People who went in cold and scored 170+, PLEASE HELP! Forum

[PourMeTea]

Post removed.

[wtrc]

I don't expect to find a secret formula to 170. The fact that people have found a way to succeed using other methods beyond the consensus of dozens of practice tests and strategy guides, I thought, was impressive and worth soliciting advice about in order to have a range of strategies that included potential inferences being made on certain sections. Of course studying will always be the main way to do one's best. Again, the leap that the question being disrespectful to the forum is maddening in its overreach.

Not trying to be overly harsh here, but I disagree with you, and sort of want to more fully explain why a thread like this pisses some people off.

This is a forum comprised mainly of people who spend thousands of hours learning this test. Most people here have given up a significant amount of free time where we would much rather be doing other things that are more social and more fun. But we don't, because we realize that, except for literally a few people per year that are on the intelligence caliber of Einstein or have been learning advanced logic their entire lives, getting in the 99th percentile (well, 170+, so 97th percentile) requires a ton of time, motivation, and commitment. Shortcuts don't work on this test. So coming into a "LSAT Prep forum" and asking a ridiculous question of what magic letter to guess is kind of disrespectful. If there were inferences to be made that can raise the score without studying, I think it's likely that LSAC would, for the most part, eliminate them.

This test can't be BS'ed. Saying that it can takes away the thousands of hours of work that a lot of people here put in to get top scores. It's a really hard test for this reason.

Having said that- there are certain tricks that probably aren't necessary or sufficient but still can help with getting a better score. Better not being over 170, but better being a score boost of like a point or two. Picking the weaker answer on many RC questions is one of those.

Serious offer... if you are interested in actually studying for this, feel free to PM me, I'd love to help evaluate your study plan and all that.

Edit: looks like I missed a ton of posts in the time I took to write this that addressed all of this. Poasting anyway.

[neprep]

Obviously "Guessing a letter" and "BSing somethings" was not the most artful way of saying the exact opposite of saying looking closely at questions and making an inference. If those portions of the post were inferred as disrespectful to the thousands of you who are studying diligently and putting in work to succeed, I apologize.

FTFY

Wouldn't the exact opposite be "not guessing a letter" and "not BSing something"

The logical opposite? Yes. PMT for 180

[modusponen]

Yes, I meant a quicker way of making inferences. I don't think I should be personally attacked as "deluded" for this post, or told that I am tarnishing the forum by asking the question.

[PourMeTea]

Post removed.

[neprep]

Yes, I meant a quicker way of making inferences. I don't think I should be personally attacked as "deluded" for this post, or told that I am tarnishing the forum by asking the question.

Sometimes when you say things you don't mean and they end up sounding deluded, people will call you deluded even if you are not in fact deluded. Also, you are not being personally attacked.

[rinkrat19]

Yes, I meant a quicker way of making inferences. I don't think I should be personally attacked as "deluded" for this post, or told that I am tarnishing the forum by asking the question.

Well, you've gotten your answer. Your original premise was deemed absurd. Either get over it and make use of the extremely helpful and extensive advice available here to improve your LSAT the only way possible, or take your hurt feefees elsewhere.

[Brettanomyces]

OP may be onto something.

I'm going to BS my way toward a lottery jackpot.

[aboutmydaylight]

Some people are just naturally gifted for these sorts of things. A naturally exceptional reader could easily -0 on RC with no practice. It wouldn't surprise me to see someone -0 LR if they are exceptionally intelligent. LG would be the hardest section to -0 cold because its so different than what people are used to in standardized tests. I feel like people would still struggle with the time limit even if they understood the game.

[modusponen]

Thanks for the links and positive feedback. Not hurt by being called deluded, just found it excessive as a critique. By asserting that I was taking practice tests I thought I prevented the misinterpretation of the post as meaning "how do I do well without any practice?," which is a deluded approach.

[PourMeTea]

Post removed.

[thewaves]

Actually the LSAC illuminati embed a code into each test that you can crack to unlock the "promised land." A BA in Symbology from Harvard should help prepare you.

[PourMeTea]

Post removed.

[snagglepuss]

I certainly wouldn't recommend doing this. If you insist on taking a lazy approach, you should, at the minimum, develop strategies for the 3 sections. I can see a gifted test taker doing well on RC without much practice, same on LG if you at least know how to diagram a game and intuit the major inferences, and even LR can go well for a cold taker but an understanding of how the stimuli work would likely be necessary for meaningful success there (I mean you should be able to pick out the support (premises) and point (conclusions) in the LR stimuli while being able to see faults in how the two connect.) But why don't you just study, do a couple of practice tests, and see where you score?

[wtrc]

Actually the LSAC illuminati embed a code into each test that you can crack to unlock the "promised land." A BA in Symbology from Harvard should help prepare you.

Please do not troll in the on-topics.

Mods, if you're looking for someone to be promoted, I think this TeaGirl is a good candidate.

[objection_your_honor]

OP you'll be alright.

For logical reasoning, B is almost always the correct answer. The hardest questions are #17-21, so I would start with those. Work through them slowly, but answer B for everything else.

The logic games can be done almost entirely in your head. Maybe do some crossword puzzles from now until test day as they're very similar.

Reading comprehension is really just reading, which is what you're doing right now. No big deal.

[JWP1022]

This is a bad thread

[snagglepuss]

OP you'll be alright.

For logical reasoning, B is almost always the correct answer. The hardest questions are #17-21, so I would start with those. Work through them slowly, but answer B for everything else.

The logic games can be done almost entirely in your head. Maybe do some crossword puzzles from now until test day as they're very similar.

Reading comprehension is really just reading, which is what you're doing right now. No big deal.

Sarcasm looks bad on you.

[RobertGolddust]

"The promise land, cold"---> IQ a few standard deviations to the right, i.e. "borderline genius."

[jordan15]

Although this thread is ridiculous, choosing the least committal choice for RC is credited. A week ago I tried to do a PT but I was dehydrated and couldn't process the passages at all so I ended up just going through the questions and choosing the one that looked the best, which was usually the one that was the weakest. I got a -7 which is pretty fantastic considering I really had no idea what was really going on in the passages.

But it's going to be really hard to get a 170 with a -7 on RC, I don't think there's any sort of "trick" with the other two sections, and of course, a -7 is far from guaranteed. Being aware of what correct choices generally look like is helpful for tie breakers but a terrible overall strategy.

[snagglepuss]

"The promise land, cold"---> IQ a few standard deviations to the right, i.e. "borderline genius."

(assumes that a significant correlation exists between one's IQ and LSAT score)

[RobertGolddust]

(assumes that a significant correlation exists between one's IQ and LSAT score)

Both tests measure intellectual abilities and use a bell curve. But, I do see your point, the LSAT primarily tests logical reasoning abilities, and Wechsler's for instance, takes into account a great deal of other factors. Maybe, in the spirit of LSAT prep, it is better to rephrase my conditional statement as follows: a high IQ tends to produce a high LSAT score.

[10052014]

.

[RhymesLikeDimes]

I got a 165 cold, and it still took me ~120 hours of studying to consistently be above 170 on PTs. I ended up studying close to 300 hours, and only wound up with a 173.

How do people pull 170+ cold? They are smarter than you, have exceptional critical reading skills, and have a ton of past experience with the kind of logic that shows up on the LSAT. You're not special. You are going to have to grind it out like the other 99.99% of people.

[SteelPenguin]

This is without a doubt the worst thread I've seen posted here all year.