Advice concerning June LSAT Forum

[ars12]

Long time lurker, first time poster.

As is the case with a lot of you on here, I will be taking the June LSAT. I took the December 2010 LSAT and scored a 152 (insert head smack here). This score was due to the fact that I simply did not prepare correctly (i.e. no full length timed tests, not understanding what the question was asking, etc.). Since the January, I have read both the PS Bibles as well as the Manhattan Books, and have been taking full length-tests the past 3 weeks. However, I have run into a problem. My goal is 168+, but my scores have consistently ranged from 160-165. I seem to score -0 in LG, -3 to -7 in RC, and anywhere from -9 to -15 in both LR sections (combined). I realize I need to do much better on LR to reach my desired score, but am unaware on how to do so. I am sure many of you have experienced this same problem (after reading many posts), so what advice do you offer for overcoming my LR fail.

Thank you in advance for your help.

[Eichörnchen]

After you take a PT, do you review? If so, how do you review and have you kept record of the LRs you are getting wrong?

[ars12]

After you take a PT, do you review? If so, how do you review and have you kept record of the LRs you are getting wrong?

After I take a PT, I normally review a few hours after the test. I have been keeping count of the questions I miss according to what type of question they were. I review the questions, and after I realize why they were wrong, I label them as DM! (dumbass mistakes). However, most of the mistakes I seem to make come from a lack of reading all of the answer choices thoroughly. And part of my problem may not be reviewing correctly. I have also been working specific question types in the Grouped by Question Type book, which seems to have helped. But obviously, I still need help.

[gaud]

I would review EVERY LR question after taking each PT and determine why each answer choice is incorrect and why the correct answer is correct. Also, like many others on here, cut out or somehow keep track of every answer you get wrong and consistently review them and focus on why/how you came up with the incorrect answer.

[Ginj]

After you take a PT, do you review? If so, how do you review and have you kept record of the LRs you are getting wrong?

After I take a PT, I normally review a few hours after the test. I have been keeping count of the questions I miss according to what type of question they were. I review the questions, and after I realize why they were wrong, I label them as DM! (dumbass mistakes). However, most of the mistakes I seem to make come from a lack of reading all of the answer choices thoroughly. And part of my problem may not be reviewing correctly. I have also been working specific question types in the Grouped by Question Type book, which seems to have helped. But obviously, I still need help.

I had this problem. I had to train myself to slow down and pay attention to key words, which really just took practice, practice, practice.

[YaSvoboden]

After you take a PT, do you review? If so, how do you review and have you kept record of the LRs you are getting wrong?

After I take a PT, I normally review a few hours after the test. I have been keeping count of the questions I miss according to what type of question they were. I review the questions, and after I realize why they were wrong, I label them as DM! (dumbass mistakes). However, most of the mistakes I seem to make come from a lack of reading all of the answer choices thoroughly. And part of my problem may not be reviewing correctly. I have also been working specific question types in the Grouped by Question Type book, which seems to have helped. But obviously, I still need help.

That is nowhere near specific enough, you need to not only realize that you made a dumb mistake, but what made you make it. Do you ignore word strength? Mistake evidence in the passage as a conclusion?

I know you said that you are not reading the whole answer choice, we have all done that, but you need to keep track of what you are ignoring that would make the correct answer correct, and also what makes your wrong choice wrong.

And practice really is necessary for this, though you may get it in two weeks.

[ars12]

That is nowhere near specific enough, you need to not only realize that you made a dumb mistake, but what made you make it. Do you ignore word strength? Mistake evidence in the passage as a conclusion?

I know you said that you are not reading the whole answer choice, we have all done that, but you need to keep track of what you are ignoring that would make the correct answer correct, and also what makes your wrong choice wrong.

And practice really is necessary for this, though you may get it in two weeks.

After my results in the past 3 weeks are indicative of, I have not reviewed correctly. I am normally able to break down the argument into background info, premises, sub conclusions, conclusions, etc. It may be the case that I am ignoring word strength, which is certainly problem. But I believe more of my problem is my method of reviewing, or lack there of.

[Eichörnchen]

If LR is your weak spot, I would say that your review should take at least as twice as long as the section took. Review is extremely important, so make sure you know why you got it wrong (picked a suff. assumption when question asked for a necessary, didn't recognize the flaw in parallel flaw, etc etc). I would also pay attention to your personal habits (ie - do you not recognize things like "some" could include all, get overwhelmed by science questions and zone out, don't read all the acs, whatever). You'll only get better with review and understanding of the test. If it helps, remember that the LR section is basically one big question of how well you can comprehend what others are saying. Did they just use faulty logic? Was their analogy weak? What kinds of things are they taking for granted that may not be true? These skills are important for being a lawyer, not just doing well on the LSAT, so look at this as an opportunity to sharpen your life skills too.

[ars12]

If LR is your weak spot, I would say that your review should take at least as twice as long as the section took. Review is extremely important, so make sure you know why you got it wrong (picked a suff. assumption when question asked for a necessary, didn't recognize the flaw in parallel flaw, etc etc). I would also pay attention to your personal habits (ie - do you not recognize things like "some" could include all, get overwhelmed by science questions and zone out, don't read all the acs, whatever). You'll only get better with review and understanding of the test. If it helps, remember that the LR section is basically one big question of how well you can comprehend what others are saying. Did they just use faulty logic? Was their analogy weak? What kinds of things are they taking for granted that may not be true? These skills are important for being a lawyer, not just doing well on the LSAT, so look at this as an opportunity to sharpen your life skills too.

That is a good idea, as far as reviewing goes. I am pretty good at personalizing the argument, so I think that will ultimately help on the LSAT, as well as later in life. I personalize the argument by imagining that the LR argument is said by a former roommate of mine, who often used faulty logic in many of the arguments him and I had. This part seems fairly easy to me, but as previously stated, the review is my extreme flaw. Once I learn to review (which will hopefully happen in the next couple weeks), I believe my errors on LR will cut down significantly. Any other tips on reviewing?

[YaSvoboden]

If LR is your weak spot, I would say that your review should take at least as twice as long as the section took. Review is extremely important, so make sure you know why you got it wrong (picked a suff. assumption when question asked for a necessary, didn't recognize the flaw in parallel flaw, etc etc). I would also pay attention to your personal habits (ie - do you not recognize things like "some" could include all, get overwhelmed by science questions and zone out, don't read all the acs, whatever). You'll only get better with review and understanding of the test. If it helps, remember that the LR section is basically one big question of how well you can comprehend what others are saying. Did they just use faulty logic? Was their analogy weak? What kinds of things are they taking for granted that may not be true? These skills are important for being a lawyer, not just doing well on the LSAT, so look at this as an opportunity to sharpen your life skills too.

It's like they wrote the LSAT with some sort of end goal in mind.

And OP, she knows what she is talking about for review. Remember though, review in and of itself isn't really anything. It is used to point out weaknesses and eliminate them. There was a really good list of steps where LR can go wrong posted on here recently. If I can find it I will put it up here.

[MarineLaw]

Even though it's anecdotal, to clarify what Eich is saying, if the stimulus says "all" then you automatically know that implies "some". However if you stimulus says "some", you can't automatically infer "all", even though that MIGHT be true, you need further evidence. Just wanted to make sure her post wasn't misinterpreted.

Good luck. I've noticed LR gets trickier in the later tests. If you're tired, your reading comprehension is going to decrease, and if your reading comp decreases, it's going to be harder to maintain the info in your brain as you attack the answer choices. So, I would say having a rested brain is necessary but not sufficient to guarantee a better LR score. (In addition to reviewing LR questions). I have little "prompts" that I use for certain question types. (i.e. Necessary Assumption-"What, if it isn't true, will destroy this argument?")

[Eichörnchen]

If LR is your weak spot, I would say that your review should take at least as twice as long as the section took. Review is extremely important, so make sure you know why you got it wrong (picked a suff. assumption when question asked for a necessary, didn't recognize the flaw in parallel flaw, etc etc). I would also pay attention to your personal habits (ie - do you not recognize things like "some" could include all, get overwhelmed by science questions and zone out, don't read all the acs, whatever). You'll only get better with review and understanding of the test. If it helps, remember that the LR section is basically one big question of how well you can comprehend what others are saying. Did they just use faulty logic? Was their analogy weak? What kinds of things are they taking for granted that may not be true? These skills are important for being a lawyer, not just doing well on the LSAT, so look at this as an opportunity to sharpen your life skills too.

That is a good idea, as far as reviewing goes. I am pretty good at personalizing the argument, so I think that will ultimately help on the LSAT, as well as later in life. I personalize the argument by imagining that the LR argument is said by a former roommate of mine, who often used faulty logic in many of the arguments him and I had. This part seems fairly easy to me, but as previously stated, the review is my extreme flaw. Once I learn to review (which will hopefully happen in the next couple weeks), I believe my errors on LR will cut down significantly. Any other tips on reviewing?

I am big on LR review (probably because I enjoy the LR section ). Here, I'll post a quick example of what I mean. I just picked this at random because I typed this for emphasis while I was reviewing PT 29 -

1. Assumption: I felt a little tense about this question. I need to drill necessary assumption questions because they are a weakness of mine. I eliminated (A) because it doesn’t matter how complex their duties are in relation to other employees, and then I eliminated (D) because the salary of the speaker has nothing to do with the argument. I eliminated (E) for a similar reason to (A). It doesn’t matter how their pay compares to other companies’ employees. I left (B) as my second contender, but it is an opposite answer. If Barnes thought that it was because of their complex duties that these two employees were being paid higher, then he wouldn’t have a problem with it and wouldn’t conclude that they needed to be paid less.

[coldshoulder]

The single biggest thing that helped me make a break through on LR (going from averaging -10 total to averaging -3 total) was slowing down. 35 minutes for 25 questions is a lot of time, and on questions you're not sure of it's always worth it to read every answer choice and check minute details to make sure each correct answer is perfect.

[99.9luft]

The single biggest thing that helped me make a break through on LR (going from averaging -10 total to averaging -3 total) was slowing down. 35 minutes for 25 questions is a lot of time, and on questions you're not sure of it's always worth it to read every answer choice and check minute details to make sure each correct answer is perfect.

Slowing down helped me become an anal-retentive prick in all 3 sections. It all started with LG, then LR, then RC.

[gator89]

OP, are you my twin? We seem to be getting similar numbers wrong for each section and I too am having trouble finding out what is wrong. I am going to take all of this advise, do some hardcore reviewing of my PTs and see if that helps.

[thecactus]

This may or may not help you, but annotating the stimulus and answer choices (i.e. circling key words, underlining terms I might forget) forced me to slow down and read carefully. It also made it harder for my mind to wander while reading. Maybe try it and see if it makes a difference.

[gaud]

This may or may not help you, but annotating the stimulus and answer choices (i.e. circling key words, underlining terms I might forget) forced me to slow down and read carefully. It also made it harder for my mind to wander while reading. Maybe try it and see if it makes a difference.

+1, this helped me tremendously on LR. Also, I bracket the conclusion so that when going through the answer choices it is easy for me to glance back at the conclusion to affirm my selection.