Top Law Schools

Hi all,

I used to get about -6 or -7 per LR section. I did the following and now get about -2 on a good day and -4 on a bad day. I made this jump through 3 main avenues:

Read the LR bible and drilled every question type until I knew EXACTLY how to apply the technique

Painstaking review of every question I'd have trouble on - i basically write out each Premise, counterpoint, exposition, subconclusion and conclusion and really MAKE sure I understand what's going on 100%. It really sucks but it made me a much better test taker

Being more confident in my answer choices and just BLASTING through the first 12-14 problems in a minute or less to give me more time for the 17-23 area of the section where I come across the questions hardest for me. I still get an average of 3 wrong, usually between numbers 18-23.

I'd really like to get -1 or -0 on each section and wanted to see if anyone who's not an LSAT "natural" (my diag was in the mid 140's and now getting mid 160's) had made a similar jump, and how.

I was thinking of getting the Cambridge 400 Hardest LR questions and just drilling the crap out of them, and trying to get through the first 10 in 7 minutes.

Thoughts? Appreciated!

Yes! The Cambridge 400 Most Difficult is great. However, I wouldn't make it about getting through them quickly, since the difficulty level you'll find in the 400 is only a small minority of the questions that make up a typical LR section. I used the 400 to improve my accuracy, not speed.

I also suggest checking out ExamKrackers LR book. I think their approach to Flaw Dependent/Flaw Independent is helpful.

Good luck!!!!!!!!!

Best way imho is take the official preptests (all of them) and retake them again and again (assuming you have the time to do so).

nelaw2010 wrote:Yes! The Cambridge 400 Most Difficult is great. However, I wouldn't make it about getting through them quickly, since the difficulty level you'll find in the 400 is only a small minority of the questions that make up a typical LR section. I used the 400 to improve my accuracy, not speed.

I also suggest checking out ExamKrackers LR book. I think their approach to Flaw Dependent/Flaw Independent is helpful.

Good luck!!!!!!!!!

awesome - i've heard that the Cambridge 400 book covers only older PT's (through 39 I believe) - and I know that there's been a little shift in the LR section in the past 6-7 years. Still worth it?

How did you use the book and did it make you more confident/quicker on the super hard LR questions towards the end of a section?

dpk711 wrote:Best way imho is take the official preptests (all of them) and retake them again and again (assuming you have the time to do so).

How do you go about analyzing questions you've gotten wrong? And do you feel like it's beneficial, and that you're able to learn from your mistakes?

Really, there are no trends with the questions I get wrong - generally they're just the super hard questions that I think most ppl find difficult, and I just don't have the time to think them through (I always finish with like 10 seconds left).

Should I maybe blast through the first 12 even more quickly?

Only trend:

PARALLEL questions OWN ME. P and Parallel flaw both. They just suck up so much time! So I leave them for last and will often get them wrong. LR bible's advice is ehh and Blueprint is weak as well.

rubydandun wrote:

nelaw2010 wrote:Yes! The Cambridge 400 Most Difficult is great. However, I wouldn't make it about getting through them quickly, since the difficulty level you'll find in the 400 is only a small minority of the questions that make up a typical LR section. I used the 400 to improve my accuracy, not speed.

I also suggest checking out ExamKrackers LR book. I think their approach to Flaw Dependent/Flaw Independent is helpful.

Good luck!!!!!!!!!

awesome - i've heard that the Cambridge 400 book covers only older PT's (through 39 I believe) - and I know that there's been a little shift in the LR section in the past 6-7 years. Still worth it?

How did you use the book and did it make you more confident/quicker on the super hard LR questions towards the end of a section?

The Cambridge 400 is definitely worth it! The LR questions have shifted, but the Cambridge 400 will give you a solid foundation. Remember, the 400 is really about accuracy, not speed. Doing the 400 will go slowly, just make sure you get them right or understand why you got them wrong.

I loved the EK book b/c it gave me a new perspective on the FLAW/ASSUMP questions (which are really the crux of almost ALL LR questions).

Did you get the Cambridge LR for each question type? I also recommend the Cambridge question type for Formal Logic. It is a huge PDF, but a solid foundation on Formal Logic will pave the way for success in other LSAT areas.

Also, check out Steve Schwartz's method for RC. If you're solid on LR: -2/-3, you can get -2/-3 no prob on RC. I think I got -4 on RC b/c I got cocky and didn't diagram the passage. I tried doing it off of memory, and it bit me in the ass.

Ok, so you're -2 on each section except LG. Now you're at -6. That means you can get -6 on LG and still get a 170 (assuming a -12 curve). Imagine if you get LG to -5. Now you're at 171. Every point above 170 is mega-elite!!!!

nelaw2010 wrote:

rubydandun wrote:

nelaw2010 wrote:Yes! The Cambridge 400 Most Difficult is great. However, I wouldn't make it about getting through them quickly, since the difficulty level you'll find in the 400 is only a small minority of the questions that make up a typical LR section. I used the 400 to improve my accuracy, not speed.

I also suggest checking out ExamKrackers LR book. I think their approach to Flaw Dependent/Flaw Independent is helpful.

Good luck!!!!!!!!!

awesome - i've heard that the Cambridge 400 book covers only older PT's (through 39 I believe) - and I know that there's been a little shift in the LR section in the past 6-7 years. Still worth it?

How did you use the book and did it make you more confident/quicker on the super hard LR questions towards the end of a section?

The Cambridge 400 is definitely worth it! The LR questions have shifted, but the Cambridge 400 will give you a solid foundation. Remember, the 400 is really about accuracy, not speed. Doing the 400 will go slowly, just make sure you get them right or understand why you got them wrong.

I loved the EK book b/c it gave me a new perspective on the FLAW/ASSUMP questions (which are really the crux of almost ALL LR questions).

Did you get the Cambridge LR for each question type? I also recommend the Cambridge question type for Formal Logic. It is a huge PDF, but a solid foundation on Formal Logic will pave the way for success in other LSAT areas.

Also, check out Steve Schwartz's method for RC. If you're solid on LR: -2/-3, you can get -2/-3 no prob on RC. I think I got -4 on RC b/c I got cocky and didn't diagram the passage. I tried doing it off of memory, and it bit me in the ass.

Ok, so you're -2 on each section except LG. Now you're at -6. That means you can get -6 on LG and still get a 170 (assuming a -12 curve). Imagine if you get LG to -5. Now you're at 171. Every point above 170 is mega-elite!!!!

Thanks for the encouragement

I agree that a solid understanding of formal logic and conditionals is essential to LSAT success. RC is such a shot in the dark...ugh.

Am I the only insecure testtaker who feels like I totally bombed LR and RC regardless of how well I do? This paranoia is definitely a factor in why I screw up - because I double check answers and this wastes time, leaving me in a rush on super hard LR questions.

I guess the Cambridge 400 hardest LR and Cambridge formal logic PDF it is...anyone have this magical PDF by any chance

I think one often overlooked key is to focus on getting the easy questions done accurately and quickly. This leaves you time in the bank to struggle with the tough ones. The last piece of the puzzle is to let go of the "impossible" question from time to time.

exam cracker is good?...

.

lovejopd wrote:exam cracker is good?...

It depends on the user. It was good for me. I liked how the categorized LR into Flaw Dependent/Independent questions. I think that helped me understand it better.