Top Law Schools

I'm aiming for a score in the 170 ranges.

So far I'm averaging around 1-4 wrong on each LR section which I'm pretty satisfied with.

RC seems extremely difficult to improve upon and I'm averaging 4-5 wrong. I've come to the conclusion that the only thing I can do is practice more and more RC.

LG is where I'm having trouble finding a way to improve. I've done a lot of LG problems but I still average anywhere from 2-6 wrong a section.

Timing wise on LG I'm barely finishing on time or missing 2-3 questions. What should I do to improve?

whymeohgodno wrote:I'm aiming for a score in the 170 ranges.

So far I'm averaging around 1-4 wrong on each LR section which I'm pretty satisfied with.

RC seems extremely difficult to improve upon and I'm averaging 4-5 wrong. I've come to the conclusion that the only thing I can do is practice more and more RC.

LG is where I'm having trouble finding a way to improve. I've done a lot of LG problems but I still average anywhere from 2-6 wrong a section.

Timing wise on LG I'm barely finishing on time or missing 2-3 questions. What should I do to improve?

Have you read the LG bible? I was averaging -1 to -2 and finishing with 2 minutes to spare. Now, after reading the bible, I usually finish 5 minutes early. The harest part now is avoiding careless errors due to overconfidence.

3|ink wrote:

whymeohgodno wrote:I'm aiming for a score in the 170 ranges.

So far I'm averaging around 1-4 wrong on each LR section which I'm pretty satisfied with.

RC seems extremely difficult to improve upon and I'm averaging 4-5 wrong. I've come to the conclusion that the only thing I can do is practice more and more RC.

LG is where I'm having trouble finding a way to improve. I've done a lot of LG problems but I still average anywhere from 2-6 wrong a section.

Timing wise on LG I'm barely finishing on time or missing 2-3 questions. What should I do to improve?

Have you read the LG bible? I was averaging -1 to -2 and finishing with 2 minutes to spare. Now, after reading the bible, I usually finish 5 minutes early. The harest part now is avoiding careless errors due to overconfidence.

I've read parts of it. I've incorporated most of the general ideas from the LG bible but it seems a lot of the advice it gives is way too specific and technical for me.

Edit: Also you just seem way better at LG compared to me. I started out missing up to 10 questions when I first started LG lol.

whymeohgodno wrote:

3|ink wrote:

whymeohgodno wrote:I'm aiming for a score in the 170 ranges.

So far I'm averaging around 1-4 wrong on each LR section which I'm pretty satisfied with.

RC seems extremely difficult to improve upon and I'm averaging 4-5 wrong. I've come to the conclusion that the only thing I can do is practice more and more RC.

LG is where I'm having trouble finding a way to improve. I've done a lot of LG problems but I still average anywhere from 2-6 wrong a section.

Timing wise on LG I'm barely finishing on time or missing 2-3 questions. What should I do to improve?

Have you read the LG bible? I was averaging -1 to -2 and finishing with 2 minutes to spare. Now, after reading the bible, I usually finish 5 minutes early. The harest part now is avoiding careless errors due to overconfidence.

I've read parts of it. I've incorporated most of the general ideas from the LG bible but it seems a lot of the advice it gives is way too specific and technical for me.

Edit: Also you just seem way better at LG compared to me. I started out missing up to 10 questions when I first started LG lol.

When I said 'before the LG bible', I didn't mean before I studied. I had taken an entire Testmasters course and I was still missing 1 or 2 on games. The truth is, everything I learned in TM was in the bible. However, the Powerscore book had more detail. With a course, you can only teach so much (as much as the slowest student can handle). Witha book, they can cram as much material as they want in there.

Read the book cover to cover until you get it. Take notes if you want to. I actually drew a chart outlinging grouping games.

3|ink wrote:

whymeohgodno wrote:

3|ink wrote:

whymeohgodno wrote:I'm aiming for a score in the 170 ranges.

So far I'm averaging around 1-4 wrong on each LR section which I'm pretty satisfied with.

RC seems extremely difficult to improve upon and I'm averaging 4-5 wrong. I've come to the conclusion that the only thing I can do is practice more and more RC.

LG is where I'm having trouble finding a way to improve. I've done a lot of LG problems but I still average anywhere from 2-6 wrong a section.

Timing wise on LG I'm barely finishing on time or missing 2-3 questions. What should I do to improve?

Have you read the LG bible? I was averaging -1 to -2 and finishing with 2 minutes to spare. Now, after reading the bible, I usually finish 5 minutes early. The harest part now is avoiding careless errors due to overconfidence.

I've read parts of it. I've incorporated most of the general ideas from the LG bible but it seems a lot of the advice it gives is way too specific and technical for me.

Edit: Also you just seem way better at LG compared to me. I started out missing up to 10 questions when I first started LG lol.

When I said 'before the LG bible', I didn't mean before I studied. I had taken an entire Testmasters course and I was still missing 1 or 2 on games. The truth is, everything I learned in TM was in the bible. However, the Powerscore book had more detail. With a course, you can only teach so much (as much as the slowest student can handle). Witha book, they can cram as much material as they want in there.

Read the book cover to cover until you get it. Take notes if you want to. I actually drew a chart outlinging grouping games.

A chart? O.o how would that factor in?

Just keep doing the games over and over and over. I did all of the game sections at least three times (from tests 7-56 or whatever) and missed only one on the actual (I changed a correct answer to an incorrect one when checking over my work--I still have nightmares about it). Do the them all ten times over again if need be. The four games on the actual are almost sure to be very much like a subset of the games from PTs 7-56.

sumus romani wrote:Just keep doing the games over and over and over. I did all of the game sections at least three times (from tests 7-56 or whatever) and missed only one on the actual (I changed a correct answer to an incorrect one when checking over my work--I still have nightmares about it). Do the them all ten times over again if need be. The four games on the actual are almost sure to be very much like a subset of the games from PTs 7-56.

Would this really help?

After I do one logic game and review it, would doing it again help since I know exactly what mistakes I made before and how to do the questions?

Defined Undefined
V V V
Moving Straightforward

I'm too lazy to draw the rest. The idea was that I'd be able to identify exactly what kind of game I was working with as soon as I read the rules.

Edit: Damn. Spaces didn't work out.

How important is it to be able to recognize the different types of games?

I can recognize sequencing, selection, but I don't really understand the difference between matching/distribution.

Does this even matter? Would knowing this help me improve significantly on games?

whymeohgodno wrote:How important is it to be able to recognize the different types of games?

I can recognize sequencing, selection, but I don't really understand the difference between matching/distribution.

Does this even matter? Would knowing this help me improve significantly on games?

When you get good, you won't really have to worry too much about what game type it is, it will be 100% intrinsic - you won't even think about it. It's not like LR.

Anaconda wrote: When you get good, you won't really have to worry too much about what game type it is, it will be 100% intrinsic - you won't even think about it. It's not like LR.

+1

i believe that once you become well acquainted enough with the test and its patterns through repetition and review, intuition will take over almost entirely.

I know a lot of people won't agree with me, but I found that doing non-LSAT logic problems worked really well. I consistently test with zero missed LG problems (although I did miss one on the actual LSAT, ugh). I go to puzzle.com and just work out some of their logic problems. It's similar enough that it really helps me hone in those skills, but different enough that I don't feel like I'm studying for the LSAT.