How unrealistic is raising my LSAT? Forum

[OrdinarilySkilled]

These responses would make sense towards someone with a 160. However to think someone who was able to get a 170 after a few PTs isn't smart enough to get a 175 without 20 more PT's is just silly. Most of this feeling of "don't take it for granted" is BS to justify wasting time answering questions you would get right 100% of the time.

Like I said, assuming 170 is the current mean ability of a person, a little studying + some luck (more questions to the person's strength) and that person's range would certainly include some 175+ tests, and would just have to make it happen on test day.

But if you peeps need to feel like your not messing around in some statistical noise when you could be backing into chicks at the club, go right ahead.

It's about making that last jump and then consistency. Scoring in the upper 170s once on a PT and then saying, "I'm at my goal, I can stop" is a terrible idea. You might get lucky test day and say within that range, but you really need to show you can hit a score consistently before taking test day. It is possible to get consistently in the upper 170s (usually it takes a decent amount of practice though); where luck usually comes more into play is in the difference between something like a 176 and a 179.

Chyea...I did better than the OP on my diagnostic, and all my preptests, but even I saw a noticeable increase in consistency over time. That's how I *made it happen*. Of those who retook a 170 in 2007-2008 only 10 saw it go up, 4 had it stay the same, and 20 saw it go down. How do we know that his 170 wasn't the top of a 163-171 range instead of a 170-180 range?

I agree with these thoughts, however it has little to do with the question. Obviously studying more would make it more likely.
The guy asked: given 10-15 hrs more of studying, how unrealistic is it to go from 170 to 175+? My answer was pretty basic... As long as 170 wasn't way above average scores in the first place, this is not that unrealistic. It wasn't until some cats went all "wait,wait, wait miss lippy, I had to work my ass off to get a 175+ and I won't have someone on the Internet suggest it possibly wasn't necessary" (direct quote), that I explained what I meant.
You liberal arts majors can be super-touchy.

[094320]

..

[notanumber]

The answer to this question is entirely dependent on why the OP missed a dozen or so questions to begin with.

If the questions were missed from a wide range of sections and the OP did not run out of time on any section then the OP probably just missed most of the questions due to sloppy thinking and the OP might be able to raise the score with very little practice. If the OP ran out of time or missed most of the questions on one particular section then the OP will need to practice more to ensure that things settle at above 175 or so.

In any case, it can't hurt to take a dozen or so practice tests. With the OP's GPA a killer LSAT will make a huge difference.

[KibblesAndVick]

Here's my two cents.

Going from your diagnostic to somewhere around 170 or 172 is about learning the material. You have to master the different types of games and learn all the ins and outs of logical reasoning. Simply put, you learn the material.

Going from 170 or 172ish to 175+ is all about minimizing the amount of mistakes you make. You already understand the material. When you go back and review the test you'll see most of your mistakes and go "Oh wow! How did I miss that? So obvious now!". It's not that you need to learn the material it's that you need to learn how to be on top of your game for hours on end. You need to learn to focus and to be able to stay sharp under pressure. I really believe that these are learned skills. You acquire them through practice.

If you scored a 170 without much effort you should be able to hit the high 170's if you put more time into it.