real The Official December 2016 Waiters Group - Patience is a Virtue Forum

[Walliums]

Guys, I need some opinions.

So now all of the testprep books I have bought/rented are here. Besides the preptests, they are:

• LSAT Trainer
• Powerscore LR Bible
• Powerscore LG Bible

So I have been following the LSAT Trainer's study schedule, but I'm wondering how to incorporate the other books? Obviously, none of the study schedules are combos between different books (Powerscore's schedule won't have chapters from the LSAT). For those of you juggling multiple resources, how are you doing this? Should I get through the LSAT trainer first, maybe in the 3-month schedule instead of the 4-month schedule, and then hit the Bibles?

[Barack O'Drama]

Yup. exactly right.

So I recommend going through The LSAT Trainer curriculum first and doing so well. So basically just don't rush and you'll be good. That book is amazing if used right. i.e., doing all the drills in the book, doing all the practice sets and drills in the schedule.
The 12 week PT 52-71 is what I am following and I think that is a great place to start. Chances are you will finish it in about 8 weeks, but don't rush it.

Don't hesitate to consult the Logic Games Bible/Logical Reasoning Bible as needed as you go through the Trainer. I think at first the LSAT Trainer was a bit tough to follow in logic games for me. It isn't because Mike Kim doesn't do a good job, it is just because I was so bad at games it took me a while to get the hang of it.

As far as LR, if you need an alternative explanation on something feel free to reach for the LRB. I think The LSAT Trainer does a great job with LR. but sometimes you just need another viewpoint.

Once you get done with The LSAT Trainer, use the LRB/LGB to shore up any weaknesses you may have.

[muscleboundlaw]

I have gone from Nova's "Master the LSAT" to the Bible series ( I have the workbooks for practice Q's too). So far, there is a pretty good contrast between the two. PS definitely goes in to far more detail than Nova, but sometimes I feel as if they try to over do it with information. IT's probably a good thing since this isn't an easy test, but it can get annoying if you passed your third hour of studying . I just got the LSAT trainer and will be using it as soon as I complete the bibles.

Then I will combine the trainer, prep tests, and PowerScore workbooks to finish up my studies. It's daunting, but I am beginning to see some benefit.

In LG, when I do make a mistake, it comes exclusively from misreading the question and rushing to find the answer. I feel like many get caught up by this. LSAC specifically tries to trip you up with their wording so it is easy to miss something as small as "could be true" vs "must be true" and fail because of it.

I definitely will need to train with a keen eye.

I also think I will definitely take the test in December and retake in February if I am uncertain about my chances.

My question here is this. Lets say I apply in December without knowing my LSAT score upon turn in.

If I get rejected from my top choice, do they care if I reapply with another LSAT the following year? They don't look at prior application's right? That would suck hard.

[muscleboundlaw]

Had a bit of a stumble last night and felt horrible. Luckily, I have a day off to recover today. Started the main point section in PS and was doing great initially. I hit a wall and only got about 65% of the practice questions correct. For some reason, the premises weren't connecting in my head like they were. I did feel like I was going pretty quickly through PS last night, and I also felt a little distracted (had the news on in the background without volume). I really liked the strategy of trying to form my own answer prior to even touching the questions, but I would say that I was only successful 30 percent of the time. I was stumbling on details like "mostly" "usually", and sentence orientation (a rephrase of a part of a premise that was correct but threw me off). I need to do better.

[Walliums]

I really liked the strategy of trying to form my own answer prior to even touching the questions, but I would say that I was only successful 30 percent of the time.

You're not alone, I'm struggling with a similar issue at the moment. Right now I'm drilling identifying the flaw in the Trainer. I look at an argument, and I can tell it's flawed, but I'm still having difficulty articulating exactly why.

Enjoy the break, and remember it's not always just a smooth progression upwards!

[Deardevil]

Drilled 28 games today.

Best time being three minutes and eight seconds, worst being ten minutes and fifty seconds.
163/166 correct, so suffice to say I'm feeling mighty confident about this section...
That is, until I looked at the SuperPrep games; boy, those are difficult!

[Mikey]

Drilled 28 games today.

Best time being three minutes and eight seconds, worst being ten minutes and fifty seconds.
163/166 correct, so suffice to say I'm feeling mighty confident about this section...
That is, until I looked at the SuperPrep games; boy, those are difficult!

Damn, good shit!!

But, 28 games in 1 day??

[Barack O'Drama]

Drilled 28 games today.

Best time being three minutes and eight seconds, worst being ten minutes and fifty seconds.
163/166 correct, so suffice to say I'm feeling mighty confident about this section...
That is, until I looked at the SuperPrep games; boy, those are difficult!

Damn, good shit!!

But, 28 games in 1 day??

HHAHA! That gif though.

28 games is beast though. Power to ya! I think the most I did in a day was like 16 and those were all easy simple ordering games from the cambridge packets. Seems like you're definitely getting the hang of them and seeing serious improvement.

[Deardevil]

Drilled 28 games today.

Best time being three minutes and eight seconds, worst being ten minutes and fifty seconds.
163/166 correct, so suffice to say I'm feeling mighty confident about this section...
That is, until I looked at the SuperPrep games; boy, those are difficult!

Damn, good shit!!

But, 28 games in 1 day??

HHAHA! That gif though.

28 games is beast though. Power to ya! I think the most I did in a day was like 16 and those were all easy simple ordering games from the cambridge packets. Seems like you're definitely getting the hang of them and seeing serious improvement.

Haha it's not as bad as it sounds.
I was pretty rusty when grinding LR and forgetting about LG that I couldn't finish games in time,
but it's easy to get back on the saddle. Gonna retry those hard games tomorrow (REALLY don't like them) and do more of RC (good lord)...

[Walliums]

Hey, is anyone using PTs 41 - 50? If you are, where the hell did you find them to buy them from?!

[muscleboundlaw]

I have a question that will most likely be impossible to answer:

PS outlined these as the LR questions stems:
Must be true/ Most strongly supporter, main point, conditional reasoning, weaken questions, cause and effect reasoning, strengthen questions, justify the conclusion, assumption, resolve the paradox, formal logic, method of reasoning, flaw in the reasoning, parallel reasoning, numbers and percentages, evaluate the argument, can't be true, point at issue, principle.

That adds up to about 18 question types. I know some of these are rarely used by the exam anymore, but how many of each do you guys believe you get on an exam? I know strengthen/ weaken appear a lot. Assumption too. I just want to guesstimate a reasonable 50 question distribution.

[Giro423]

Hello friends,

Seeking a little advice from those who have used the trainer/Cambridge packets (or other Cambridge material). I'm feeling pretty confident that I'll end up using the trainer (I've already used Manhattan and Powerscore, and think this would be a nice supplement), but I hear a lot about Cambridge material, especially in regards to drilling with the packets. Where are people getting these? My understanding is that they are no longer produced but can be accessed in PDF form online, is this correct? And for those that are using the packets or any other Cambridge material, what do you see the advantages being? Thanks!

[Barack O'Drama]

Hey, is anyone using PTs 41 - 50? If you are, where the hell did you find them to buy them from?!

I was lucky enough to get my hands on the PDFs. But I think I saw them available online at Barnes and Nobles in a reprinted edition...

[Barack O'Drama]

Hello friends,

Seeking a little advice from those who have used the trainer/Cambridge packets (or other Cambridge material). I'm feeling pretty confident that I'll end up using the trainer (I've already used Manhattan and Powerscore, and think this would be a nice supplement), but I hear a lot about Cambridge material, especially in regards to drilling with the packets. Where are people getting these? My understanding is that they are no longer produced but can be accessed in PDF form online, is this correct? And for those that are using the packets or any other Cambridge material, what do you see the advantages being? Thanks!

Can't get the Cambridge PDF packets online anymore

I use the Cambridge for my drilling. I think the advantages are the convenience of having all your drill material by type in nifty little packets. Also, it is nice to be able to print it as needed.

I think Powerscore has drill books that are pretty decent...

[Deardevil]

I have a question that will most likely be impossible to answer:

PS outlined these as the LR questions stems:
Must be true/ Most strongly supporter, main point, conditional reasoning, weaken questions, cause and effect reasoning, strengthen questions, justify the conclusion, assumption, resolve the paradox, formal logic, method of reasoning, flaw in the reasoning, parallel reasoning, numbers and percentages, evaluate the argument, can't be true, point at issue, principle.

That adds up to about 18 question types. I know some of these are rarely used by the exam anymore, but how many of each do you guys believe you get on an exam? I know strengthen/ weaken appear a lot. Assumption too. I just want to guesstimate a reasonable 50 question distribution.

The majority will be assumptions, strengthen, and weaken.
I would guesstimate, for the whole two sections, 16 assumptions (both sufficient/justify and necessary/regular),
four flawed in the reasoning, two parallel flaws, two parallel reasoning questions, two main ideas, six inferences,
two paradoxes, two point at issue questions, and the rest being strengthen and weaken, so 14.

Principles, evaluate the argument, and method of reasoning are pretty rare, but nonetheless may randomly show up.

Causal reasoning and formal logic technically aren't types, but they can be included in assumptions and parallel reasoning.
Numbers and percentages aren't too big of an issue; just know the primary difference between the two, and you're good to go.

[Deardevil]

Thank goodness RC isn't as bad as surmised. Alas, it's still pretty terrible, and I seem to get worse after each section.
Also making no strides in LR when it comes to accuracy, which is a huge bummer. Gonna mostly work on my personal statement this week.

[Barack O'Drama]

Thank goodness RC isn't as bad as surmised. Alas, it's still pretty terrible, and I seem to get worse after each section.
Also making no strides in LR when it comes to accuracy, which is a huge bummer. Gonna mostly work on my personal statement this week.

RC and inconsistent LR are what is really keeping me out of scoring consistently in the 160s and it sucks.

The good news is we have a long time to master these things, and I haven't begun to prep for RC yet, so I am hoping my horrid -8 ends up closer to like a -2 on RC.

[Deardevil]

RC and inconsistent LR are what is really keeping me out of scoring consistently in the 160s and it sucks.

The good news is we have a long time to master these things, and I haven't begun to prep for RC yet, so I am hoping my horrid -8 ends up closer to like a -2 on RC.

FR, FR...

I was banking on the idea of going -0 with LG and maybe -3 on LG, then "wing" RC, hoping for a -5.
But it turns out my RC seems to be surprisingly better than LR? Makes no sense lol.
Trainer really led the way, but hopefully, Manhattan can finish the job.

135 days...

[Barack O'Drama]

RC and inconsistent LR are what is really keeping me out of scoring consistently in the 160s and it sucks.

The good news is we have a long time to master these things, and I haven't begun to prep for RC yet, so I am hoping my horrid -8 ends up closer to like a -2 on RC.

FR, FR...

I was banking on the idea of going -0 with LG and maybe -3 on LG, then "wing" RC, hoping for a -5.
But it turns out my RC seems to be surprisingly better than LR? Makes no sense lol.
Trainer really led the way, but hopefully, Manhattan can finish the job.

135 days...

Yeah, lots of surprises with the test..Ugh.
Also, I am doing the same. Trainer --> Manhattan.

[Walliums]

I've really devoured the Trainer this week and already gotten through a quarter of it. I seriously love that book. Already feeling like I'm not stabbing at LR questions in the dark. Thank you all again for your encouragement to look at the Trainer first!

I'll be doing a PT today... positive thoughts towards a score increase appreciated! After today's I don't think it's in the schedule to do another one for another month or so.

[Barack O'Drama]

I've really devoured the Trainer this week and already gotten through a quarter of it. I seriously love that book. Already feeling like I'm not stabbing at LR questions in the dark. Thank you all again for your encouragement to look at the Trainer first!

I'll be doing a PT today... positive thoughts towards a score increase appreciated! After today's I don't think it's in the schedule to do another one for another month or so.

Yeah, it is a great, great book!

Good luck with your PT today

[scalawag]

What is everyone using for reading comprehension? I was just going to use Voyager's method http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... php?t=7240 but a lot of people seem to like the LSAT trainer. I have a copy is it good for RC?

I do think until you drill you aren't going to see a score increase.

How is the LSAT trainer for LR? I started off going -9/10 for logical reasoning, completed the LRB saw no increase then completed the first two chapters of Manhattan LR and now I consistently get -4/5.

I did a fair amount of studying last year before I got sick (turned out to be Chrohn's) but I'm tempted to just work out of Manhattan because I saw such a drastic improvement. I know Mike Kim wrote the Manahattan LR book though which is why I bought the trainer.

[scalawag]

Has anyone worked out of both Manhattan and the trainer if so what do you recommend?

[Deardevil]

What is everyone using for reading comprehension? I was just going to use Voyager's method http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... php?t=7240 but a lot of people seem to like the LSAT trainer. I have a copy is it good for RC?

I do think until you drill you aren't going to see a score increase.

How is the LSAT trainer for LR? I started off going -9/10 for logical reasoning, completed the LRB saw no increase then completed the first two chapters of Manhattan LR and now I consistently get -4/5.

I did a fair amount of studying last year before I got sick (turned out to be Chrohn's) but I'm tempted to just work out of Manhattan because I saw such a drastic improvement. I know Mike Kim wrote the Manahattan LR book though which is why I bought the trainer.

Can't say I'm an advocate for Voyager's route.
But hey, it apparently worked, so power to him.
My RC isn't too bad to begin with, but I'm thinking of using 7Sage's memory method,
which seems to be a more basic approach and more in line with what I'm already doing.

The LSAT Trainer, overall, is great, focusing mostly on LR and very little on RC, though I won't deny it probably helped me in RC.
That said, I think, to really have gains in RC, one would need to look elsewhere, which is why I ordered the Manhattan guide.
I'm also scoring badly on LR, so I'll be going through MLSAT after the Trainer and the Bible.
Theoretically, an entire book, from "the best of the best," dedicated to one subject should do the trick.
LGB is a good starting point, but I find it lacking in some departments... Definitely supplement with Manhattan.

134 days!

[Barack O'Drama]

Has anyone worked out of both Manhattan and the trainer if so what do you recommend?

Both. I recommend using The LSAT Trainer first. Then going on to Manhattan for the specific question types.

What is everyone using for reading comprehension? I was just going to use Voyager's method http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... php?t=7240 but a lot of people seem to like the LSAT trainer. I have a copy is it good for RC?

I do think until you drill you aren't going to see a score increase.

How is the LSAT trainer for LR? I started off going -9/10 for logical reasoning, completed the LRB saw no increase then completed the first two chapters of Manhattan LR and now I consistently get -4/5.

I did a fair amount of studying last year before I got sick (turned out to be Chrohn's) but I'm tempted to just work out of Manhattan because I saw such a drastic improvement. I know Mike Kim wrote the Manahattan LR book though which is why I bought the trainer.

Haven't started Reading comp yet. I'm going to try out 7Sage's Memory Method and incorporate it with what is in The LSAT Trainer. I also have Manhattan Prep books, and figured I'd read it and see what it has to offer.

The LSAT Trainer is great on LR! I recommend using The LSAT Trainer first, and then go through MLSAT LR to shore up any weaknesses, or if you want a different viewpoint during your prep. But in your case, it looks like MLSAT LR is working good for you, so keep doing what you're doing!

I think Manhattan is much more methodical for LR and The LSAT Trainer is an entire LSAT philosophy. It sort of builds on previous chapters and doesn't balkanize each LR question type. I think it can be very helpful for many students! However, I read through the first few chapters of the MLSAT and also saw great improvements!

I say try out The LSAT Trainer and do the drills therein. And if you want to, the free study schedules on the LSAT Trainer website are really excellent too.