Top Law Schools

So I'm curious which method is more useful when taking practice tests.

Pros of 4 section PTs:
truly tests your endurance because you have no break between any sections.
3 sections, followed by a 15 minute break, followed by 2 more section should feel like a breeze due to the rest


Pros of the 5 section PTs:
Mimics actual test environment.

If stamina is an issue for you I can see how maybe doing 5 would be better. Some people will say you have to do 5 section tests, Im not too sure about that as 4 in a row has its merits...

Gemini Hopeful wrote:So I'm curious which method is more useful when taking practice tests.

Pros of 4 section PTs:
truly tests your endurance because you have no break between any sections.
3 sections, followed by a 15 minute break, followed by 2 more section should feel like a breeze due to the rest


Pros of the 5 section PTs:
Mimics actual test environment.

Stamina aside, the break in between sections 3 and 4 is essential because that time really does fuck with your head.

Suppose the exam represented a man's life and each section represented a working portion of that life: if a man works for 3/5ths of his life and then all of a sudden stops working cold turkey, there could be some serious health repercussions (dropping dead from a heart attack, for instance). But the LSAT is not a mans life, so all the break serves is to mess with your mind.

I don't know about you, but after doing 3 straight sections I would much rather complete the last 2 right away then wait and then finish.

Four in a row no break worked fine with me. The problem with adding a fake section is that you will know which one is fake and thus aren't getting the true experience.

Desert Fox wrote:Four in a row no break worked fine with me. The problem with adding a fake section is that you will know which one is fake and thus aren't getting the true experience.

Thats what I was thinking. For me it seems like the extra stamina boost of being able to do 4 in a row would be better than just doing a section you know doesnt count and cannibalizes another full PT.

Sandro777 wrote:

Desert Fox wrote:Four in a row no break worked fine with me. The problem with adding a fake section is that you will know which one is fake and thus aren't getting the true experience.

Thats what I was thinking. For me it seems like the extra stamina boost of being able to do 4 in a row would be better than just doing a section you know doesnt count and cannibalizes another full PT.

If you guys are really worried about knowing which section is experimental, why not have a family member/friend print off the experimental and insert it into your preptest?

Is it really about knowing which section is the experimental, though?

I would put it first, because it would be optimal for endurance practice to do so.

Isn't the point of the 5 section PT to simulate that real-test environment? Sure, you may know which section is the experimental, but that shouldn't make you try any less... should it?

There seems to be a fairly even divide but the sample is too small for me to make any judgments. Please vote!

5 section is better. Yes there is a 15 minute break, but its not really enough to fully recoup. Yes you know which one is experimental, but simply make it important to you to do really well on it anyway. (If I did a 5 section test and did really well on the four that counted but bombed the experimental, I'd feel pretty bad.)

4 section is a lazy way of gaging where you're at, which is still fine to do, but can't rely on it completely.

Another option could be trying 5 sections in a row. Now, that is endurance.

LLB2JD wrote:Another option could be trying 5 sections in a row. Now, that is endurance.

TITCR

I only do 4 section PTs when I just don't have an extra 1/2 hour. I'd rather get in the PT than not get it in at all, but I think that it's much better to do 5 section PTs. I tend to not give myself much of a break, but I think I should really focus on doing it more to the letter with a break, as I need to investigate this "mind fuck" phenomenon that occurs during the break.

Ragged wrote:5 section is better. Yes there is a 15 minute break, but its not really enough to fully recoup. Yes you know which one is experimental, but simply make it important to you to do really well on it anyway. (If I did a 5 section test and did really well on the four that counted but bombed the experimental, I'd feel pretty bad.)

4 section is a lazy way of gauging where you're at, which is still fine to do, but can't rely on it completely.

+1

5 in a row no break for a real pt. then make yourself write a page on a topic of your choice
if you want to practice for timing/ pacing or endurance, do a 4 section pt in a row, no breaks
if at the end of the 4 section and you feel determined to do another, do it, then average your scores for the 2 experimental sections, round down to the nearest whole number regardless of decimal points( 17.99988 would be a 17)

Desert Fox wrote:Four in a row no break worked fine with me. The problem with adding a fake section is that you will know which one is fake and thus aren't getting the true experience.

Thats my issue with doing 5 sections. It seems stupid because you know which section doesnt count so you're more likely not to take it seriously. Even if you say that you'll take it seriously, chances are that on a subconscious level you wont be.

Ive been doing 4 in a row with no break and its been working out pretty well for me. Although, I have to find out how to not get the urge to piss after section 3. Its happened for 3 tests in a row now...

northwood wrote:5 in a row no break for a real pt. then make yourself write a page on a topic of your choice
if you want to practice for timing/ pacing or endurance, do a 4 section pt in a row, no breaks
if at the end of the 4 section and you feel determined to do another, do it, then average your scores for the 2 experimental sections, round down to the nearest whole number regardless of decimal points( 17.99988 would be a 17)

another section, you mean? where do the 2 sections come from?

another section. Randomly pick one from your pile of practice sections and do it. then average the scores for the section with its counterpart ( if you grab a LR- average it with your second lr, LG with lg, rc with rc)

northwood wrote:another section. Randomly pick one from your pile of practice sections and do it. then average the scores for the section with its counterpart ( if you grab a LR- average it with your second lr, LG with lg, rc with rc)

ah, i see what you mean now, this is actually a really good idea