December LSAT Study Diary (formerly October) Forum

[lparker]

It is. Previous high was a 162, took 5 agonizing PT's to beat that score! Feels good to finally get out of the 159-161 purgatory. A little bizarre I went from a 159 to 164 over the weekend though. Maybe the 3 days of rest were needed.

It's not a fluke! Congrats!! =) Those jumps are possible. I scored a 165 three times in a row, then I hit a 167, and then a 171--all within about three weeks. I think you're only going up from here! Look forward to seeing your progress!

[Cromartie]

Congrats on the jump!

What's your current technique for RC?

Ehh there really is no technique. No formal notation system, just read to understand with some underlining and circling. Lately it hasn't been doing too well for me, this -6 was my best RC score in weeks.

Not sure if I should try to limit notation or do more. I think just focusing on key terms and names could be helpful since I seem to miss a lot of them right now. Sometimes I underline way too much. My main problem on PT 38 though seemed to be a general lack of understanding of passage 3, and being very shaky on the confidence of a majority of my answers - can't pinpoint the reason why RC has been so awful for me besides time. Yuck.

Congrats on the improvement! I have a suggestion for RC... I think I posted something along these lines in another thread. The approach that has worked for me is to not read for detail during the first run through the passage. I just read for over-all theme and general content, both of the passage as a whole and of each paragraph. Rather than trying to note and remember the details, I create a road map in my mind that I can refer to as I tackle each question. I typically do this in about 2 minutes, maybe 2.5 minutes max.

You can almost say that I deconstruct RC to make it more like LR. That is, instead of thinking of a passage in terms of 6-8 questions based on 3-4 paragraphs, I instead think of it as 1 question based on 1 stimulus (for each of the 6-8 questions), the stimulus being the particular paragraph(s)/section(s) of the passage where the answer is located, either explicitly or through inference. I then go through the POE to find my right answer.

[Anaconda]

Interesting approach. My only problem is I'm a slow reader, and if I rush the passage, I won't understand anything.

Congrats on the jump!

What's your current technique for RC?

Ehh there really is no technique. No formal notation system, just read to understand with some underlining and circling. Lately it hasn't been doing too well for me, this -6 was my best RC score in weeks.

Not sure if I should try to limit notation or do more. I think just focusing on key terms and names could be helpful since I seem to miss a lot of them right now. Sometimes I underline way too much. My main problem on PT 38 though seemed to be a general lack of understanding of passage 3, and being very shaky on the confidence of a majority of my answers - can't pinpoint the reason why RC has been so awful for me besides time. Yuck.

Congrats on the improvement! I have a suggestion for RC... I think I posted something along these lines in another thread. The approach that has worked for me is to not read for detail during the first run through the passage. I just read for over-all theme and general content, both of the passage as a whole and of each paragraph. Rather than trying to note and remember the details, I create a road map in my mind that I can refer to as I tackle each question. I typically do this in about 2 minutes, maybe 2.5 minutes max.

You can almost say that I deconstruct RC to make it more like LR. That is, instead of thinking of a passage in terms of 6-8 questions based on 3-4 paragraphs, I instead think of it as 1 question based on 1 stimulus (for each of the 6-8 questions), the stimulus being the particular paragraph(s)/section(s) of the passage where the answer is located, either explicitly or through inference. I then go through the POE to find my right answer.

[3|ink]

Interesting approach. My only problem is I'm a slow reader, and if I rush the passage, I won't understand anything.

I think that's something you're going to have to work on then. Being a slow reader is something you can remedy. Try reading a really dense book over a weekend and see if your RC and LR improve after that.

[Cromartie]

Interesting approach. My only problem is I'm a slow reader, and if I rush the passage, I won't understand anything.

Congrats on the jump!

What's your current technique for RC?

Ehh there really is no technique. No formal notation system, just read to understand with some underlining and circling. Lately it hasn't been doing too well for me, this -6 was my best RC score in weeks.

Not sure if I should try to limit notation or do more. I think just focusing on key terms and names could be helpful since I seem to miss a lot of them right now. Sometimes I underline way too much. My main problem on PT 38 though seemed to be a general lack of understanding of passage 3, and being very shaky on the confidence of a majority of my answers - can't pinpoint the reason why RC has been so awful for me besides time. Yuck.

Congrats on the improvement! I have a suggestion for RC... I think I posted something along these lines in another thread. The approach that has worked for me is to not read for detail during the first run through the passage. I just read for over-all theme and general content, both of the passage as a whole and of each paragraph. Rather than trying to note and remember the details, I create a road map in my mind that I can refer to as I tackle each question. I typically do this in about 2 minutes, maybe 2.5 minutes max.

You can almost say that I deconstruct RC to make it more like LR. That is, instead of thinking of a passage in terms of 6-8 questions based on 3-4 paragraphs, I instead think of it as 1 question based on 1 stimulus (for each of the 6-8 questions), the stimulus being the particular paragraph(s)/section(s) of the passage where the answer is located, either explicitly or through inference. I then go through the POE to find my right answer.

Have you ever considered the possibility that the reason you don't understand the passage may be that you're trying to understand it in its entirety within the time constraints as well as the constraints imposed by your own reading skills? The thing is, except for main purpose and main point questions, which are 2 questions for each passage at the most (but usually 1 per passage), you don't really need to understand the entire passage to answer the questions. You just have to understand the questions themselves and the corresponding parts of the passage that contain the answers.

When you're consciously trying to understand the passage on your first read, you tend to get bogged down, tend to linger on certain sentences and paragraphs because you want to make sure you're understanding everything, tend to keep going back to previous sentences...well you get the point. By mapping and breaking the passage down as I described, you are able to narrow your focus and read only within the context of the answer you're looking for. To simplify, it is significantly easier to try and understand 3 or 4 sentences than 3 or 4 paragraphs, all things being equal. You can actually improve your speed, not necessarily at understanding the passage as a whole, but certainly at finding the right answers.

[gdane]

Interesting approach. My only problem is I'm a slow reader, and if I rush the passage, I won't understand anything.

I think that's something you're going to have to work on then. Being a slow reader is something you can remedy. Try reading a really dense book over a weekend and see if your RC and LR improve after that.

YES! This has helped me immensely. While I've always been a mediumish speed reader, Ive always had to go back to understand what the hell it is I read. That hasnt been the case lately. I did 4 RC passages last night before I went to sleep and I got -4. I was so happy! Granted I ended up taking an extra 2 minutes, but I was still happy. This isnt the first sign Ive been improving in RC either. For the last week or so Ive been able to read the passages with more ease, absorb more during the first reading and Ive had to go back to the passage less. I think whats helped me was that Ive been reading a book every night before bed. At least a chapter. I think this helps my brain really get into text processing mode. Also, no TV.

[Anaconda]

Interesting approach. My only problem is I'm a slow reader, and if I rush the passage, I won't understand anything.

I think that's something you're going to have to work on then. Being a slow reader is something you can remedy. Try reading a really dense book over a weekend and see if your RC and LR improve after that.

Can you recommend anything? Will it really make a difference?

[Anaconda]

Have you ever considered the possibility that the reason you don't understand the passage may be that you're trying to understand it in its entirety within the time constraints as well as the constraints imposed by your own reading skills? The thing is, except for main purpose and main point questions, which are 2 questions for each passage at the most (but usually 1 per passage), you don't really need to understand the entire passage to answer the questions. You just have to understand the questions themselves and the corresponding parts of the passage that contain the answers.

When you're consciously trying to understand the passage on your first read, you tend to get bogged down, tend to linger on certain sentences and paragraphs because you want to make sure you're understanding everything, tend to keep going back to previous sentences...well you get the point. By mapping and breaking the passage down as I described, you are able to narrow your focus and read only within the context of the answer you're looking for. To simplify, it is significantly easier to try and understand 3 or 4 sentences than 3 or 4 paragraphs, all things being equal. You can actually improve your speed, not necessarily at understanding the passage as a whole, but certainly at finding the right answers.

Yes, I do tend to linger a bit. It take me about 4 minutes to read every passage, so I obviously don't have a great deal of time to do the questions. In my last PT, it took me over 21 minutes to get through the first 2 passages (got -1 on those 2 passages, and -5 on the last 2).

[3|ink]

Yes, I do tend to linger a bit. It take me about 4 minutes to read every passage, so I obviously don't have a great deal of time to do the questions. In my last PT, it took me over 21 minutes to get through the first 2 passages (got -1 on those 2 passages, and -5 on the last 2).

4 minutes isn't that bad. If you can bring it down to 3 minutes, you'll be in great shape.

[Anaconda]

Yes, I do tend to linger a bit. It take me about 4 minutes to read every passage, so I obviously don't have a great deal of time to do the questions. In my last PT, it took me over 21 minutes to get through the first 2 passages (got -1 on those 2 passages, and -5 on the last 2).

4 minutes isn't that bad. If you can bring it down to 3 minutes, you'll be in great shape.

Will reading a dense novel really make a noticeable difference? What books do you recommend reading?

[3|ink]

Yes, I do tend to linger a bit. It take me about 4 minutes to read every passage, so I obviously don't have a great deal of time to do the questions. In my last PT, it took me over 21 minutes to get through the first 2 passages (got -1 on those 2 passages, and -5 on the last 2).

4 minutes isn't that bad. If you can bring it down to 3 minutes, you'll be in great shape.

Will reading a dense novel really make a noticeable difference? What books do you recommend reading?

Novel? Naw. You know what helped me? Reading contemporary economics/philosophy. I read Milton Freidman's Capitalism and Freedom.

[WonkyPanda]

Took PT 44 today. For some odd reason, I thought i did ABYSMAL but I ended up doing ok. My breakdown went: RC: -2, LR: -3, LG: -1, LR: -9. For the first time in a long time, I got super tied up on a few questions on the last LR and I had to rush the last 5 or so. This definitely shows in my last LR section (-9? BLARG) but luckily I was able to keep pretty solid in the other sections. It ended up being a 166 which was my last score on #43 but -16 got me a 166 on that one so I improved by one; howerver, I feel like I really should have at least hit 169 but the last LR just decimated me so it was a bit saddening to say the least. All in all, can't be too displease but I definitely have some kinks to work out in the old noggin.

[Anaconda]

Took PT 44 today. For some odd reason, I thought i did ABYSMAL but I ended up doing ok. My breakdown went: RC: -2, LR: -3, LG: -1, LR: -9. For the first time in a long time, I got super tied up on a few questions on the last LR and I had to rush the last 5 or so. This definitely shows in my last LR section (-9? BLARG) but luckily I was able to keep pretty solid in the other sections. It ended up being a 166 which was my last score on #43 but -16 got me a 166 on that one so I improved by one; howerver, I feel like I really should have at least hit 169 but the last LR just decimated me so it was a bit saddening to say the least. All in all, can't be too displease but I definitely have some kinks to work out in the old noggin.

Maybe it was fatigue at the end?

If RC is the last section for me, I think I'd be completely screwed.

My preferred order would be

LR - RC - LG - LR

[3|ink]

Took PT 44 today. For some odd reason, I thought i did ABYSMAL but I ended up doing ok. My breakdown went: RC: -2, LR: -3, LG: -1, LR: -9. For the first time in a long time, I got super tied up on a few questions on the last LR and I had to rush the last 5 or so. This definitely shows in my last LR section (-9? BLARG) but luckily I was able to keep pretty solid in the other sections. It ended up being a 166 which was my last score on #43 but -16 got me a 166 on that one so I improved by one; howerver, I feel like I really should have at least hit 169 but the last LR just decimated me so it was a bit saddening to say the least. All in all, can't be too displease but I definitely have some kinks to work out in the old noggin.

Maybe it was fatigue at the end?

If RC is the last section for me, I think I'd be completely screwed.

My preferred order would be

LR - RC - LG - LR

Are you taking experimental sections?

[Anaconda]

Took PT 44 today. For some odd reason, I thought i did ABYSMAL but I ended up doing ok. My breakdown went: RC: -2, LR: -3, LG: -1, LR: -9. For the first time in a long time, I got super tied up on a few questions on the last LR and I had to rush the last 5 or so. This definitely shows in my last LR section (-9? BLARG) but luckily I was able to keep pretty solid in the other sections. It ended up being a 166 which was my last score on #43 but -16 got me a 166 on that one so I improved by one; howerver, I feel like I really should have at least hit 169 but the last LR just decimated me so it was a bit saddening to say the least. All in all, can't be too displease but I definitely have some kinks to work out in the old noggin.

Maybe it was fatigue at the end?

If RC is the last section for me, I think I'd be completely screwed.

My preferred order would be

LR - RC - LG - LR

Are you taking experimental sections?

I think I'll be starting experimental sections tomorrow. I'm just going to redo some old RC or LR sections. I don't want to sacrifice fresh material.

[3|ink]

Took PT 44 today. For some odd reason, I thought i did ABYSMAL but I ended up doing ok. My breakdown went: RC: -2, LR: -3, LG: -1, LR: -9. For the first time in a long time, I got super tied up on a few questions on the last LR and I had to rush the last 5 or so. This definitely shows in my last LR section (-9? BLARG) but luckily I was able to keep pretty solid in the other sections. It ended up being a 166 which was my last score on #43 but -16 got me a 166 on that one so I improved by one; howerver, I feel like I really should have at least hit 169 but the last LR just decimated me so it was a bit saddening to say the least. All in all, can't be too displease but I definitely have some kinks to work out in the old noggin.

Maybe it was fatigue at the end?

If RC is the last section for me, I think I'd be completely screwed.

My preferred order would be

LR - RC - LG - LR

Are you taking experimental sections?

I think I'll be starting experimental sections tomorrow. I'm just going to redo some old RC or LR sections. I don't want to sacrifice fresh material.

Why not? Do you expect to take all 60 tests before October?

Taking the experimental really makse a difference IMO. It improves your stamina.

[Anaconda]

Well I am going to add a fifth section, it just might include several questions i've seen before. The RC experimental should be completely fresh though.

[gdane]

Practicing with an experimental section is TTT. F*ck that!

[3|ink]

Well I am going to add a fifth section, it just might include several questions i've seen before. The RC experimental should be completely fresh though.

Think of it this way. If you use sections of tests you haven't seen as experimental, you will have fewer tests in the end. However, you will have covered the same amount of material. The difference is you wouldn't have as many scaled scores to show for it. Do you really need more of those? The whole point is practice. You might as well get as close to test conditions as possible.

[AverageTutoring]

Well I am going to add a fifth section, it just might include several questions i've seen before. The RC experimental should be completely fresh though.

Think of it this way. If you use sections of tests you haven't seen as experimental, you will have fewer tests in the end. However, you will have covered the same amount of material. The difference is you wouldn't have as many scaled scores to show for it. Do you really need more of those? The whole point is practice. You might as well get as close to test conditions as possible.

+1

You can also use sections from very early PTs (i.e. PTs 1-10) as your experimental sections so that you do not waste current material. However, I will say that it can sometimes helpful to include a previously scored section as your experimental. For example, if you took the LG section from PT 25 and found it relatively difficult but subsequently reviewed it to see all the little mistakes/inferences you made/could have made, it can be useful to see how much of that information you retain when re-taking the section under timed conditions. It shows you how much you really learned from your review. This practice is particularly helpful with LG, somewhat helpful with LR and not really helpful with RC.

Good luck Anaconda!

[Anaconda]

Well I am going to add a fifth section, it just might include several questions i've seen before. The RC experimental should be completely fresh though.

Think of it this way. If you use sections of tests you haven't seen as experimental, you will have fewer tests in the end. However, you will have covered the same amount of material. The difference is you wouldn't have as many scaled scores to show for it. Do you really need more of those? The whole point is practice. You might as well get as close to test conditions as possible.

+1

You can also use sections from very early PTs (i.e. PTs 1-10) as your experimental sections so that you do not waste current material. However, I will say that it can sometimes helpful to include a previously scored section as your experimental. For example, if you took the LG section from PT 25 and found it relatively difficult but subsequently reviewed it to see all the little mistakes/inferences you made/could have made, it can be useful to see how much of that information you retain when re-taking the section under timed conditions. It shows you how much you really learned from your review. This practice is particularly helpful with LG, somewhat helpful with LR and not really helpful with RC.

Good luck Anaconda!

I was thinking about doing this. I think the main thing about doing experimental sections with PT's is endurance and measuring your level of fatigue at the end. The experimental doesn't need to necessarily be fresh material if I'm going to be putting in 100% effort for every question. It just might be hard when I have easy LR questions that I've already seen. I have plenty of RC sections I never touched though, and at this point it might be more helpful to do 2 RCs a test. I could care less about 2 LG sections, I'd actually prefer it.

[Anaconda]

Well I am going to add a fifth section, it just might include several questions i've seen before. The RC experimental should be completely fresh though.

Think of it this way. If you use sections of tests you haven't seen as experimental, you will have fewer tests in the end. However, you will have covered the same amount of material. The difference is you wouldn't have as many scaled scores to show for it. Do you really need more of those? The whole point is practice. You might as well get as close to test conditions as possible.

I'd like to save a decent 5-7 PTs if necessary for a possible retake. By using those tests as experimentals, I'd be screwing myself over if I need to retake since I would have touched nearly all the PTs.

[3|ink]

Well I am going to add a fifth section, it just might include several questions i've seen before. The RC experimental should be completely fresh though.

Think of it this way. If you use sections of tests you haven't seen as experimental, you will have fewer tests in the end. However, you will have covered the same amount of material. The difference is you wouldn't have as many scaled scores to show for it. Do you really need more of those? The whole point is practice. You might as well get as close to test conditions as possible.

I'd like to save a decent 5-7 PTs if necessary for a possible retake. By using those tests as experimentals, I'd be screwing myself over if I need to retake since I would have touched nearly all the PTs.

Damn. Have you really taken that many PTs? There are like 60. If you took every test with an experimental, that'd still leave 48+ tests (if you include Superpreps A-C and July 2007).

[Anaconda]

Well I am going to add a fifth section, it just might include several questions i've seen before. The RC experimental should be completely fresh though.

Think of it this way. If you use sections of tests you haven't seen as experimental, you will have fewer tests in the end. However, you will have covered the same amount of material. The difference is you wouldn't have as many scaled scores to show for it. Do you really need more of those? The whole point is practice. You might as well get as close to test conditions as possible.

I'd like to save a decent 5-7 PTs if necessary for a possible retake. By using those tests as experimentals, I'd be screwing myself over if I need to retake since I would have touched nearly all the PTs.

Damn. Have you really taken that many PTs? There are like 60. If you took every test with an experimental, that'd still leave 48+ tests (if you include Superpreps A-C and July 2007).

Thing is I used about 30 for LR and LG drilling. Helped out TONS for LG. LR...not so much...

If I could do it over again I would have saved 10 more PTs to take.

[WonkyPanda]

Took PT 44 today. For some odd reason, I thought i did ABYSMAL but I ended up doing ok. My breakdown went: RC: -2, LR: -3, LG: -1, LR: -9. For the first time in a long time, I got super tied up on a few questions on the last LR and I had to rush the last 5 or so. This definitely shows in my last LR section (-9? BLARG) but luckily I was able to keep pretty solid in the other sections. It ended up being a 166 which was my last score on #43 but -16 got me a 166 on that one so I improved by one; howerver, I feel like I really should have at least hit 169 but the last LR just decimated me so it was a bit saddening to say the least. All in all, can't be too displease but I definitely have some kinks to work out in the old noggin.

Maybe it was fatigue at the end?

If RC is the last section for me, I think I'd be completely screwed.

My preferred order would be

LR - RC - LG - LR

Are you taking experimental sections?

Yes, did a LR section from a PT20 test for my experimental.