maxed out - throw in the towel? Forum

[gambelda]

The last 6 preptests I have taken have all been 165's. For the life of me, I cannot break this barrier. Is it possible that some people just can't get to 170? This is extremely difficult for me to comprehend because I have been nothing but excellent at everything I have put my mind to. I don't know what the issue is at all. All 5 of the last tests have consisted of moderate scores and then I inevitably tank 1 section. I'm about ready to just call it a day and sit around until the December exam.

My most recent preptest was #7 and I went -5LR/-0LG/-6RC/-9LR

Logic Games is not an issue whatsoever. In fact I finished this games section in 28 minutes. Does anyone have a strategy for assumption questions in LR and MP questions in RC? Those seem to be the ones that trouble me most. Especially if a passage is about literature.

[crysmissmichelle]

Have you gone through the Logical Reasoning Bible? That really helped me see the patterns. . . .Did you consider hiring a tutor just for tweaking?

[kkklick]

LR is your big problem clearly, just do as many Q's and re-do them all a second time then you start seeing patterns

[Patriot1208]

first, the early tests aren't really indicative of the new ones. Second, keep working at it, it'll probably just click at some point if you keep working. I was stuck around 168 for like 5-6 tests and then all of a sudden broke 170. Then I went six five tests leading into the october test with pt scores above 172

[kkklick]

Logic Games is not an issue whatsoever. In fact I finished this games section in 28 minutes. Does anyone have a strategy for assumption questions in LR and MP questions in RC? Those seem to be the ones that trouble me most. Especially if a passage is about literature.

LR assumption questions are tough, remember this key is the answer choice, whatever it may be, the argument would not make sense/fall apart without assuming it. Also another tip, look for 2 words/phrases that are only mentioned once each. Usually the assumption answer will have both of those terms connected.

Main point in RC is tough, looks for an AC that encompasses as much of the argument as possible. Trap answer choices will either include the main point of the first paragragh or concluding paragraph, but this wont be the main point of the argument as a whole. Just remember while your reading, what is the author trying to tell you? Behind all of the complex language and syntax, there is a very simple point the author is trying to convey. When you focus on that it should be pretty easy to pick it up.

[ND'10]

Not to put you down or anything, but you've got to have a lot of mental toughness to stick with your studying if you want to score a 170.

Asking about "throwing it the towel" 3 MONTHS before the test date isn't very mentally tough.

Settle down, remember you have a ton of time left and are at an advantage by how early you started studying, and focus. Get the Logical Reasoning Bible if you haven't yet and treat that as your Logical Reasoning textbook. Study past logical reasoning sections in depth so you know what type of problems you are missing and why. Consider purchasing specific question type problem sets from Cambridge LSAT if you are struggling with certain ones. Start reading The Economist or scientific publications so your mind can start processing complex information more quickly for the Critical Reasoning section over the next few months.

Most of all, start thinking positively and remember you have plenty of time.

[fosterp]

Took me a long time to start getting above 170 consistently. I started about july and postponed my oct test because I wasnt scoring high enough. Only recently have I been able to consistently get -1/0 on LR. RC is still a joke though don't really know what to do about that.

[incompetentia]

Specifically about assumption questions: I started diagramming the tougher ones and going into October I felt very confident about them. The pattern will ultimately be something like this.

A -> B, and C -> D

Therefore A -> D
which means you'll need to find something linking A/B to C/D.

Once you plot it out, the question becomes almost LG-ish, and it shouldn't be as difficult to find an answer.

[2011Law]

Asking about "throwing it the towel" 3 MONTHS before the test date isn't very mentally tough.

I agree that just giving up is dumb, but I also seem to have plateaued at a 164 avg and see where OP is coming from, seeing that the test is less than 2 months away. For me, my section avgs are -4 LG (though I'm still improving a little here), -5 LR (stuck), -6 RC (stuck). I'm just going to zero in on the questions I'm getting wrong, maybe look over the LR and LG bibles again.

[2011Law]

Only recently have I been able to consistently get -1/0 on LR.

Mind if I ask what you did to get that? Only when untimed (~45 min) have I avg'd -2 per LR.

[09042014]

Not everyone is 170 material.

[2011Law]

Not everyone is 170 material.

As inspiring as it is insightful.

[2014]

Work on sections, in your case LR, before you continue with anymore full PTs. When you get to where your accuracy on LR is down to below -5 first untimed and then timed, then move back to PTs.

And Desert Fox is credited, not everyone can get to 170.

[kkklick]

Not everyone is 170 material.

As inspiring as it is insightful.

While it is not the most pleasant statement, it does have some truth to it. Not because of mental aptitude (for the most part), not even due to preperation in most cases. I feel that a large majority are unable to achieve a 170 because of their inability to preform to their capability on a difficult standardized test in the testing conditions LSAC has provided.

Just fyi, this is just an opinion.

[D. H2Oman]

Not everyone is 170 material.

As inspiring as it is insightful.

While it is not the most pleasant statement, it does have some truth to it. Not because of mental aptitude (for the most part), not even due to preperation in most cases. I feel that a large majority are unable to achieve a 170 because of their inability to preform to their capability on a difficult standardized test in the testing conditions LSAC has provided.

Just fyi, this is just an opinion.

Actually, a lot of it is that. Many people simply will not be able to score in the top 2% regardless of how much work they put in.

Not a big deal, the world needs truck drivers, receptionists, garbage men, etc.

[kkklick]

Not everyone is 170 material.

As inspiring as it is insightful.

While it is not the most pleasant statement, it does have some truth to it. Not because of mental aptitude (for the most part), not even due to preperation in most cases. I feel that a large majority are unable to achieve a 170 because of their inability to preform to their capability on a difficult standardized test in the testing conditions LSAC has provided.

Just fyi, this is just an opinion.

Actually, a lot of it is that. Many people simply will not be able to score in the top 2% regardless of how much work they put in.

Not a big deal, the world needs truck drivers, receptionists, garbage men, etc.

I'm a big believer that most people, when cultivated correctly, can be just as smart as the next guy even though they may have to put forth that extra effort. I find that for the most part people just don't care enough.

[incompetentia]

The LSAT is learnable. Some people simply pick up on it easily, though, and some don't want to put in the work.

[09042014]

I'm a big believer that most people, when cultivated correctly, can be just as smart as the next guy even though they may have to put forth that extra effort. I find that for the most part people just don't care enough.

No.

[Blumpbeef]

Not a big deal, the world needs truck drivers, receptionists, garbage men, etc.

Doctors, investment bankers, nuclear physicists...

Also, we really could do with fewer truck drivers. Trains are better.

[spaghetticat]

after taking each PT go through every single question regardless of whether you got it right or wrong. look at the credited response and understand why it is 100% stand-alone correct (by stand-alone correct i mean you do not need to know that the 4 other responses are wrong in order to know that this one is correct; it's correctness should be derivable solely from the question). then go through each incorrect answer and figure out why each one could not possibly be the right answer. the lsat is written so that every wrong answer is 100% stand-alone wrong.

a very, very small handful of questions are ambiguous/not very good questions in that a wrong answer could possibly be right but keep in mind those are in the minority (out of all the PT's issued, i have encountered maybe 5-6 questions total; in other words, the majority of PTs do not contain any ambiguous LR questions at all).

of course on the day of the actual test there's nothing wrong with using deductive reasoning or looking at the relative correctness of each answer (especially if you're pressed for time on those last few), but since you've been getting a 165 consistently in your PT's largely because of LR, i would venture a guess that it's a problem with understanding the underlying principles behind the LR questions. if you can get that worked out everything should be easy breezy.

sorry this was so long. i'm not sure if all of that made sense but hth a little.

[TCScrutinizer]

Yeah, you may have maxed out. But I'd try "de-loading" first. Take a week off and read books that you enjoy. Don't stop reading--do it a few hours a day. After a week get back in the saddle and see if you can't break the cycle.

Learning is more like bodybuilding and less like construction. There are many situations where taking some time off and letting everything settle is much more beneficial than busting ass and doing more.

[HeavenWood]

I would reckon most people can't get to 170. It doesn't take a HYS student to know that TLS is not at all representative of the LSAT-taking population as a whole.

The good news: even if you max out at 165, you can still get into a good law school.

The better news: If you are scoring -14 on LR, I highly doubt you are exercising your full potential.

Just keep at it. When are you taking the LSAT? December? February? You have plenty of time to improve, especially if you hold off applying until next cycle.

[Ragged]

I'm a big believer that most people, when cultivated correctly, can be just as smart as the next guy even though they may have to put forth that extra effort. I find that for the most part people just don't care enough.

No.

Don't have much basis to support this, but I bet diviation in our physical and mental capabilities are minute compared to the progress that can be achieved through repetition and practice. So I tend to agree with klick on this.

Not that there aren't any retards or geniuses out there, but for the most part we all have about the same potential.

[3|ink]

I'm a big believer that most people, when cultivated correctly, can be just as smart as the next guy even though they may have to put forth that extra effort. I find that for the most part people just don't care enough.

No.

The typical 'smart guy' wants to believe that only some are 170 material so he can feel special. It would almost be a credible belief if it were not so self-serving.

The winner of 'nature vs. nurture' is inconclusive (at least for now). Anyone who says differently is probably just feeding his/her own ego.
.

[09042014]

I'm a big believer that most people, when cultivated correctly, can be just as smart as the next guy even though they may have to put forth that extra effort. I find that for the most part people just don't care enough.

No.

The typical 'smart guy' wants to believe that only some are 170 material so he can feel special. It would almost be a credible belief if it were not so self-serving.

The winner of 'nature vs. nurture' is inconclusive (at least for now). Anyone who says differently is probably just feeding his/her own ego.
.

This forum is filled with people who work their asses off for a 160, and can't do better.

Whether that comes from genes, or how you were raised in infancy, I don't know or care. But the idea that if you didn't hit a 170 you didn't study enough is bullshit. Some people are just smarter.