Top Law Schools

theplacesyoullgo wrote:So, this is my dilemma. I feel like I've gotten nowhere with the logic games since I started prepping in mid-July.

I'm taking a PowerScore class. I understand how to set up the logic games, and I'm convinced that if I had 20 more minutes (yeah, I know...) to complete the section, I would get them all right (but wouldn't we all?). I either get 3 of the 4 games done with good accuracy, or I get them all done with mediocre accuracy.

I took a practice test today - 169. However, I got ten incorrect on logic games, which is actually worse than my last two practice tests' logic games sections.

I'm incredibly frustrated and unsure what to do. I'm aiming for 171/172. Does anyone have tips for someone who just can't seem to improve on the logic games? Does it really come down to just practicing? I know everyone says "Powerscore Bible," and while I am trying to work my way through it, it's essentially a review of what I've already done in the actual Powerscore class (which apparently isn't really helping).

I might just do something like 8 logic games sections in a row and see if my performance improves from the first to the last one.

rbhesser wrote:I think I'm finally ready to say I'm a part of this group. And I have to say, I have found a lot of the stories and advice in this forum to be extremely helpful and confidence-boosting. My diagnostic test was a 156 and since then I have scored 162, 163, 166, 165, and finally today a 168. I am slowly seeing some improvement in my tests.

This has all been with limited studying in between from the LRB... hoping to get through that and on to the LGB although that is my strongest section right now.

I do have a question though... I only have PTs 18-41. Is there a significant difference between the tests in the late 30s and the more recent tests (late 40s, 50s?) Would it be significantly worth it for me to order some of the newer tests?

Tangerine Gleam wrote:

rbhesser wrote:I think I'm finally ready to say I'm a part of this group. And I have to say, I have found a lot of the stories and advice in this forum to be extremely helpful and confidence-boosting. My diagnostic test was a 156 and since then I have scored 162, 163, 166, 165, and finally today a 168. I am slowly seeing some improvement in my tests.

This has all been with limited studying in between from the LRB... hoping to get through that and on to the LGB although that is my strongest section right now.

I do have a question though... I only have PTs 18-41. Is there a significant difference between the tests in the late 30s and the more recent tests (late 40s, 50s?) Would it be significantly worth it for me to order some of the newer tests?

YES, definitely get some newer tests. 45+ seem generally similar, but if you're going to pick, I'd say get the most recent tests as possible. Try a handful of them, at the least. At the very least, try one very soon -- so that you know what you're more likely to be dealing with next month.

theplacesyoullgo wrote:I'm sure this has been discussed ad nauseam, but since this seems like a friendly thread: the primary differences between the "old" and "new" LSATs are that logic games became easier while RC and LR became harder, correct? That's what my Powerscore instructor indicated, anyway.

JJDancer wrote:

theplacesyoullgo wrote:I'm sure this has been discussed ad nauseam, but since this seems like a friendly thread: the primary differences between the "old" and "new" LSATs are that logic games became easier while RC and LR became harder, correct? That's what my Powerscore instructor indicated, anyway.

Not everyone agrees with this but yes many people do say that.
I haven't taken enough tests post 2002 to be able to comment.

theplacesyoullgo wrote:I just finished another test (PT 38, Oct. 2002) tonight (with occasional breaks to refresh this thread, I know, I know...) and scored 172 (-6 on LG, everything else as good as it's reasonably going to get). The whole thing seemed easier than the December 2008 test I took earlier today, even the LG. I know, small sample size...

hopefulundergrad wrote:

theplacesyoullgo wrote:I just finished another test (PT 38, Oct. 2002) tonight (with occasional breaks to refresh this thread, I know, I know...) and scored 172 (-6 on LG, everything else as good as it's reasonably going to get). The whole thing seemed easier than the December 2008 test I took earlier today, even the LG. I know, small sample size...

Two PTs in one day? Is this even helpful? Am I a huge slacker?

theplacesyoullgo wrote:

hopefulundergrad wrote:

theplacesyoullgo wrote:I just finished another test (PT 38, Oct. 2002) tonight (with occasional breaks to refresh this thread, I know, I know...) and scored 172 (-6 on LG, everything else as good as it's reasonably going to get). The whole thing seemed easier than the December 2008 test I took earlier today, even the LG. I know, small sample size...

Two PTs in one day? Is this even helpful? Am I a huge slacker?

Honestly? I haven't really been putting my nose to the proverbial grindstone like most here probably have and decided that if I'm going to break 170, I really need to amp it up before classes start again (I'm still in undergrad). We'll see if I actually stick to it, but I'm going to try to do 2 a day for the next week or so. I might not have the time later, and it's not like I'm doing anything else terribly important at the moment.

lawduder wrote: A thorough review usually takes me 2-2.5 hrs on top of a prep test that takes another 2.5 hours. Personally I'd probably have a meltdown if I looked at LSAT for 10 hours a day.

theplacesyoullgo wrote:I'm sure this has been discussed ad nauseam, but since this seems like a friendly thread: the primary differences between the "old" and "new" LSATs are that logic games became easier while RC and LR became harder, correct? That's what my Powerscore instructor indicated, anyway.

hopefulundergrad wrote:

theplacesyoullgo wrote:I just finished another test (PT 38, Oct. 2002) tonight (with occasional breaks to refresh this thread, I know, I know...) and scored 172 (-6 on LG, everything else as good as it's reasonably going to get). The whole thing seemed easier than the December 2008 test I took earlier today, even the LG. I know, small sample size...

Two PTs in one day? Is this even helpful? Am I a huge slacker?

Tangerine Gleam wrote: Too bad it was from the mid-90's. New tests suck for me.

Tangerine Gleam wrote:

hopefulundergrad wrote:

theplacesyoullgo wrote:I just finished another test (PT 38, Oct. 2002) tonight (with occasional breaks to refresh this thread, I know, I know...) and scored 172 (-6 on LG, everything else as good as it's reasonably going to get). The whole thing seemed easier than the December 2008 test I took earlier today, even the LG. I know, small sample size...

Two PTs in one day? Is this even helpful? Am I a huge slacker?

A bit crazy, but it works for some I guess! I did two in a day once, and my second test was my highest ever -- 177. And I took it on an airplane.

Too bad it was from the mid-90's. New tests suck for me.

theplacesyoullgo wrote:I'm sure this has been discussed ad nauseam, but since this seems like a friendly thread: the primary differences between the "old" and "new" LSATs are that logic games became easier while RC and LR became harder, correct? That's what my Powerscore instructor indicated, anyway.

ruleser wrote:

Tangerine Gleam wrote: A bit crazy, but it works for some I guess! I did two in a day once, and my second test was my highest ever -- 177. And I took it on an airplane.

Too bad it was from the mid-90's. New tests suck for me.

Also find my 2nd PT in a day is usually my best, and the more successively I do them, the more I climb - almost think I should do one pretest on test day - but, prob won't...

missvik218 wrote: ... but do you guys think there is any merit to the idea of taking a LR section or doing a few LGs in the am before heading to the test center?! It seems this idea may not be completely ridiculous.

missvik218 wrote:

ruleser wrote:

Tangerine Gleam wrote: A bit crazy, but it works for some I guess! I did two in a day once, and my second test was my highest ever -- 177. And I took it on an airplane.

Too bad it was from the mid-90's. New tests suck for me.

Also find my 2nd PT in a day is usually my best, and the more successively I do them, the more I climb - almost think I should do one pretest on test day - but, prob won't...

Someone noted earlier, it may have been this thread, that their first section of the test seems to be a bit rusty and it takes them a little while to get warmed up. I often feel this way too, and it seems to fall in line with people doing better on their second test, if they're taking two a day. Ruleser, I think you were joking ... but do you guys think there is any merit to the idea of taking a LR section or doing a few LGs in the am before heading to the test center?! It seems this idea may not be completely ridiculous.

missvik218 wrote:Well, maybe like 1/2 joking. My only reservation about this would be; what if I had a really crappy early morning session?! The last thing I want is to have my confidence shaken immediately before heading to the test center!

lawduder wrote:I find reviewing my most recent PT (looking over the notes I wrote in the actual test margins for both right and wrong answers) helps me get my head into thinking logically. This also helps me avoid taking a section, doing poorly, then freaking out like you guys have mentioned.