Top Law Schools

Last few days I've reviewed my last PT and have been doing timed sections with a thorough blind review of each section. Also revisited the very first Trainer chapters on RC and LR to solidify my reading for structure and for flaws. Taking a slow down after that 166 I think has really helped, I started to get away from the fundamentals once I started to score 169+ and I'm actually considering that lower score to be a positive wake up call. Ready to kill a PT tomorrow, probably PT 76 or 61.

Mikey wrote:

InterLaw wrote:

Mint-Berry_Crunch wrote:Think I finally figured out why I've been struggling with RC after doing a fair bit of drilling. For me at least, I have to reference the passage constantly to do well. I've been hovering around-3/-4 and last time around I got down to -1/-2

What do you mean with "reference the passage"?

he's saying he has to keep going back to the passage a lot.

I think referencing back as much as possible if you have the time is a great strategy.

^^^ yup.

Imo there's no reason not to. For many questions there's specific lines which support tcr, and you spend less time just looking something up instead of debating btwn Qs

Slippin' Jimmy wrote:Last few days I've reviewed my last PT and have been doing timed sections with a thorough blind review of each section. Also revisited the very first Trainer chapters on RC and LR to solidify my reading for structure and for flaws. Taking a slow down after that 166 I think has really helped, I started to get away from the fundamentals once I started to score 169+ and I'm actually considering that lower score to be a positive wake up call. Ready to kill a PT tomorrow, probably PT 76 or 61.

I did a similar thing and it's been helpful. It's so easy to lose sight of what you do when you have a good PT

Mint-Berry_Crunch wrote:

Mikey wrote:

InterLaw wrote:

Mint-Berry_Crunch wrote:Think I finally figured out why I've been struggling with RC after doing a fair bit of drilling. For me at least, I have to reference the passage constantly to do well. I've been hovering around-3/-4 and last time around I got down to -1/-2

What do you mean with "reference the passage"?

he's saying he has to keep going back to the passage a lot.

I think referencing back as much as possible if you have the time is a great strategy.

^^^ yup.

Imo there's no reason not to. For many questions there's specific lines which support tcr, and you spend less time just looking something up instead of debating btwn Qs

yeah, it took me a while to try and not memorize details when I could just go back to the passage. I was just always used to trying to read and understand everything, which is not a rewarding strat on RC haha. I do a bit better now that I just focus on where shit is and skim through details which I can just go right back for later if needed.

Mikey wrote:

Mint-Berry_Crunch wrote:

Mikey wrote:

InterLaw wrote:

Mint-Berry_Crunch wrote:Think I finally figured out why I've been struggling with RC after doing a fair bit of drilling. For me at least, I have to reference the passage constantly to do well. I've been hovering around-3/-4 and last time around I got down to -1/-2

What do you mean with "reference the passage"?

he's saying he has to keep going back to the passage a lot.

I think referencing back as much as possible if you have the time is a great strategy.

^^^ yup.

Imo there's no reason not to. For many questions there's specific lines which support tcr, and you spend less time just looking something up instead of debating btwn Qs

yeah, it took me a while to try and not memorize details when I could just go back to the passage. I was just always used to trying to read and understand everything, which is not a rewarding strat on RC haha. I do a bit better now that I just focus on where shit is and skim through details which I can just go right back for later if needed.

I try to read at like a comfortable pace, but like faster than normal. It only takes like, 30 seconds max to re read a paragraph so I doubt it's really bad to reread

Been doing pretty bad on drilling, just getting it out of my system hopefully lol. And I totally agree about losing some of the fundamentals once you start doing well. Reviewing can be tough also if you don't know exactly what to review.

It appears that my most common problem with LR is misreading answer choices.


This is both encouraging and demoralizing

.

Mint-Berry_Crunch wrote:It appears that my most common problem with LR is misreading answer choices.


This is both encouraging and demoralizing

I fuck up sometimes with misreading an easy question. most of the time though I usually just get the harder LR questions wrong. need to work on getting my -3 per LR section to -3 total LR or lower. ffs

I have never been so GODDAMN TIGHT AT MYSELF.

PT 78
LR1: -0 (finished with 8 minutes left)
LG: -6 (WHAT THE FUCKIDSNAIODOASADS)
LR2: -1 (finished with 10 minutes left)
RC: -2

MOTHER FJSADOASDOASDOADASOOSADOOSADOSADSAOODSAOSOSADO

.

archer grandpapy360 wrote:PT 78, this one was a fresh PT for me
LR 1:-1
LG:-1
LR 2:-1
*Spent all of my extra time on question 23 and could not make sense of wtf choice C was saying so I chose D because I thought if my coworker was usually late, then yeah I ain't buying that bitch's excuse. Pro-tip, don't follow this stupid logic on test day
RC:-3...fucking clay tablets...
174

Experimental Section:
PT 62 LR1:-1

Days until test: 17
Full PTs left: 14

Do you have any advice for not making stupid mistakes on easy LGs? I'm seriously having a hard time not missing an Q on LG1 or LG2. So annoying.

.

Did you guys know it's important to eat when you study? Wow interesting!

NavyNuke wrote:PT 70, 172!

LR1:-1
RC:-2
LG:-3
LR2:-3

I'm feeling pretty good overall. I was planning on doing this test in a quiet location, but being quiet in a public library appears to no longer be a thing .

-2 on RC is awesome and I made a dumb mistake on a question in LR2 so that section could have been a -2. The in/out game took me WAY too long because I didn't chain the conditionals. Gonna drill conditional in/out games this evening and review some/most relationships for LR.

Did this one today but totally tanked it and got like 168. The LG and LR2 were a disaster for me

How do you guys think you'll do compared to your PT scores? Lower end, higher end, right in the middle?

Amerision wrote:How do you guys think you'll do compared to your PT scores? Lower end, higher end, right in the middle?

Barring any catastrophe, I expect to score right in my PT range, so somewhere between 172-175. High enough to keep it, but low enough not to feel great about it.

PT 69. A bit tired thanks to lack of sleep and long day at work.

LR 1: 0
LR 2: 0
LG: 0
RC: -1
Score: 180

Experimentals:
PT 14.2 (LR): -1
PT 14.3 (RC): -1

Notes: LR: Actually surprised I didn't make any mistakes. Was unsure about 4-5 questions in each section. Still not sure about 3 to 4 questions after review--gotta review these questions again. LG: was pretty straightforward, maybe to compensate for LR's difficulty. RC: Didn't caught the two mistakes during BR, i.e. not good.

Amerision wrote:How do you guys think you'll do compared to your PT scores? Lower end, higher end, right in the middle?

Probably within my range. I'll be very happy with a 175+. Then again, with test-day anxiety it's hard to predict

archer grandpapy360 wrote:PT 78, this one was a fresh PT for me
LR 1:-1
LG:-1
LR 2:-1
*Spent all of my extra time on question 23 and could not make sense of wtf choice C was saying so I chose D because I thought if my coworker was usually late, then yeah I ain't buying that bitch's excuse. Pro-tip, don't follow this stupid logic on test day
RC:-3...fucking clay tablets...
174

Experimental Section:
PT 62 LR1:-1

Days until test: 17
Full PTs left: 14

-6 is a 174? What's with that curve?!

Taking pt80 today with a proctor in classroom setting. Should be interesting since I had an up and down week

Just went -9 on RC for test 71.
Wtf is happening to me. Sat for Dec16 and went -2 RC on test day. Now in my past 3 PTs I've gone -7,-8,-9 RC. That's not doable. I've got the other three sections down to -5 or better combined pretty consistently.

Any thoughts? I need to fix my RC and get it back to where it was...

.

archer grandpapy360 wrote:

lynn.wibi wrote:

archer grandpapy360 wrote:PT 78, this one was a fresh PT for me
LR 1:-1
LG:-1
LR 2:-1
*Spent all of my extra time on question 23 and could not make sense of wtf choice C was saying so I chose D because I thought if my coworker was usually late, then yeah I ain't buying that bitch's excuse. Pro-tip, don't follow this stupid logic on test day
RC:-3...fucking clay tablets...
174

Experimental Section:
PT 62 LR1:-1

Days until test: 17
Full PTs left: 14

-6 is a 174? What's with that curve?!

Yeah the upper 170s was pretty tight for this test. I hope on test day they don't pull that BS where two of the 170+ scores are removed and a 180 starts at -1.

Also, nice job on PT 69!

Future Ex-Engineer wrote:Just went -9 on RC for test 71.
Wtf is happening to me. Sat for Dec16 and went -2 RC on test day. Now in my past 3 PTs I've gone -7,-8,-9 RC. That's not doable. I've got the other three sections down to -5 or better combined pretty consistently.

Any thoughts? I need to fix my RC and get it back to where it was...

This is odd. That's a pretty dramatic change. Has your daily routine drastically changed in the past week? Are you getting enough sleep, food, avoiding alcohol benders?

Alternatively, need an alcohol bender?





Jk but yeah this can often be bc of things you're doing/ fatigue etc rather than a major issue

Did three RC sections today, -1 on all of them

Off day tomorrow, then PT 75.

Right now I'm at a 173.5 PT average over 14 tests. It seems to be relatively bimodal though - I have 5 PTs at or above 175 and five at or below 172.
Feeling pretty good two weeks out, all things considered.

Platopus wrote:

Amerision wrote:How do you guys think you'll do compared to your PT scores? Lower end, higher end, right in the middle?

Barring any catastrophe, I expect to score right in my PT range, so somewhere between 172-175. High enough to keep it, but low enough not to feel great about it.

I'm predicting a slight drop due to a weird game that will be a time suck. PTing at around the same range, will probably get 170-172.