bee wrote: lhn5007 wrote: bee wrote:
ManoftheHour wrote:I'm still at -3-4 on games, so I'm definitely going to try this out.
I FEEL YOUR PAIN. I'm at -1 to -3 combined on LR, maybe -4 depending on the difficulty of the test, and -0/-1 in RC. LG is anywhere from -3 to -5, but I definitely think I could go -7 if something truly horrific popped up on the LSAT. Games is the single thing that's holding me back from a consistent mid to high 170s score, and NOTHING I've done so far seems to work.
If you ever want to commiserate or talk over strategies, feel free to send me a PM! Everyone always says how easy LG is, but it's the section that least "clicks" with me
Which types of games are you having the most trouble with?
Also, if you don't mind me asking, what is your strategy in LR? I'm consistently doing -3 or -4 on each LR section but again I'm only on Chapter 6 of the MLSAT LR and I've read about half of Powerscore LR. Flaw questions are my weaknesses, which is a problem because of their prevalence. I'm drilling Cambridge at the same time after every chapter but difficulty level 3 and 4 flaw questions seem to trip me up. I'm thinking of making flash cards along with common flaws from the Powerscore LRB. Thinking about getting the LSAT Trainer for its LR and RC sections too.
See, that's the thing. I don't have a problem with a particular TYPE of game, otherwise I'd just keep drilling drilling drilling. I just have a problem with HARD games, haha. If you've mastered LG, any tips?
Honestly, I don't have a strategy for LR. I learned the basics from Blueprint, which got me to about -6/-5 combined. Then I just kept doing PTs, and my scores just kept climbing. I will say that the single biggest thing that helped me with LR was 7sage's Blind Review method. I can now finish a section in about 25 minutes, and I spend the last 10 minutes double and triple checking that I didn't make any stupid mistakes like misread a question stem. I do think that drilling your weak q types helps, but I will say that LR from 1-38 is DRASTICALLY, DRASTICALLY different from LR in the 50s, and LR in the 50s is not quite as hard as LR in the 60s. I'd keep that in mind. Also--I personally find LR from 1-49 much more difficult than LR in the 50s/60s, but almost everyone feels the opposite way. 50s/60s LR is much more mechanical, with very little "wiggle room" in the ACs, so I wouldn't wait until the last moment to get acclimated to them.
All in all, you've still got plenty of time for LR and you haven't even finished a strategy guide yet. Don't worry about it until you've done a few PTs and your scores haven't improved.
P.S. I think flaw questions in particular are different from the early PTs to the modern PTs. The prevalence of certain kinds of flaws has shifted. For example, there are quite a lot of nebulous, soft flaws in the older questions e.g. you can tell what it is because it feels wrong when you read the prompt, stuff like circular reasoning or confusing the suff/necc conditions etc. Newer PTs tend to have flaw q's that are much more direct, but they're well hidden. The prompt often doesn't feel wrong in a significant way, because the flaw is something like a very subtle necessary assumption or equivocation. Of course, there are still some circular reasoning flaws or w/e, but most of the time I'd say the flaw is all about what ISN'T in the stimulus, rather than what IS.