. Forum

[vttran9]

How do you usually review for LR?

[Gemini]

Tagging this post because I want to use that beautiful spreadsheet for my own work.

And yzero1, you have some AMAZING scores!!

[yzero1]

How do you usually review for LR?

After a PT, I go over all the LR questions I missed on the PT as well as the ones I was unsure of. I try to figure out exactly what went wrong, and if I can't, I look up the explanation on my Kaplan/PR database. This usually takes like 15-30 minutes. I then make a note of the mistake in a word doc that keeps track of all my historical mistakes. Specifically, I write down the reason for my mistake, characteristics of the correct answer, and characteristics of the answer I chose.

I also keep track of the question types I get wrong on my excel spreadsheet and if I see that I'm missing a certain type of question consistently, I'll drill that question type in the Kaplan Mastery book. So far, the only question type that I've drilled is strengthen/weaken.. but I think it's time for me to drill some Flaw questions too.

Besides that, I don't do too much drilling of LR outside of PTs. I think doing PTs and reviewing is sufficient practice.

And Gemini: thanks and in case you couldn't find the link, the spreadsheet that I use is located here: http://lsatblog.blogspot.com/2009/06/ls ... sheet.html

[yzero1]

Did games review yesterday as well as a bunch of 3-star and 4-star flaw questions.

Today, I completed my last non-50's PT: PT38. I decided to really simulate test conditions so I did the test at exactly 8:30am. I thought I had an off day..finished slower than normal on several sections. I also thought the RC section was fairly difficult. However, to my surprise, I ended up with a respectable score of 177 (-1 LR1, -1 LR2, -1 LG, and -2 RC). I caught my only mistake in LG a few seconds after my timer went off, so I decided to show some integrity and I didn't allow myself to change my bubble .

Also, I scored a 175 on my experimental, which was PT5.

I will post my mistake breakdown and analysis a bit later. Time for lunch now.

[Adjudicator]

Did games review yesterday as well as a bunch of 3-star and 4-star flaw questions.

Today, I completed my last non-50's PT: PT38. I decided to really simulate test conditions so I did the test at exactly 8:30am. I thought I had an off day..finished slower than normal on several sections. I also thought the RC section was fairly difficult. However, to my surprise, I ended up with a respectable score of 177 (-1 LR1, -1 LR2, -1 LG, and -2 RC). I caught my only mistake in LG a few seconds after my timer went off, so I decided to show some integrity and I didn't allow myself to change my bubble .

Also, I scored a 175 on my experimental, which was PT5.

I will post my mistake breakdown and analysis a bit later. Time for lunch now.

Ooh, I was just printing PT38 out right now before I clicked on this. Let's see if I can beat your score I've been averaging 177ish lately.

[yzero1]

Did games review yesterday as well as a bunch of 3-star and 4-star flaw questions.

Today, I completed my last non-50's PT: PT38. I decided to really simulate test conditions so I did the test at exactly 8:30am. I thought I had an off day..finished slower than normal on several sections. I also thought the RC section was fairly difficult. However, to my surprise, I ended up with a respectable score of 177 (-1 LR1, -1 LR2, -1 LG, and -2 RC). I caught my only mistake in LG a few seconds after my timer went off, so I decided to show some integrity and I didn't allow myself to change my bubble .

Also, I scored a 175 on my experimental, which was PT5.

I will post my mistake breakdown and analysis a bit later. Time for lunch now.

Ooh, I was just printing PT38 out right now before I clicked on this. Let's see if I can beat your score I've been averaging 177ish lately.

Good luck It shouldn't be too hard though, PT38 has a nice and lenient curve.

[Adjudicator]

Did games review yesterday as well as a bunch of 3-star and 4-star flaw questions.

Today, I completed my last non-50's PT: PT38. I decided to really simulate test conditions so I did the test at exactly 8:30am. I thought I had an off day..finished slower than normal on several sections. I also thought the RC section was fairly difficult. However, to my surprise, I ended up with a respectable score of 177 (-1 LR1, -1 LR2, -1 LG, and -2 RC). I caught my only mistake in LG a few seconds after my timer went off, so I decided to show some integrity and I didn't allow myself to change my bubble .

Also, I scored a 175 on my experimental, which was PT5.

I will post my mistake breakdown and analysis a bit later. Time for lunch now.

Ooh, I was just printing PT38 out right now before I clicked on this. Let's see if I can beat your score I've been averaging 177ish lately.

Good luck It shouldn't be too hard though, PT38 has a nice and lenient curve.

Yeah, I just looked at that and I couldn't believe how forgiving it is. I could use the confidence booster. lol.

[Nulli Secundus]

It appears I am out of the race already, I scored a 176 on that one, -2 on LG instead of your -1 (Which is funny, I went over -1 in LG like 3-4 times in 35 PTs)

[yzero1]

It appears I am out of the race already, I scored a 176 on that one, -2 on LG instead of your -1 (Which is funny, I went over -1 in LG like 3-4 times in 35 PTs)

I wonder what your mistakes on the other sections were..maybe we had the same ones? I screwed up on LR1 Q10, LG Q24, RC Q13,15, and LR2 Q1 (lol).

And I think the games sections in the 30s are generally tougher than the ones you see on the more recent ones. That may explain the discrepancy.

[Nulli Secundus]

LR1 Q21, LG Q11 & Q12, RC Q23 & Q27, LR2 Q23

[yzero1]

LR1 Q21, LG Q11 & Q12, RC Q23 & Q27, LR2 Q23

I guess there is no method to our madness lol

EDIT: I just realized how stupid I am for getting LR2 Q1 wrong.. misinterpreted the question stem as an assumption question.

[Nulli Secundus]

Nah LSAT has something to trip up everyone, seriously though sometimes I get tunnel vision and jump on an answer only to see that the credited answer had a seemingly unrelated beginning so I dropped it as a loser, when I read it, its so obvious that I sometimes want to eat the PT booklet. (Must have something to do with the desire for hiding the evidence of stupidity)

[Adjudicator]

Nah LSAT has something to trip up everyone, seriously though sometimes I get tunnel vision and jump on an answer only to see that the credited answer had a seemingly unrelated beginning so I dropped it as a loser, when I read it, its so obvious that I sometimes want to eat the PT booklet. (Must have something to do with the desire for hiding the evidence of stupidity)

I agree with all of this... sometimes I get the hard ones and then miss something that should have been easy, but my friend says that you're bound to miss some that you would normally get, just like you're bound to get some that you would normally miss. All that matters is how it averages out over time.

Anyway, I just finished this PT and scored -3 (179)! What a generous curve. I would kill to get a curve like this in October.

I missed LR1 Q15, LG Q11, and RC Q27 (The very last one. )

That LR1 Q15 is an example of one of those random ones that I missed that I think I should have got... but, I got the ones that I thought were harder. So, it evens out.

[yzero1]

Nah LSAT has something to trip up everyone, seriously though sometimes I get tunnel vision and jump on an answer only to see that the credited answer had a seemingly unrelated beginning so I dropped it as a loser, when I read it, its so obvious that I sometimes want to eat the PT booklet. (Must have something to do with the desire for hiding the evidence of stupidity)

I agree with all of this... sometimes I get the hard ones and then miss something that should have been easy, but my friend says that you're bound to miss some that you would normally get, just like you're bound to get some that you would normally miss. All that matters is how it averages out over time.

Anyway, I just finished this PT and scored -3 (179)! What a generous curve. I would kill to get a curve like this in October.

I missed LR1 Q15, LG Q11, and RC Q27 (The very last one. )

That LR1 Q15 is an example of one of those random ones that I missed that I think I should have got... but, I got the ones that I thought were harder. So, it evens out.

Good job on your score! It seems we're all making different mistakes. I guess when it comes to 175+ scorers, we need a bit of luck on our side to minimize silly mistakes and hit the higher scores.

[Adjudicator]

I guess when it comes to 175+ scorers, we need a bit of luck on our side to minimize silly mistakes and hit the higher scores.

I agree so much. In the 175-180 range, I feel that luck is a significant factor. It feels like I just miss a couple problems almost at random, every time. That is what is standing between me and hitting 180 again. There's nothing that I don't understand; it's just hard to be perfect.

[Blindc1rca]

question: with the easiest LGs on each test do you just draw a basic diagram and then visualize for each question to save time?

also, in general how much time do you have left when you get to that one LG on every test that requires relatively extensive diagramming?

thanks. i'm at -3 to -6 total for LR combined and -0 to -3 for RC, but my LG's are killing me though. I've noticed that it's mostly because I'm wasting time on the easier games and I suspect that it's because I'm drawing things out on each local question.

[Adjudicator]

I sketch things out really quickly if I need to. I notice that when I do well on LG, I finish a couple of the games in 5-6 minutes and then have 20+ minutes left for the harder games.

[yzero1]

question: with the easiest LGs on each test do you just draw a basic diagram and then visualize for each question to save time?

also, in general how much time do you have left when you get to that one LG on every test that requires relatively extensive diagramming?

thanks. i'm at -3 to -6 total for LR combined and -0 to -3 for RC, but my LG's are killing me though. I've noticed that it's mostly because I'm wasting time on the easier games and I suspect that it's because I'm drawing things out on each local question.

Yeah.. for easier linear-type games I will just draw a basic diagram and attack the questions. I do the LGs in the order they appear and I don't really check my time until I finish the whole section. I usually finish each LG section with 10 minutes to spare on average for PTs in the 40s, but with about 3-4 minutes on PTs in the 30s. I'm pretty sure I spend about 8-9 minutes on the tougher games while the easier ones I usually finish in about 5 minutes, so it averages out.

I was pretty horrible with LG before but as I've been drilling the different game times, my speed has increased dramatically, thus allowing me to speed through easy games and handle tougher games with better accuracy.

[Adjudicator]

yzero, maybe you've described this is another thread, but can you tell me about your method of drilling for LG? I still need to improve my speed before October.

[yzero1]

yzero, maybe you've described this is another thread, but can you tell me about your method of drilling for LG? I still need to improve my speed before October.

I wish it were something more sophisticated, but I basically printed out all the games from this list and created 3 books: Linear games, Grouping games, and Other games. I drill anywhere from 2-4 games from each book every day. I've been doing this for a couple of months and I've managed to do all the grouping and linear games twice over from PT7-40. I'm gonna start doing the ones from 40-50 soon.

I keep track of the time it takes me to complete each individual game and I also write down the games that I make mistakes so that I can go over them in more detail later on.

[Adjudicator]

Interesting... so I suppose that you find that the repetition increases your speed and/or allows you to quickly recognize new games and how to attack them?

I need to do this.

[yzero1]

Interesting... so I suppose that you find that the repetition increases your speed and/or allows you to quickly recognize new games and how to attack them?

I need to do this.

Yeah and besides the speed increase, you get to see deeper into each game after every repetition. This helps with your inference-making ability on new games.

[yzero1]

Did 8 games today with 1 mistake on the doctors/clinics game from PT34. I've done this game like 3 times and I still can't do it perfectly .

Going to do some harder flaw questions in Mastery today before I depart for NY tomorrow. Gonna visit some law schools in the NY area

[yzero1]

Just got destroyed by the RC section on PT50..-3 on basins of attraction and -5 on RC as a whole. Missed a key phrase in the opening paragraph of basis which resulted in my misunderstanding of the passage as a whole. Ended up with a score of 175 (-5 RC, -0 LR1, -0 LG, -1 LR2).

Easily the worst RC section I've ever done. I am not looking forward to some of the other notoriously difficult ones in the 50's.

[yzero1]

After checking out YLS and CLS yesterday, I wrote PT51 in my hotel room in the middle of Times Square. Spent more time studying than checking out the surrounding area..

Scored a 178 (-1 LR1, -2 RC, -1 LR2, -0 LG) on PT51. I'm noticing a disturbing trend though..I'm getting an increasing number of "easy" questions wrong on LR (in the first 10).