Top Law Schools

So, I've been lurking here for a while and figured it was time to say hi. I'm starting the early prep stages for the LSAT and I was told that a cold diagnostic would give me a good idea where I stand.

I got a 164, but 14 of the 21 missed questions were from logic games. This was from test #29 if it matters.

From others' experiences, are logic game scores fairly easy to improve? Just so I get a long-term picture, what do you think a 164 cold scorer can typically achieve with a good few months of studying? Is the 173+ needed for HYS reasonably out of the picture?

I can't afford an LSAT class so I'd be using the Powerscore bibles for studying. Any other good tips for a guy just starting LSAT practice and wanting to keep costs down?

Thanks

You can easily get LG down to -0 to -2 with practice. Don't expect it to jump without putting in effort though.

Reading comprehension is the hardest to improve on IMO. LR you can expect to improve but not nearly as much as LG (again IMO).

I have no idea why this is, but I find the older LG sections to be way harder than the newer ones. This is probably because I've delt with the newer ones more often.

^Are you considering #29 to be old or new? I "found" 45 practice tests but all of them are fairly dated--nothing beyond '03. Have the logic games changed recently?

whymeohgodno wrote:You can easily get LG down to -0 to -2 with practice. Don't expect it to jump without putting in effort though.

Reading comprehension is the hardest to improve on IMO. LR you can expect to improve but not nearly as much as LG (again IMO).

Ahh, that's great news. All my errors were on LG (!) and LR, so hopefully I can whittle them down.

Have you been practicing for the LSAT for a while? If so, do you mind me asking what kind of improvements you saw in scores?

Barbie wrote:I have no idea why this is, but I find the older LG sections to be way harder than the newer ones. This is probably because I've delt with the newer ones more often.

Yes.

The older logic games contain some crazy ones that you aren't likely to see nowadays.

If you got your score with getting that many wrong on LG sections you should be happy. LG took me the longest to improve but after I did I've been nailing them from -1 to -3 a section for the last 4-5 PT's.

My reading comp on the other hand has stayed the same....

^That's impressive. Did you mainly just go through the LG bible, or did you have to devise your own strategy to get it down to ~-2?

justtotalk wrote:^Are you considering #29 to be old or new? I "found" 45 practice tests but all of them are fairly dated--nothing beyond '03. Have the logic games changed recently?

Up until the early 30s I consider to be the older ones. Late 30s, 40s, the few 50s are the ones more common to me. Even some of the LR wordings in the older ones I haven't seen anything like recently.

justtotalk wrote:^Are you considering #29 to be old or new? I "found" 45 practice tests but all of them are fairly dated--nothing beyond '03. Have the logic games changed recently?

Yes. They are putting more hybrid puzzles in and adding some tricks on absolute and relative ordering puzzles.

Barbie wrote:

justtotalk wrote:^Are you considering #29 to be old or new? I "found" 45 practice tests but all of them are fairly dated--nothing beyond '03. Have the logic games changed recently?

Up until the early 30s I consider to be the older ones. Late 30s, 40s, the few 50s are the ones more common to me. Even some of the LR wordings in the older ones I haven't seen anything like recently.

Oh, okay. Thanks for the info. After I go through the LG bible I'll probably try a newer one (I have through #45).
Where did you get the late #40s and 50s?

kaydish221 wrote: Yes. They are putting more hybrid puzzles in and adding some tricks on absolute and relative ordering puzzles.

*Gulp*. I have no idea what this even means, but it sounds like I got me some learnin to do.

justtotalk wrote:^That's impressive. Did you mainly just go through the LG bible, or did you have to devise your own strategy to get it down to ~-2?

I did use the LG bible, but I don't follow it down to the letter. I find that a lot of the stuff in the LG bible was way too specific for me, but I did take a lot of the strategies and advice from the LG Bible and used it.

The games from late 20's to late 30's are absolutely disgusting. Haven't gotten to the 40's yet, but the 30's are a lot harder than the teens and early 20's.

..

focus on the LG as the consensus is it's the easiest way to improve. u should be scoring 170+. good luck

use the LG bible but i would also use cambridge lsat for drilling purposes.

http://www.cambridgelsat.com/product/lsat/by_bundle/83

get the Logic Games by type (PrepTests 1-38) Price: $35.00. solutions are not provided and you have to print them out.

justtotalk wrote:From others' experiences, are logic game scores fairly easy to improve? Just so I get a long-term picture, what do you think a 164 cold scorer can typically achieve with a good few months of studying? Is the 173+ needed for HYS reasonably out of the picture?

To give you some anecdotal evidence, my cold diagnostic was 161. (decent on RC and LR, but I think I missed like 11 or 12 on LG ) With three months of dedicated prep now under my belt, I am starting to consistently score in the 170s, with my last 3 PTs being 174, 171, and 173, respectively. I obviously cannot generalize from this about your potential or any one else's, (that would make me a first-ballot LSAT Fallacy Hall of Fame inductee) but I would say that a ten point improvement is absolutely within reach.

PS The older logic games 1991-94ish crack me up. They range from absurd (ski chalet game anybody?) to ridiculously easy.

I scored a 159/163 diagnostic (I didn't realize how to properly do a diagnostic, i.e., timed, so 159 was a "sort of" score from doing the June 2007 PT over like 3 days lol and then a 163 after that, timed).

Before all Bibles, I scored a 165. Then after the LGB I scored a 168, I think? I don't remember where that 168 came from. After that I've been consistently in the 170's. I have yet to hit higher than a 176, though. So that's about a 17 point jump if you take my semi diagnostic, more like a 13 point jump to my HIGHEST PT, and about a 10 point jump to my average.

LG - I practiced and practiced! And then was so good! And then stopped practicing! And then sucked! And now I'm at like -4 or -5 timed because I lack time management skills. Tomorrow I am going to do eight billion games and fix that. So basically - practice, keep your skills up, and don't panic, and your LG score will be very increasable.

am060459 wrote:focus on the LG as the consensus is it's the easiest way to improve. u should be scoring 170+. good luck

use the LG bible but i would also use cambridge lsat for drilling purposes.

http://www.cambridgelsat.com/product/lsat/by_bundle/83

get the Logic Games by type (PrepTests 1-38) Price: $35.00. solutions are not provided and you have to print them out.

What exactly is "drilling?" Is it just going through the specific LG practice problems rather than the entire LG section?

Also, it looks like the Cambridge LSAT is giving you actual LG from prep tests, right? Hasn't that affected your simulations of full 4/5 section prep tests later on?

Thanks for all the info everyone! I'm glad to hear that everyone has had the most success in improving LGs. Some of you are saying that LGs need consistent practice...Should I be starting with the LR bible then? I don't plan to take the LSAT until next June probably, so I don't want to force myself to consistently practice LGs for a full year just to stay fresh.

I've started with the LR bible for now, because it's more interesting IMO. But any input is appreciated.

justtotalk wrote:Thanks for all the info everyone! I'm glad to hear that everyone has had the most success in improving LGs. Some of you are saying that LGs need consistent practice...Should I be starting with the LR bible then? I don't plan to take the LSAT until next June probably, so I don't want to force myself to consistently practice LGs for a full year just to stay fresh.

I've started with the LR bible for now, because it's more interesting IMO. But any input is appreciated.

I'd definitely leave LG for later, then. You're going to want to have fresh new games and you're not going to want to constantly keep up your skills. Do the LGB about 3 months before the test.

LRB is fine because you may end up re-reading it anyways, but it's a lot more anecdotal and kind of learning how to think in the argument structure LSAT likes. I'd still re-read it closer to the test though if you're almost a year away from taking it!

justtotalk wrote:

am060459 wrote:focus on the LG as the consensus is it's the easiest way to improve. u should be scoring 170+. good luck

use the LG bible but i would also use cambridge lsat for drilling purposes.

http://www.cambridgelsat.com/product/lsat/by_bundle/83

get the Logic Games by type (PrepTests 1-38) Price: $35.00. solutions are not provided and you have to print them out.

What exactly is "drilling?" Is it just going through the specific LG practice problems rather than the entire LG section?

Also, it looks like the Cambridge LSAT is giving you actual LG from prep tests, right? Hasn't that affected your simulations of full 4/5 section prep tests later on?

well i consider drilling as doing the relevant question/passages/games after reading the LRB/RCB/LGB. for example, if you read the chapter on must be true, then i would use the must be true questions from cambridge to drill the concept into my head. the LRB has a few questions at the end of each chapter.

well since cambridge lsat gives u only questions from PT 1- 38 you still have 20+ at your disposal for PTing.

I cannot speak for the actual exam improvement, however, from my own personal experience i have cut the amount of answers on tests in half since i started. Credit is due to the bibles, and just becoming familiar with the questions and the exam its self. The best improvements for myself were in the Logic Games, where i was getting -12 to -14 a section and now it ranges from 4-7 wrong.

eit wrote:

justtotalk wrote:Thanks for all the info everyone! I'm glad to hear that everyone has had the most success in improving LGs. Some of you are saying that LGs need consistent practice...Should I be starting with the LR bible then? I don't plan to take the LSAT until next June probably, so I don't want to force myself to consistently practice LGs for a full year just to stay fresh.

I've started with the LR bible for now, because it's more interesting IMO. But any input is appreciated.

I'd definitely leave LG for later, then. You're going to want to have fresh new games and you're not going to want to constantly keep up your skills. Do the LGB about 3 months before the test.

LRB is fine because you may end up re-reading it anyways, but it's a lot more anecdotal and kind of learning how to think in the argument structure LSAT likes. I'd still re-read it closer to the test though if you're almost a year away from taking it!

Yeah, this is pretty much what I planned on doing--reading through the LRB and maybe the LGB, but then reviewing them later when it's crunch time. I take a while to process things so I just wanted plenty of time to figure out how the LSAT works.

am060459 wrote:
well i consider drilling as doing the relevant question/passages/games after reading the LRB/RCB/LGB. for example, if you read the chapter on must be true, then i would use the must be true questions from cambridge to drill the concept into my head. the LRB has a few questions at the end of each chapter.

well since cambridge lsat gives u only questions from PT 1- 38 you still have 20+ at your disposal for PTing.

Oh, good. I'll probably do that since it'll still leave me plenty of PTs. This time around I'll do their problems and then when it's closer to my LSAT time I'll go through the LR bible again and use Cambridge. Thanks for the tip.

justtotalk wrote:

am060459 wrote:
well i consider drilling as doing the relevant question/passages/games after reading the LRB/RCB/LGB. for example, if you read the chapter on must be true, then i would use the must be true questions from cambridge to drill the concept into my head. the LRB has a few questions at the end of each chapter.

well since cambridge lsat gives u only questions from PT 1- 38 you still have 20+ at your disposal for PTing.

Oh, good. I'll probably do that since it'll still leave me plenty of PTs. This time around I'll do their problems and then when it's closer to my LSAT time I'll go through the LR bible again and use Cambridge. Thanks for the tip.

no problem. good luck.