Is Manhattan LR enough, or should I get the Trainer? Forum

[nothingtosee]

Looking for advice:
Got a 172 on the October test, looking to get that up to at least 174 by December. I've been pretty consistently getting
RC: 0-2 wrong
LG: 0-2 wrong
LR: 3-8 wrong (between the two sections)

I've read the Powerscore LR Bible. I bought Manhattan LR. Should I get the Trainer as well? I have a pretty full worklife, so I can't plan on spending more than 10 hours a week studying...

Advice is appreciated!

[bobtheblob916]

Manhattan should be enough. Better to study one book closely than try to cram two. And I plateaued on LR after doing the PS Bible at around -4 per section. Manhattan LR brought me down to -1/0. It's loads better.

[Kimikho]

I found the trainer helpful on parallel-the-reasoning questions and for the drills, personally.

[$alty]

Manhattan should be enough. Better to study one book closely than try to cram two. And I plateaued on LR after doing the PS Bible at around -4 per section. Manhattan LR brought me down to -1/0. It's loads better.

+1

[Howl]

Manhattan should be enough. Better to study one book closely than try to cram two. And I plateaued on LR after doing the PS Bible at around -4 per section. Manhattan LR brought me down to -1/0. It's loads better.

+2. Flaw in the reasoning and Sufficient assumption questions (Justify in PSLRB) were the bane of my existence before MLSAT.

[onlyunholy]

Do you guys recommend Manhattan LR or the Trainer more?

[drawstring]

Went -1 overall on the real thing with PS and Manhattan, but my big drop from around -6/-7 overall on PTs to -1 came after getting Manhattan. I found their stuff on assumption family questions extremely helpful. PS was ok, but not as useful imo.

Never used the trainer, but you can get great gains without it.

[Manhattan LSAT Noah]

Went -1 overall on the real thing with PS and Manhattan, but my big drop from around -6/-7 overall on PTs to -1 came after getting Manhattan. I found their stuff on assumption family questions extremely helpful. PS was ok, but not as useful imo.

Never used the trainer, but you can get great gains without it.

Thanks for the shout-out and congrats on the gains.

(I actually have looked at The Trainer--good stuff in there too!)

[lawschool22]

In my opinion MLSAT is more comprehensive than The Trainer. The Trainer is more of a way of thinking about the LSAT - an interesting mindset. I have seen the author of The LSAT Trainer say that if you were to use it in combination with other products, it would be best to start with the Trainer first, to train your mind to think like the LSAT, before moving on to other methods. I did the opposite (the Trainer wasn't released when I started my studies).

I found the Trainer to be helpful, but would not have felt comfortable with it alone. MLSAT's "argument core" approach to LR is great, and it's LR trumps the Trainer. The Trainer is better than MLSAT in the area of RC, and I would say they are about equal in games...with just slightly different approaches for certain setups.

At the end of the day you should read both. The Trainer did offer me some ways of looking at a problem in a different way, and its RC section was worth it alone. I read the Trainer about 4 weeks after I completed MLSAT self-study, and while I was in the midst of PTing. I felt it helped keep me fresh on the fundamentals, and I was able to apply the new ways of seeing the test while I was PTing. The Trainer was sort a tool to refine my skills that I had already built using MLSAT.

(Edited to clarify Mike's recommendations)

[The LSAT Trainer]

In my opinion MLSAT is more comprehensive than The Trainer. The Trainer is more of a way of thinking about the LSAT - an interesting mindset. The author of The LSAT Trainer recommends starting with it first, to train your mind to think like the LSAT, then moving on MLSAT or some other more specific strategy-based method afterwards. I did the opposite (the Trainer wasn't released when I started my studies).

I found the Trainer to be helpful, but would not have felt comfortable with it alone. MLSAT's "argument core" approach to LR is great, and it's LR trumps the Trainer. The Trainer is better than MLSAT in the area of RC, and I would say they are about equal in games...with just slightly different approaches for certain setups.

At the end of the day you should read both. The Trainer did offer me some ways of looking at a problem in a different way, and its RC section was worth it alone. I read the Trainer about 4 weeks after I completed MLSAT self-study, and while I was in the midst of PTing. I felt it helped keep me fresh on the fundamentals, and I was able to apply the new ways of seeing the test while I was PTing. The Trainer was sort a tool to refine my skills that I had already built using MLSAT.

Hi there -- I respect your opinions and for obvious reasons I'll stay away from giving mine, at least in regard to the main subject of this post, but I'd just like to clarify one thing -- It is not my recommendation that you start with the Trainer and necessarily move on to other products. If you decide for yourself to use the Trainer in conjunction with other products, I think it's a good idea to start with the Trainer first. Not exactly sure what you meant, but I just wanted to clarify that for other people who may be reading -- thanks -- Mike.

[lawschool22]

In my opinion MLSAT is more comprehensive than The Trainer. The Trainer is more of a way of thinking about the LSAT - an interesting mindset. The author of The LSAT Trainer recommends starting with it first, to train your mind to think like the LSAT, then moving on MLSAT or some other more specific strategy-based method afterwards. I did the opposite (the Trainer wasn't released when I started my studies).

I found the Trainer to be helpful, but would not have felt comfortable with it alone. MLSAT's "argument core" approach to LR is great, and it's LR trumps the Trainer. The Trainer is better than MLSAT in the area of RC, and I would say they are about equal in games...with just slightly different approaches for certain setups.

At the end of the day you should read both. The Trainer did offer me some ways of looking at a problem in a different way, and its RC section was worth it alone. I read the Trainer about 4 weeks after I completed MLSAT self-study, and while I was in the midst of PTing. I felt it helped keep me fresh on the fundamentals, and I was able to apply the new ways of seeing the test while I was PTing. The Trainer was sort a tool to refine my skills that I had already built using MLSAT.

Hi there -- I respect your opinions and for obvious reasons I'll stay away from giving mine, at least in regard to the main subject of this post, but I'd just like to clarify one thing -- It is not my recommendation that you start with the Trainer and necessarily move on to other products. If you decide for yourself to use the Trainer in conjunction with other products, I think it's a good idea to start with the Trainer first. Not exactly sure what you meant, but I just wanted to clarify that for other people who may be reading -- thanks -- Mike.

I just meant that I believe you have recommended that, if you were going to combine the Trainer with other products, it would make the most sense to start with it first, before moving on. But upon re-reading my post I can totally see how it reads as if you recommend using multiple systems. I will edit the post to clarify as that is not what I meant to say.

I think for many many people The Trainer can be used as a stand alone. For me, there were benefits to using other methods as well. In my opinion the more the merrier, but definitely, I highly highly recommend picking up the Trainer - whether you intend to use it stand alone or in conjunction with other products.

[lawschool22]

Also Mike, I feel I should add that had I started with the Trainer and then moved on to MLSAT, it is entirely possible I would be saying the exact opposite thing. I.e. that the Trainer gave me a solid base, and MLSAT was the icing on the cake.

But I can only speak to my experiences using both. Either way, they are both great systems and immensely useful.