Top Law Schools

PT50, 51, 54 & 55 I went 175, 176, 177, 179.
PT56 & PT57 = 170, 169 (aah! Dinos WASNT EVEN THAT HARD. But I went -6 on LG because of two stupid mistakes earlier on (EXCEPT!!!) and because I went at way too relaxed a pace for Dinos, leaving me with like 6 minutes for the final game, which I completely screwed up by restricting the placements too much (still not sure why I did this).

Upon revision of these two most recent PTs I have missed FOUR and FIVE questions respectively simply due to a failure to read the question stem correctly. I'm getting a bit stressed also because after a 6 test streak of going -0 on LG (and considering that I've missed a total of 3 in my last 10 PTs), I just got OWNED by PT57's LGs.

I'd like some advice on how to avoid making such stupid errors.

I would like some advice too. I seem to make at least 1 stupid mistake on every test. I would like to think that the real test will induce a higher level of concentration that will preclude such mistakes. But I can't be certain of that.

Im in a similar boat. I always either misread a question or misread and AC. With Arguments I THANKFULLY usually have time to go back and review my answers, but not so with RC or games.

I started circling words like "except" and "least" when I came across them, and that helped to cut down on the mental mistakes I was making.

cowgirl_bebop wrote:Im in a similar boat. I always either misread a question or misread and AC. With Arguments I THANKFULLY usually have time to go back and review my answers, but not so with RC or games.

I started circling words like "except" and "least" when I came across them, and that helped to cut down on the mental mistakes I was making.

Since I've started circling those words, it has helps me avoid those mistakes. I used to often fall prey to this.

I've suddenly started making lots of dumb mistakes on LG and RC also.

-7 LG and -6 RC on PT 59 and a final score of 169. Back when I was doing the 40's, I considered that awful.

i think from LGs in the 40s, a lot of us, myself included, got used to doing the basic diagram and heading straight to the games without trying to make any heavy inferences. why? well the 40s and early 50s LGs didn't have any. late 50s games, imo, are starting to resemble earlier games in that they do contain such inferences. This, for instance, screwed me over on interns on PT60, which in retrospect was actually a relatively easy game, provided one key inference was made. I think then, that it's probably in our best interest to get back into the groove of making a less-than-finite base table and toggling with the game a little bit more before heading into the questions.

Blindc1rca wrote:i think from LGs in the 40s, a lot of us, myself included, got used to doing the basic diagram and heading straight to the games without trying to make any heavy inferences. why? well the 40s and early 50s LGs didn't have any. late 50s games, imo, are starting to resemble earlier games in that they do contain such inferences. This, for instance, screwed me over on interns on PT60, which in retrospect was actually a relatively easy game, provided one key inference was made. I think then, that it's probably in our best interest to get back into the groove of making a less-than-finite base table and toggling with the game a little bit more before heading into the questions.

Hey, when is your test date?

For LG, if you make solid diagrams and inferences, you shouldn't be making many careless mistakes. 1 at most.

For RC and LR, if I ever get the sense that I didn't entirely think through a question, or think that there is the slightest chance that I need to go over a question, I'll circle it and go back at the end of the section. This takes practice though, because you have to learn how to sense when you've half-assed a question. I usually circle 5-6 q's a section, even one's that I'm 99% sure I get right. Once you've done the bibles, any mistakes you make should be careless, but this is probably the most important and hardest part of the LSAT, sustaining focus and avoiiding carless mistkas.

DukeCornell wrote:

Blindc1rca wrote:i think from LGs in the 40s, a lot of us, myself included, got used to doing the basic diagram and heading straight to the games without trying to make any heavy inferences. why? well the 40s and early 50s LGs didn't have any. late 50s games, imo, are starting to resemble earlier games in that they do contain such inferences. This, for instance, screwed me over on interns on PT60, which in retrospect was actually a relatively easy game, provided one key inference was made. I think then, that it's probably in our best interest to get back into the groove of making a less-than-finite base table and toggling with the game a little bit more before heading into the questions.

Hey, when is your test date?

This saturday son! Aside from my recent fck ups on 57 and 60 LGs I feel pretty ready. I'm averaging -2.5RC, and -2.5 total LR. provided that i get back into my groove on LG (which I feel confident that I will). I'm gonna shoot for a 175. Fingers crossed.

Caffeine pills.