusional. The test is a lot harder than that.

[mickeymouse4509]

I started out with a 140 on the December '08 test. I recently scored a 144 on the February '93 test (PT #7). Given enough time (maybe a year or two of dedicated 3-4 hour per day studying) I think I could get a 180 or very close to it

Sorry, but that's just delusional. The test is a lot harder than that.

I think at some point you get diminishing returns. Like, just because you study for 10 years for example, doesn't mean you will get a 180. LSAT study is not about how long you study, but how effective your studying is.

[rocketman]

this is a great thread. i would love to hear from anyone else who made a 175+ (as obviously there's few 180's out there).

[allison34363]

Does anyone else feel that there is an innate score cap that you can get on this test? Like if you start at 140, you probably wont get much higher than a 160. If you start at 165, 175+ could be possible.

[IHaveDietMoxie]

No, I think different types of intelligence can yield equally poor scores, especially at the start. Some people, me for instance, can start in the 150s (I never took it timed when I was so dismal at it, but I imagine this is where I was) and progress via smart and hard work to the 170's. The scoring system of the lsat is not in any way a true measure of intelligence....it merely charts a very narrow range of specific skills that may or may not be possible to develop in any given person. To arbitrarily say that someone can't gain a certain number of points is ridiculous. It really depends on why you're scoring so low; people take the scores they get to heart way too easily, especially at the beginning. If you think about it, the reality is that in any given poor score, its merely a few problems that you simply weren't equipped to handle. For some people, these skills may be developed, for others their intelligence/study habits preclude it. But saying that nobody can expect a big change in their score is simply not true. I do agree, however, that studying for X amount of months is meaningless unless you are studying with purpose...if you're just chomping through tests without analysis for 12 months, you would have been better off studying for a month with serious consideration, obviously.

[shuchong]

I think different types of intelligence can yield equally poor scores, especially at the start. Some people, me for instance, can start in the 150s (I never took it timed when I was so dismal at it, but I imagine this is where I was) and progress via smart and hard work to the 170's. The scoring system of the lsat is not in any way a true measure of intelligence....it merely charts a very narrow range of specific skills that may or may not be possible to develop in any given person.

This. Though I do think, based on my own experience, that it's easier to practice up logic games than it is reading comprehension/logical reasoning. I was terrible at logic games when I first started studying, but used the LG Bible and went through old practice tests like a mad thing for a month or so, and got them all right on test day. Reading comp/logical reasoning, on the other hand, really does seem (at least in my limited sample of people I know who've taken the LSAT) to take a lot longer to work up. Ideal really would be the OP's suggestion of reading dense, difficult material on a regular basis, and starting 6 months to a year before the exam.

I think part of the reason I scored as well as I did (179) was because reading comp and logical reasoning were already strengths for me (I read a lot, and I read quickly), and my weakness was a section that I could improve upon with a month or two of concentrated work.

[allison34363]

I think different types of intelligence can yield equally poor scores, especially at the start. Some people, me for instance, can start in the 150s (I never took it timed when I was so dismal at it, but I imagine this is where I was) and progress via smart and hard work to the 170's. The scoring system of the lsat is not in any way a true measure of intelligence....it merely charts a very narrow range of specific skills that may or may not be possible to develop in any given person.

This. Though I do think, based on my own experience, that it's easier to practice up logic games than it is reading comprehension/logical reasoning. I was terrible at logic games when I first started studying, but used the LG Bible and went through old practice tests like a mad thing for a month or so, and got them all right on test day. Reading comp/logical reasoning, on the other hand, really does seem (at least in my limited sample of people I know who've taken the LSAT) to take a lot longer to work up. Ideal really would be the OP's suggestion of reading dense, difficult material on a regular basis, and starting 6 months to a year before the exam.

I think part of the reason I scored as well as I did (179) was because reading comp and logical reasoning were already strengths for me (I read a lot, and I read quickly), and my weakness was a section that I could improve upon with a month or two of concentrated work.

I think the LG Bible is great, but I know many people who also feel that this is not enough in order to improve.

[shuchong]

I think the LG Bible is great, but I know many people who also feel that this is not enough in order to improve.

Yeah... maybe I didn't put enough emphasis on the whole going through PTs like a mad thing. I ended up photocopying the LG sections of almost every practice test I had (30 or so... I kept a few untouched so that I'd have full, new PTs for diagnostics), putting them all in a binder, and just working through them, then going back to see what I got wrong and why. I used scratch paper instead of writing on the photocopies, which was key, because it meant that once I'd worked my way through the binder, I could start again at the beginning. (Yay for having a terrible memory! Since games don't stick in my head, it was almost like having an unlimited supply of questions.)

[allison34363]

I think the LG Bible is great, but I know many people who also feel that this is not enough in order to improve.

Yeah... maybe I didn't put enough emphasis on the whole going through PTs like a mad thing. I ended up photocopying the LG sections of almost every practice test I had (30 or so... I kept a few untouched so that I'd have full, new PTs for diagnostics), putting them all in a binder, and just working through them, then going back to see what I got wrong and why. I used scratch paper instead of writing on the photocopies, which was key, because it meant that once I'd worked my way through the binder, I could start again at the beginning. (Yay for having a terrible memory! Since games don't stick in my head, it was almost like having an unlimited supply of questions.)

That is a good idea, to redo the same questions that give you trouble, but dont you remember the key inferences and deductions and thus it establishes a false sense of confidence?

[shuchong]

That is a good idea, to redo the same questions that give you trouble, but dont you remember the key inferences and deductions and thus it establishes a false sense of confidence?

It could be that I'm just especially forgetful, but I felt like I had enough practice tests that by the time I got to the end of my binder-o-games, I really had forgotten what was at the beginning of it.

I can see how familiarity with key inferences would be a problem for some people. I could never have studied for RC this way because I remember what I read. My brain is just not wired for logic games though: I tend to forget the specifics pretty quickly, though thankfully overall strategies stuck with me

I also set aside a few practice exams (as in, I didn't photocopy the games sections and put them in my binder), so that I had complete never-before-seen exams to take as the actual LSAT neared. Taking those in the two weeks or so leading up to test day helped reassure me that I actually had learned games strategy instead of just having memorized the games in my binder.

[mickeymouse4509]

That is a good idea, to redo the same questions that give you trouble, but dont you remember the key inferences and deductions and thus it establishes a false sense of confidence?

It could be that I'm just especially forgetful, but I felt like I had enough practice tests that by the time I got to the end of my binder-o-games, I really had forgotten what was at the beginning of it.

I can see how familiarity with key inferences would be a problem for some people. I could never have studied for RC this way because I remember what I read. My brain is just not wired for logic games though: I tend to forget the specifics pretty quickly, though thankfully overall strategies stuck with me

I also set aside a few practice exams (as in, I didn't photocopy the games sections and put them in my binder), so that I had complete never-before-seen exams to take as the actual LSAT neared. Taking those in the two weeks or so leading up to test day helped reassure me that I actually had learned games strategy instead of just having memorized the games in my binder.

I really like that idea of photocopying the problems. Will prob help you resell it too after you are all done with the LSAT.

[allison34363]

What was the name of the general logic tutorial book again that was recommended?

[Pankun]

I think the LG Bible is great, but I know many people who also feel that this is not enough in order to improve.

Yeah... maybe I didn't put enough emphasis on the whole going through PTs like a mad thing. I ended up photocopying the LG sections of almost every practice test I had (30 or so... I kept a few untouched so that I'd have full, new PTs for diagnostics), putting them all in a binder, and just working through them, then going back to see what I got wrong and why. I used scratch paper instead of writing on the photocopies, which was key, because it meant that once I'd worked my way through the binder, I could start again at the beginning. (Yay for having a terrible memory! Since games don't stick in my head, it was almost like having an unlimited supply of questions.)

That is a good idea, to redo the same questions that give you trouble, but dont you remember the key inferences and deductions and thus it establishes a false sense of confidence?

Yeah but some games are complete repeats with names/symbols changed. For example: PT13, Gm 3 and PT 32, Gm 1. Its so blatantly similar that the makers clearly got lazy, took an old test, and made a few minimal changes.

[Hook 'Em]

I think the LG Bible is great, but I know many people who also feel that this is not enough in order to improve.

Yeah... maybe I didn't put enough emphasis on the whole going through PTs like a mad thing. I ended up photocopying the LG sections of almost every practice test I had (30 or so... I kept a few untouched so that I'd have full, new PTs for diagnostics), putting them all in a binder, and just working through them, then going back to see what I got wrong and why. I used scratch paper instead of writing on the photocopies, which was key, because it meant that once I'd worked my way through the binder, I could start again at the beginning. (Yay for having a terrible memory! Since games don't stick in my head, it was almost like having an unlimited supply of questions.)

That is a good idea, to redo the same questions that give you trouble, but dont you remember the key inferences and deductions and thus it establishes a false sense of confidence?

Yeah but some games are complete repeats with names/symbols changed. For example: PT13, Gm 3 and PT 32, Gm 1. Its so blatantly similar that the makers clearly got lazy, took an old test, and made a few minimal changes.

Future gunner?

[JJim1919]

I think the LG Bible is great, but I know many people who also feel that this is not enough in order to improve.

Yeah... maybe I didn't put enough emphasis on the whole going through PTs like a mad thing. I ended up photocopying the LG sections of almost every practice test I had (30 or so... I kept a few untouched so that I'd have full, new PTs for diagnostics), putting them all in a binder, and just working through them, then going back to see what I got wrong and why. I used scratch paper instead of writing on the photocopies, which was key, because it meant that once I'd worked my way through the binder, I could start again at the beginning. (Yay for having a terrible memory! Since games don't stick in my head, it was almost like having an unlimited supply of questions.)

That is a good idea, to redo the same questions that give you trouble, but dont you remember the key inferences and deductions and thus it establishes a false sense of confidence?

Yeah but some games are complete repeats with names/symbols changed. For example: PT13, Gm 3 and PT 32, Gm 1. Its so blatantly similar that the makers clearly got lazy, took an old test, and made a few minimal changes.

There's really only so many different LGs they can create. I mean they use the same types of setups and questions anyway. They just change the game to try and trick people from finding the underlying pattern. For example, one game is 8 lightbulbs, the next is 7 taxi cabs.

[allison34363]

I agree with you for ordering games, but for all other ones the possibilities are endless

[bobkjohnson]

2) Pick up a good book on INFORMAL logic. I hear people saying that formal logic important, believe me, for this test INFORMAL logic is actually what you want to study. I think people are confusing the two. I am particularly fond of "Informal Logic: A handbook for critical argument" by Douglas N. Walton.

I haven't taken the LSAT yet, but I took a formal logic class and studied informal logic. For the most part the stuff that I learned in the class, albeit it was more so formulas, it helped in my studying. I understand the Logic sections so much more now then when i took a practice test Sophomore year of College.

[allison34363]

2) Pick up a good book on INFORMAL logic. I hear people saying that formal logic important, believe me, for this test INFORMAL logic is actually what you want to study. I think people are confusing the two. I am particularly fond of "Informal Logic: A handbook for critical argument" by Douglas N. Walton.

I haven't taken the LSAT yet, but I took a formal logic class and studied informal logic. For the most part the stuff that I learned in the class, albeit it was more so formulas, it helped in my studying. I understand the Logic sections so much more now then when i took a practice test Sophomore year of College.

The most logic used on the LSAT is contrapositives. Agree or disagree?

[IWantUWO]

2) Pick up a good book on INFORMAL logic. I hear people saying that formal logic important, believe me, for this test INFORMAL logic is actually what you want to study. I think people are confusing the two. I am particularly fond of "Informal Logic: A handbook for critical argument" by Douglas N. Walton.

I haven't taken the LSAT yet, but I took a formal logic class and studied informal logic. For the most part the stuff that I learned in the class, albeit it was more so formulas, it helped in my studying. I understand the Logic sections so much more now then when i took a practice test Sophomore year of College.

The most logic used on the LSAT is contrapositives. Agree or disagree?

I would agree. I would also say they test you A LOT on necessary and sufficient conditions. Particularly, seeing you can distinguish mistaken negations or reversals and not make that error. I find the more I do games, the less I want to diagram and just work with the statements in my head. Games have moved from tons of diagramming to almost an exercise in short term memory.

[idiothek]

The most logic used on the LSAT is contrapositives. Agree or disagree?

disagree. it also uses material implications, hypothetical syllogisms, modus ponens, modus tollens, de morgan's, and disjunctinve syllogisms.

[stare-decises]

The most logic used on the LSAT is contrapositives. Agree or disagree?

disagree. it also uses material implications, hypothetical syllogisms, modus ponens, modus tollens, de morgan's, and disjunctinve syllogisms.

Might you be so kind as to elaborate on the following...

[idiothek]

The most logic used on the LSAT is contrapositives. Agree or disagree?

disagree. it also uses material implications, hypothetical syllogisms, modus ponens, modus tollens, de morgan's, and disjunctinve syllogisms.

Might you be so kind as to elaborate on the following...

i've had to use these at some point or another.

/:. = 'therefore' or 'it is logically entailed that'
~ = not
v = or
& = and
x->y = if x, then y

material implication:

a -> b
/:. ~a v b

and

~a v b
/:. a->b

hypothetical syllogism:

a->b
b->c
/:. a->c

modus ponens:

a->b
a
/:. b

modus tollens:

a->b
~b
/:. ~a

de morgan's

~(a&b)
/:. ~a v ~b

and

~(a v b)
/:. ~a & ~b

dysjunctive syllogism

a v b
~a
/:. b



all of this stuff comes almost straight from copi's symbolic logic.

[Sesame_Jesus]

2) Pick up a good book on INFORMAL logic. I hear people saying that formal logic important, believe me, for this test INFORMAL logic is actually what you want to study. I think people are confusing the two. I am particularly fond of "Informal Logic: A handbook for critical argument" by Douglas N. Walton.

I took OP's advice and have been casually reading through this book. It's an excellent supplement to LSAT studying. The vast majority of it is directly relevant to LR questions on the LSAT; his breakdowns of each logical fallacy are detailed and step-by-step. His taxonomy actually *adds* to an understanding of how the fallacy works and is never employed excessively or without purpose (cough ... powerscore ... cough). He gives tons of examples that read very much like LR stimuli.

If you're looking supplemental materials for extra lsat prep, the 2 best sources I've seen are GetPrepped's Ace the Logic Games for LGs and Walton's handbook for LR.

[rocketman]

2) Pick up a good book on INFORMAL logic. I hear people saying that formal logic important, believe me, for this test INFORMAL logic is actually what you want to study. I think people are confusing the two. I am particularly fond of "Informal Logic: A handbook for critical argument" by Douglas N. Walton.

I took OP's advice and have been casually reading through this book. It's an excellent supplement to LSAT studying. The vast majority of it is directly relevant to LR questions on the LSAT; his breakdowns of each logical fallacy are detailed and step-by-step. His taxonomy actually *adds* to an understanding of how the fallacy works and is never employed excessively or without purpose (cough ... powerscore ... cough). He gives tons of examples that read very much like LR stimuli.

If you're looking supplemental materials for extra lsat prep, the 2 best sources I've seen are GetPrepped's Ace the Logic Games for LGs and Walton's handbook for LR.

im on page 80 so far, how about you? it's been very interesting so far jst because i enjoy reading about argumentation, but i haven't gotten anything so far that has been of use to me for LSAT purposes, but i think someone mentioned that stuff is later in the book.

btw, can you expound about getprepped's ace the logic games? i've never heard of it.