Does LSAT come down to luck? Forum

[mrmangs]

LSAT comes down to training, but you can get unlucky. It depends how consistent you are in your practice tests, but I would say in general you should expect to score within 2-5 points of your average. In fact, just prepare on the assumption that you'll score 2-5 points below your average. So if you want to be confident you'll get a 170+, you should make sure you can consistently score 175+ on your PTs.

[gambelda]

LSAT comes down to training, but you can get unlucky. It depends how consistent you are in your practice tests, but I would say in general you should expect to score within 2-5 points of your average. In fact, just prepare on the assumption that you'll score 2-5 points below your average. So if you want to be confident you'll get a 170+, you should make sure you can consistently score 175+ on your PTs.

In this case, I'm fucked.

[northwood]

it comes down to confidence, ability to control anxiety and preparation. The only luck i would say is not getting sick, or sitting next to an annoying test taker / having a bad testing room or proctors.

be confident in your prep, and yourself. Stay healthy and rested, and trust your skills. You will be fine

[s0ph1e2007]

There is some luck involved. That's why they have LSAT bounds.

TITCR

Luck has about 3 points to do with it.
177-180 etc.

[mrmangs]

LSAT comes down to training, but you can get unlucky. It depends how consistent you are in your practice tests, but I would say in general you should expect to score within 2-5 points of your average. In fact, just prepare on the assumption that you'll score 2-5 points below your average. So if you want to be confident you'll get a 170+, you should make sure you can consistently score 175+ on your PTs.

In this case, I'm fucked.

Meh, it's a skill, like the SAT. Prepare hard enough and you'll be fine. Also, some people are more consistent than others... The above is just a rule of thumb.

Occasionally, some people score better than they do on PTs. I just think it's best to prepare for the worst.

P.S. Luck comes more and more into play as you score higher and higher, as each question means more and more points.

[JazzOne]

Luck definitely plays a role. As mentioned above, it is about three points on average. For any given individual on a particular test, though, it can be much greater.

[StrictlyLiable]

I think it comes down more to luck when you are not answering all of the questions. Obviously getting 4 right on guessing is pretty lucky and can effect your score by a couple of points.

[mrmangs]

I think it comes down more to luck when you are not answering all of the questions. Obviously getting 4 right on guessing is pretty lucky and can effect your score by a couple of points.

Well, I suppose it is true that it depends entirely on luck if you have no idea what you are doing and are just guessing at random.

[motiontodismiss]

Luck definitely plays a role. Like when you guess 5/9 correctly. Still happy about my 166 on PT40...at least for now.

[09042014]

Luck definitely plays a role. As mentioned above, it is about three points on average. For any given individual on a particular test, though, it can be much greater.

Exactly. Someone who is great at LG but terrible at LR, who gets a super easy LG, and super hard LR will do a lot more than normal.

[vanwinkle]

Luck plays a part, but is still tied to everything else.

Thomas Jefferson once said, "I'm a great believer in luck, and I find that the harder I work, the more I have of it." I think that sums it up well.

[adt231]

Been reading nonstop for the last month to improve it.

Careful not to burn yourself out.


Also, I was VERY similar to you on my PTs:

LG -0 to -2 consistent
LR -3 to -4 each section
RC -4 is my lowest recorded, up to -10.

My average PT was about 165-166. I scored a 171 on the actual test with LG -2, LR1 -3, LR2 -3, and RC -2. People on this thread keep talking about the sort of luck being just guessing correctly. Mine was speed with the RC. There was never a passage that I got more than 1-2 wrong on when I read the whole thing. Problem was that I needed about 9-10 mins per passage on average. On practice tests I barely would get to the questions on the last passage which caused me to miss a 4-6 problems usually. Turns out, on the day of the test I breezed through the RC with only -2 wrong and the passages weren't easy- I think it was that I was actually interested in 3 of the 4 (sad, I know) and some test day adrenaline helped me out.

So in short, I was in the same boat as you and with a little luck, got my 171. Keep plugging away and don't get discouraged during the middle of a section if you don't feel you are doing well. Good luck!!

[mrmangs]

Been reading nonstop for the last month to improve it.

Careful not to burn yourself out.


Also, I was VERY similar to you on my PTs:

LG -0 to -2 consistent
LR -3 to -4 each section
RC -4 is my lowest recorded, up to -10.

My average PT was about 165-166. I scored a 171 on the actual test with LG -2, LR1 -3, LR2 -3, and RC -2. People on this thread keep talking about the sort of luck being just guessing correctly. Mine was speed with the RC. There was never a passage that I got more than 1-2 wrong on when I read the whole thing. Problem was that I needed about 9-10 mins per passage on average. On practice tests I barely would get to the questions on the last passage which caused me to miss a 4-6 problems usually. Turns out, on the day of the test I breezed through the RC with only -2 wrong and the passages weren't easy- I think it was that I was actually interested in 3 of the 4 (sad, I know) and some test day adrenaline helped me out.

So in short, I was in the same boat as you and with a little luck, got my 171. Keep plugging away and don't get discouraged during the middle of a section if you don't feel you are doing well. Good luck!!

I have to agree with this, actually. I averaged at 177 on my PTs, but would occasionally dip into low 170s b/c of RC passages where I would read too slowly and not finish all the problems before time was up. And this happened to me on the real deal too.

[mpj_3050]

The thing is very learnable but you have to practice exactly as the exam while be on test day. And PT scores didn't mean shit for me 173 on the Dec. 09 one and averaged 169 - real thing I f'ed up with a 160. It is about endurance and keeping yourself calm too, 2 things are really screwed up on.

[AshtonB]

This is why I hate TLS sometimes. Dude, quit crying about your 166, it's a good score.

Someone had to say it. L'il Wayne counts as someone.

[gambelda]

Been reading nonstop for the last month to improve it.

Careful not to burn yourself out.


Also, I was VERY similar to you on my PTs:

LG -0 to -2 consistent
LR -3 to -4 each section
RC -4 is my lowest recorded, up to -10.

My average PT was about 165-166. I scored a 171 on the actual test with LG -2, LR1 -3, LR2 -3, and RC -2. People on this thread keep talking about the sort of luck being just guessing correctly. Mine was speed with the RC. There was never a passage that I got more than 1-2 wrong on when I read the whole thing. Problem was that I needed about 9-10 mins per passage on average. On practice tests I barely would get to the questions on the last passage which caused me to miss a 4-6 problems usually. Turns out, on the day of the test I breezed through the RC with only -2 wrong and the passages weren't easy- I think it was that I was actually interested in 3 of the 4 (sad, I know) and some test day adrenaline helped me out.

So in short, I was in the same boat as you and with a little luck, got my 171. Keep plugging away and don't get discouraged during the middle of a section if you don't feel you are doing well. Good luck!!

So I think my problem with RC is that I read the whole thing for detail straight out and slowly. Then I retain very lttle information forcing me to refer back to the passage on every single question and when I realize I'm burning too much time, I just "pick the best answer" instead of eliminating 4 and confirming the 5th. Does everyone thing I would benefit more by skim reading - 1-2 minutes and then allocating most time to questions?

[kkklick]

If you're constantly reffering back to the passage, then the time you spent reading it was wasted completely. I often answer questions without ever looking back to the passage unless the question deals with specifics (In lines 30-34 etc). Once you do more RC passages you will get a general sense of the details and things you should be looking for. But try to get to the point where you have to refer to the passage minimally.

[thegarciab0y]

If you're constantly reffering back to the passage, then the time you spent reading it was wasted completely. I often answer questions without ever looking back to the passage unless the question deals with specifics (In lines 30-34 etc). Once you do more RC passages you will get a general sense of the details and things you should be looking for. But try to get to the point where you have to refer to the passage minimally.

Kklick, I have noticed that I do a lot of referring back to the passage also when it comes times to the questions, and was wondering if your ability to just retain everything comes from your developed reading skills in general or just doing well on the RC section of the LSAT? I’ve been picking up issues of the Economist and Scientific American lately and have actually started noticing that I’m becoming more and more apt to remember just a little more of the article as a whole every time I read. If I were able to retain the entire context/structure of every article I read effortlessly that would be amazing, and would probably help a great deal on my score.

[kkklick]

If you're constantly reffering back to the passage, then the time you spent reading it was wasted completely. I often answer questions without ever looking back to the passage unless the question deals with specifics (In lines 30-34 etc). Once you do more RC passages you will get a general sense of the details and things you should be looking for. But try to get to the point where you have to refer to the passage minimally.

Kklick, I have noticed that I do a lot of referring back to the passage also when it comes times to the questions, and was wondering if your ability to just retain everything comes from your developed reading skills in general or just doing well on the RC section of the LSAT? I’ve been picking up issues of the Economist and Scientific American lately and have actually started noticing that I’m becoming more and more apt to remember just a little more of the article as a whole every time I read. If I were able to retain the entire context/structure of every article I read effortlessly that would be amazing, and would probably help a great deal on my score.

You can call it reading shock therapy, reading dense material makes LSAT passages seem minute in comparison, which will help you're confidence and allow you to focus on retaining information and attributing the various opinions and arguments presented in the passage. But there is also something to be said of having a game plan on RC, because being a good reader is not necessarily indicative of success on the Reading Comp section.

[thegarciab0y]

If you're constantly reffering back to the passage, then the time you spent reading it was wasted completely. I often answer questions without ever looking back to the passage unless the question deals with specifics (In lines 30-34 etc). Once you do more RC passages you will get a general sense of the details and things you should be looking for. But try to get to the point where you have to refer to the passage minimally.

Kklick, I have noticed that I do a lot of referring back to the passage also when it comes times to the questions, and was wondering if your ability to just retain everything comes from your developed reading skills in general or just doing well on the RC section of the LSAT? I’ve been picking up issues of the Economist and Scientific American lately and have actually started noticing that I’m becoming more and more apt to remember just a little more of the article as a whole every time I read. If I were able to retain the entire context/structure of every article I read effortlessly that would be amazing, and would probably help a great deal on my score.

You can call it reading shock therapy, reading dense material makes LSAT passages seem minute in comparison, which will help you're confidence and allow you to focus on retaining information and attributing the various opinions and arguments presented in the passage. But there is also something to be said of having a game plan on RC, because being a good reader is not necessarily indicative of success on the Reading Comp section.

Very well said, very well said. So it is probably the combination of the advanced reading skills and the familiarization with the different questions/anticipating what will be asked that yields the highest score. For example, somebody who can naturally read effortlessly will probably have an easier time because it allows them to concentrate solely on their game plan and not trying to juggle both (sometimes like me)…..And then that puts into perspective what it’s like for the people who have advanced reading skills and a developed game plan, it’s probably a cake walk.

[JazzOne]

Don't take that idea too far. Many top scorers refer back to the passage frequently. It's not a waste of time to read the passage if you approach it more like skimming. You just want to get the main points and know where to find the information if/when you need it. Answering from memory can lead you to select trap answers with subtlte errors. You'll never need to know every single detail in a passage, so for some people, it would be a waste of time to try to remember them all.