Am I wasting time? Forum

[patfeeney]

Prepping for the October test, I started a blind review notebook. I've been keeping it up since about June, and I believe using this notebook has helped me boost my scores up from consistent mid 160s to consistent low 170s. However, I can't help but feel I'm wasting time in some way from using this method.

Below is a picture of my notebook. I've filled about 100 pages with my scribbles regarding LR, LG, and RC explanations from Preptests, drill sections, etc. Even if it has helped, I'm afraid that the way I'm approaching this may be slowing down my prep.

Here's an example of how I'd approach an explanation for a problem, one that I wrote just earlier today.

-----
#18 Rate of inflation - rate of return of most profitable investment = % of which any investment will decline at minimum.
Value of Particular investment declines more than that, ___

x(A) rate of inflation is independent of the value of a certain investment. If at point x in time investment A loses value quicker than investment B, it cannot be due to rising inflation. This is only true if the investment in question is the most profitable investment.

x(B) Fixed answer. However, it's entirely possible that the difference between rate of inflation and rate of return leads to an increase in value, which means it's possible the "certain investment" is gaining value.

->(C) If the value % of any investment is lower than the value % of the most profitable investment, then the particular investment must be worth less.

x(D) All investment except for most profitable are less than the most profitable, so this is not necessarily true.

x(E) This could only be true if the certain investment was previously the most profitable investment.
----------------

Should I be taking this approach, but writing a whole lot less and trying to run through the process more in my head? Am I just killing time by writing these explanations? Or, since it may be helping me understand the proper logic behind each problem, is it totally fine to be doing this? I get on average 2-4 problems wrong a section, although I will also write slightly briefer explanations for ones that I thought were wrong on the timed sections but double-checked as correct on the blind review.

If it also helps, I don't really read back on my explanations. I use them more to put by thoughts on paper in a coherent fashion, rather than the semi-conscious jargon that babbles on in my head.

[Dr.Zer0]

OP everyone has different learning styles and if writing down your thought process has helped you improve your score then I would suggest you keep at it.

You're not the first one that takes this type of approach. TLS user TLS1776 used a similar study approach as yours that helped him achieve a 180 on his test: http://top-law-schools.com/forums/viewt ... 6&t=120471

[10052014]

.

[patfeeney]

I have a notebook as well to write the reasons I get questions wrong. Ex: -failed to mentally capture structure of passage, or 'I read the question stem incorrectly'

Doing this with me helps me recognize my mistakes, and enables me to hone my skills.

But, I see that you have written every single question with their answers. If it helps you go for it.

I may try that as well.

I haven't written the stimuli verbatim, but I have written what I believed to be their most logically relevant tidbits.

[RobertGolddust]

I'm about to start doing this. Do you do it for LG and RC?

[patfeeney]

I'm about to start doing this. Do you do it for LG and RC?

Not LG, although if I'm having a really tough time I'll use a page to really work on a game untimed.

For RC, I'll write down exactly where I can find evidence in the passage for an answer, or where in the passage an answer is contradicted, etc. It doesn't help logical process so much but it helps you understand what and what not to look for when asked.

[10052014]

.

[RobertGolddust]

or where in the passage an answer is contradicted

Very good idea, I think I'll give this a try tomorrow on PT 64 passage 4 (Dostoyevsky).

[patfeeney]

For RC, I'll write down exactly where I can find evidence in the passage for an answer, or where in the passage an answer is contradicted, etc. It doesn't help logical process so much but it helps you understand what and what not to look for when asked.

Want to post a page of how you reviewed a rc question?
Looks like an interesting method.

Sure, here are two examples of my RC write-ups. Quotes are paraphrased to avoid violating copyrights. Hopefully you have either of these tests so you can check out the question and understand how I did the write-up:

PT 44 Sec. 1, Passage 3, #16 (noteworthiness of Levi-Montalcini's discovery)
Author's opinion of NGF discovery is almost entirely found in paragraph 1, so we should look mostly at this paragraph to find the correct answer.

(A) Line 5 "Rita..crucial." This discovery added specificity to the scientific understanding of hormone-like substances that are necessary for nerve cell growth
X(B) 2nd paragraph details Rita's research methods but doesn't say that she originally set out only to test said methods.
X(C) The discovery of NGF did NOT prove that nerve cells are programmed to die, only that chemicals are responsible for nerve growth.
X(D) Paragraph two details that chick embryos were used for the experiments, but we only know that the effects of NGF happened within the chick embryos; we can say nothing about other species.
X(E) This was my original answer. However, there is no explicit statement in the passage that the identification of the substance NGF itself was noteworthy.


Superprep C, Sec. 4, Passage 1, # 7
Author agrees with...

X(A) All of paragraph one describes how different species of small bird survive extreme winter temperatures, so naturalists must have some understanding.
X(B) Line 43: "[only supports half of energy needed overnight]" Passage states the opposite of this answer.
X(C) Original answer. However, paragraph 4 hypothesizes flocking behavior induced by calls ONLY for nocturnal flocking. We cannot assume that all flocking by kinglets is caused by said calls.
(D) Line 48: "[This 2nd theory comes from the study of a related species that actually manifests this behavior.]" The author seems to put the most support into this theory, which is based on other species, and this answer is essentially the 2nd theory in a nutshell.
X(E) Line 14: "[They adapt via high body temperatures.]" This answer is the opposite of what is stated in the passage.