I have both manhattan and powerscore LR which first? Forum

[bearsniper]

Which one first? both and the same time? I haven't read any LR book, how should I attack these bad boys?

[glucose101]

I would use MLSAT, and then refer to LGB in your weakest sections to see if it'll help fill in the gaps.

[Sloth Hero]

Use MLSAT because Manhattan is the coolest place in the world.

But in all seriousness I second Glucose -- Read the Manhattan Strategy book. As you take preptests and are able to isolate your weaknesses, read the corresponding section in LRB, and then burn through a ton of those types of questions until you can point out the "Flaw in the argument" of your professor while s/he is talking.

[KevinP]

I'm going to disagree with the last 2 posters in terms of order. The Manhattan LR Guide is an extremely useful resource and its discussion of assumption family questions and general tips is the best, bar none. That said, MLR dives directly into advanced concepts at the expense of some of the seemingly basic ideas.

My recommendation would be to read the LRB first thereby obtaining a solid foundation and then reading MLR to build upon that base. Afterwards, refer to the 2 guides for question types you are weak in.

[bearsniper]

Ok I was leaning toward mlsat too after really liking the rc book's approach. Any other opinions?
Also, what does powerscores 'must be true' translate to?

[glucose101]

That said, MLR dives directly into advanced concepts at the expense of some of the seemingly basic ideas.

Like what, specifically? I felt that the way MLSAT sets up the progression of its chapters is genius. I guess I already knew the "basic ideas" you speak of.

[KevinP]

That said, MLR dives directly into advanced concepts at the expense of some of the seemingly basic ideas.

Like what, specifically? I felt that the way MLSAT sets up the progression of its chapters is genius. I guess I already knew the "basic ideas" you speak of.

I fully agree with the bolded.

For full disclosure: I read the LRB before I read the MLR guide so my opinion might be biased. A person reading the the MLR guide without prior knowledge might have a different experience.

In terms of specific things, I felt like the MLR jumped straight into evaluating the argument and laying out the premises/conclusions and their logical connections while slightly glossing over some keywords and ways to identify argument parts. LRB on the other hand went into a thorough discussion and presented relatively extensive word lists on identifying argument parts. Also, the LRB went over things like mentioning we could assume the premises in the stimulus to be true depending on the question type and to not assume things outside the LSAT "world."

I think this could be partially a result of MLR's intended audience; namely, those wishing to overcome the 170 plateau. Even so, I would argue the MLR guide is easily the best LR reference out there.

Ok I was leaning toward mlsat too after really liking the rc book's approach. Any other opinions?
Also, what does powerscores 'must be true' translate to?

I love the MRC guide, I've been missing 0-3 questions now per RC section which is something I thought I could never achieve.

Powerscore's Must Be True/Most Strongly Supported question types are referred to as Inference question types in MLR.

You should also check out MLG. Their methods for ordering games are far superior to Powerscore's. Also, I prefer MLG's methods for IN/OUT games.

[bearsniper]

Thanks, having started mlsat tonight I definitely think that mlsat is a lot stronger than searching these forums would lead a noob to believe, I guess because the lr 2nd edition is so new and powerscore is so battle tested? I've only done a little of both lr books--which is why I made this thread--but already I am preferring the mlsat approach to the powerscore, I feel like it's easy-for better or worse-to get overwhelmed with powerscore's tedious memorization at the beginning, while mlsat is more focused on getting your head in the game and is more interesting.

[gavinstevens]

powerscore's tedious memorization

Agreed. I do think that there's value in LRB for establishing the basics as many have said. That's important for those of us whose diagnostics weren't in the high 150s (and higher).

I took the June LSAT after prepping with the LRB and was disappointed with my performance (-12 combined for LR of -18 total). I picked up Manhattan and have been drilling by type all over again before returning to PT's next month.

I took my first timed LR section today since June 6 and went 23/26 (June 2004 section 3), an improvement for sure. It's difficult to compare the LR of the last couple of years to that test though.