Rigo,ayylmao wrote:IMO it depends on how much you're able to review your mistakes from the PT you've just taken. I've never taken the LSAT before, so I don't know what it's like to be on top of your shit heading into the final stretch, but I would assume that the story is the same as it is during this stage of one's prep: PTs aren't really meaningful practice unless you're truly able to understand the mechanics of each question you struggled with. If you take PTs and can't thoroughly go over them, I'm not sure you're getting more value than if you took fewer but reviewed them more carefully.Rigo wrote:Wondering if I should do 3 PT's some weeks (maybe every other week) or if that's too much. I'll play around with it and see.
I have to wholeheartedly agree with Ayy's assessment here.
After getting a 160 on the LSAT this past December, I dug deeply into what I needed to do to improve my score. After looking at the "Advice for getting a 160+" thread and consulting with several of the "experts" in teaching the LSAT, one conclusion seemed to shine through in nearly every piece of advice:
Meticulously reviewing your PTs is the path to improvement.
With that in mind, I think you'll get some value in terms of timing and dealing with pressure by taking more timed PTs (and not going as deep with your review), I think this presents issues:
- - Eventually you're going to become comfortable with timing, and that benefit is not going to be as important to you.
- Your scores may very well start to "stall" by not digging deep enough
I currently take 2 PTs a week (I am also working full time, so 3 is pushing it a bit).
We'll assume a 4 section PT takes 2 hours and 30 minutes. Aside from taking the test itself, I would say I spend an additional 9 hours with each PT I take. My sectional review methods are as follows:
Logic Games:
I use the 7Sage method. I refuse to accept a game where I got everything right, but was over the strict timing requirements in his videos. I will keep reviewing a problem until I get it right, even if that means going over the problem before doing my scheduled review for the day. If problems are really tricky, I have copies in a folder for review down the road.
Logical Reasoning:
I go over every answer I was not 100% sure about (yes, even if I got it right - this takes some discipline), very similar to the Blind Review method. I focus on two things:
- - Why did I think this answer choice was correct?
- Why did I think this answer choice was wrong?
Reading Comprehension:
While I do try to find the right answer and see what makes that answer right, my focus is more on the passage itself. If I misinterpreted a passage, what did I not pick up on, have I fallen for this before, etc. The Manhattan boards are helpful for reading about the little "tricks" in RC as well as reading about details I missed/misread. Again, I hold on to the tough passages for later review.
Sorry for rambling!
Long story short:
Focus on the quality of your review time, and NOT how fast you get through a schedule.
