Top Law Schools

Alright, I have an LSAT practice book, but twice in the book it contradicts itself in terms of converting raw score to LSAT score.

How many questions can you miss and get a 170? 165? 160? 150?


If your first diagnostic was really bad. Is it possible that after 9 months -1 year of 20 hour a week study, testmasters and a private tutor your score could increase 25 or 30 points?

barberiolisa wrote:Alright, I have an LSAT practice book, but twice in the book it contradicts itself in terms of converting raw score to LSAT score.

How many questions can you miss and get a 170? 165? 160? 150?


If your first diagnostic was really bad. Is it possible that after 9 months -1 year of 20 hour a week study, testmasters and a private tutor your score could increase 25 or 30 points?

1. This number is different on every exam. They each have their own curve which varies based on their relative difficulty.

2. Yes

barberiolisa wrote:Alright, I have an LSAT practice book, but twice in the book it contradicts itself in terms of converting raw score to LSAT score.

How many questions can you miss and get a 170? 165? 160? 150?


If your first diagnostic was really bad. Is it possible that after 9 months -1 year of 20 hour a week study, testmasters and a private tutor your score could increase 25 or 30 points?

1. This.

2. Depends on the individual.

Anything is possible. Also, it depends on what you're screwing up on. LG is the easiest to fix. Reading is probably the hardest...

RC was the one I did best on. I did awful on Logic and the arguments

barberiolisa wrote:RC was the one I did best on. I did awful on Logic and the arguments

Then your in a great place...

have any of you known anybody who in 9 months plus time, that improved 30 points from their first diagnostic. If they did the best on RC, but awful on Logic and both Arguments?

oh and is it possible on the test day, you can miss 20 and still get a 165? Can the curve help that much/if its a dec test

barberiolisa wrote:have any of you known anybody who in 9 months plus time, that improved 30 points from their first diagnostic. If they did the best on RC, but awful on Logic and both Arguments?

Yes people on TLS in the past have improved from a diagnostic in the 140s to a final score in the 170s after prepping diligently for months.

barberiolisa wrote:oh and is it possible on the test day, you can miss 20 and still get a 165? Can the curve help that much/if its a dec test

Yes that has been the case in the past, but usually it's closer to -17/-18 for a 165.

RC has the steepest learning curve, but the fact that OP did well on RC doesn't mean anything--pretty much everybody does better in RC on the diagnostic than on LG. OP, take Blueprint, don't mess around with Testmasters. 25 point improvement is possible but will take a lot of work.

I scored a 145. Took Testmasters. Scored a 160 in December but thats with 6/6 wrong on 1 game bc I misread a rule. Took another 15 practice tests before FEB and PT'd 167-176. Hard to predict my score but I felt really good about it so I expect a 165-170. It will take a lot of time, effort, and devotion, but it is definitely possible.

Can't speak for other programs, but Testmasters was great. Teaches you amazing strategies for all aspects of the test most importantly logic games. If reading comp is your strongest section then you are in good shape. The one thing I will say is that testmasters sets you up to take the test right when the course ends. My biggest improvement came from the month after testmasters when I took the 15 more practice tests. Practice Practice Practice. At first I rarely finished a section, and by the end I was finishing every section sometimes with minutes to spare.

1700s SATs and 27 ACT to put it into perspective

donmincho wrote:RC has the steepest learning curve, but the fact that OP did well on RC doesn't mean anything--pretty much everybody does better in RC on the diagnostic than on LG. OP, take Blueprint, don't mess around with Testmasters. 25 point improvement is possible but will take a lot of work.

This, a million times this.

what's wrong with TestMasters?? I know 2 others who have taken it. 1 went to Duke and the other got a 167. And i expect at least a 20 point increase. The only problem is not ample time from when the course ends til the test to do many more practice tests but OP said he has 9 months so he can plan accordingly. Not saying its better than Blueprint because I wouldn't know, but TestMasters exceeded my expectations and I'm wondering why people are against it.

jvincent11 wrote:, but TestMasters exceeded my expectations and I'm wondering why people are against it.

http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 0&t=204677

Because.

I see. Well, all I can say is my recommendation to take TestMasters is based solely on my positive experience taking the course and my belief that the course is very effective. I am certainly happy with my decision.

rebexness wrote:

jvincent11 wrote:, but TestMasters exceeded my expectations and I'm wondering why people are against it.

http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 0&t=204677

Because.

Testmasters had legitimate cause for concern. I was on the receiving end of some of the material (I didn't know it was copy-written when I requested it). There was serious infringement going on.

I've never taken a Testmasters course, but I think it could certainly be beneficial.

barberiolisa wrote:oh and is it possible on the test day, you can miss 20 and still get a 165? Can the curve help that much/if its a dec test

When I took the test missing 15 would net a 170