. Forum

[roranoa]

.

[BlueDiamond]

1 hour, 32 minutes, 41 seconds

this was a ridiculously dumb question.. everyone knows that's how long it takes

/end thread

[kwais]

1 hour, 32 minutes, 41 seconds

this was a ridiculously dumb question.. everyone knows that's how long it takes

/end thread

did you count the time it takes to sniff the perfume ads? I like to do so thoroughly.

[mac35352]

1 hour, 32 minutes, 41 seconds

this was a ridiculously dumb question.. everyone knows that's how long it takes

/end thread

did you count the time it takes to sniff the perfume ads? I like to do so thoroughly.

LOL, SERIOUSLY

[benito]

I'm not sure what the fascination is with the Economist as it relates to the LSAT, its a great magazine but it has nothing to do with this test. If anything I would try to read dense and uninteresting stuff, The Economist is good stuff I would read on my own anyway. There are over 60 preptests out there with full RC sections, until you have covered every single one of those there is no reason to look for outside reading. Go straight to the source.

[Fark-o-vision]

I do it in an hour and 53 minutes flat, but I've always been an intolerably slow reader.

[Kabuo]

Just wondering, what kind of answer did you expect? Is this even a serious question? There are so many things wrong with the assumptions behind this question if it is.

[SchopenhauerFTW]

The best way to become familiar with the RC section of the LSAT is to do as many RC sections as possible. The economist is still written for the real world. RC passages are written for the LSAT.

[suspicious android]

It takes me two weeks or more, and I only missed one RC question my fist time out.

[sch6les]

.

[2011Law]

I don't even understand why people say read the Economist to improve RC. The Economist is written for the prole more or less; it's not THAT dense, it's pretty simple reading I find.

I suggest you read late 19th century or early 20th century philosophy works. Much more complicated concepts, and the peculier style of English writing makes it even denser. Try and read Being and Time by Heidegger. That will make Economist articles look like a joke. I just read a ton of Lenin, Marx, Trotsky, etc. which works for me.

Forget about books as practice, unless you're genuinely interested in the books. Read from academic journals in the social sciences and humanities, and a few from the sciences. Most of the passages from RC are summaries of articles from academic journals. I read two articles that I later found in PTs.


edit: Also, Economist isn't that bad as practice either I think. It's just not the same as the passages.

The best practice for RC passages is RC passages.

[suspicious android]

I don't even understand why people say read the Economist to improve RC. The Economist is written for the prole more or less; it's not THAT dense, it's pretty simple reading I find.

I suggest you read late 19th century or early 20th century philosophy works. Much more complicated concepts, and the peculier style of English writing makes it even denser. Try and read Being and Time by Heidegger. That will make Economist articles look like a joke. I just read a ton of Lenin, Marx, Trotsky, etc. which works for me.

lol at your elitism and unsubtle attempt to come off as erudite. LSAT reading comp isn't that hard, reading political philosophy is a pretty silly way to prepare, and the Heidegger suggestion literally made me snicker.

Reading anything outside of the LSAT as practice sounds like a waste of time to me, but if you must, WSJ, Economist, etc. are fine. The writing on the passages is not that elevated, it's just the timing and tricky questions that make it tough.

[Cupidity]

The economist is for children and imbeciles.

Read TLS for success.

[HowdyYall]

i wouldnt expect to gain much from reading the economist as far as the LSAT is concerned unless youve been doing it for more than 2 years. Why not just get ahold of old LSATs (Which cost about the same as the economist) and use their passages as practice. Im not sure if youre expecting to do all 61 practice LSATs but I was prepping for 8 months and I didnt even have time to do so soooooo I think youll be fine unless you're a fish or sophomore

[bp colin]

It is pretty funny that people who don't do every RC passage ask for supplemental RC prep. As everyone has said, the best RC practice is doing actual RC.

BUT if you do plan on doing every single passage, and you're starting early, I do think The Economist is a good way to go. The articles are written at a higher level than what most people read on a day-to-day basis, and they're about as long as RC passages. Also, they often have a clear authorial POV, much like RC. All in all, it's not a bad thing to be reading while commuting or taking a dump, but it shouldn't be viewed as primary LSAT prep.

[dakatz]

Every minute you spend reading the Economist is one less minute you could have used to actually study for the LSAT. I really don't know why people give this advice so often. The best way to improve RC is to pick up the trends, tendencies, and nuances of real RC passages. Just like any other part of the test, there are many things you can learn and ingrain in your mind. And you can't do it with anything but real passages.

[AreJay711]

Every minute you spend reading the Economist is one less minute you could have used to actually study for the LSAT. I really don't know why people give this advice so often. The best way to improve RC is to pick up the trends, tendencies, and nuances of real RC passages. Just like any other part of the test, there are many things you can learn and ingrain in your mind. And you can't do it with anything but real passages.

This. Also, it isn't that much about speed as much as it is about knowing the correct answer as soon as you read the question without having to reread and it obviously depends on the issue.

[MrKappus]

I don't even understand why people say read the Economist to improve RC. The Economist is written for the prole more or less; it's not THAT dense, it's pretty simple reading I find.

I suggest you read late 19th century or early 20th century philosophy works. Much more complicated concepts, and the peculier style of English writing makes it even denser. Try and read Being and Time by Heidegger. That will make Economist articles look like a joke. I just read a ton of Lenin, Marx, Trotsky, etc. which works for me.

lol at your elitism and unsubtle attempt to come off as erudite. LSAT reading comp isn't that hard, reading political philosophy is a pretty silly way to prepare, and the Heidegger suggestion literally made me snicker.

Reading anything outside of the LSAT as practice sounds like a waste of time to me, but if you must, WSJ, Economist, etc. are fine. The writing on the passages is not that elevated, it's just the timing and tricky questions that make it tough.

Haha glad I'm not the only one that laughed at (not with) sch6les for the Heidegger bit.

[MrPapagiorgio]

Reading the Economist will only help you if you picked a BS undergrad major that required no difficult reading. For the best prep, do actual RC passages.

Studying for the LSAT is about practicing real questions. After a while, you start to realize that the structure is the same, just in different contexts. That is why you do real questions; to get a hold of what real passages are like and how to attack them. The fact of the matter is the Economist does not have questions after the passage. So how will it help you answer comprehension questions in the style of the LSAT?

[jessedvhs]

The economist is for children and imbeciles.

Read TLS for success.

LOL. That's good.

[polevaulter]

The fact of the matter is the Economist does not have questions after the passage. So how will it help you answer comprehension questions in the style of the LSAT?

+1