Top Law Schools

I took the LSAT in September 2009 and received a 163 (-20). I am aiming for at least a 168 or higher.

I've noticed discussion of the "learnability" of certain sections, I was wondering if anybody experienced and inverse relationship to the "norm". My RC averages about -3 to -6, depending on my interest in the subject (still, my best section); LR has always presented varied difficulty, but my average being about -5/LR section (I recently purchased the LR bible, which has seemed helpful thus far - only having gone through roughly 10% of it); and LG, which varies from 45%-95% - quite obviously the most troublesome section. Does anyone else have this "problem"? LG is apparently the most "learnable," and, yet, I have the most trouble with it.

I am hesitating to take my second LSAT to ensure that everything is "maxed" out, in terms of my capability. I know I can do better than my previous LSAT because I have already experienced the LSAT in its truest sense; I similarly increased between SATs without studying.

I'd say that while the logic section isn't always the most learnable section, it does require familiarity to reach your potential. For example, many people who wind up scoring -2 to -0 on logic games start out at -10 or more due to a lack of familiarity with the proper approach and a lack of speed.

Basically you need to put in at least a decent amount of time (and practice tests) before you can perform your best on the Logic Games. I'd suggest you get at least half of the PTs, use the earliest ones as practice to get used to the proper methods/ pace, then take a lot more in close-to-actual test conditions to gain accuracy.

I also started out with a very weak LG section. The key is to drill until you are able to complete easier games well under the allotted 8:45 mins so that you have more time to spend on the harder games. Currently, I'm doing 8 games per day until I do each game 2-3 times. I'm sure after enough practice, a lot of things will become second nature.