Top Law Schools

Hi,

i am wondering how you guys are reviewing your work. especially those who are getting in the 160+ range.

I usually just go over why my mistake was wrong then see why the correct one was right. with explanations from the test company.

then i go on and do more questions.

do you guys have a method that you follow to increase the probability you will NOT repeat the same mistake?

or is this just through constant practice?

Definitely interested in this as well. I'm in the 160 range (163-166 on 4 practice tests) and I'm not sure I review my tests enough. I'd like to hear what other people do.

Don't just read test explanations. You have more thinking to do before that.

Here's what I do BEFORE LOOKING AT ANY EXPLANATION: (I'm assuming this is an LR problem)

1) Mark the question wrong on your exam, do not write down the correct answer or try to remember the correct answer (this is why I have friends grade my pts)
2) Write out the stimulus in argumentative form (deductive, symbolic, whatever)
3) For each multiple choice answer, write out whether you think it is correct or incorrect, then fully justify your decision
3*) For example, if it is an assumption problem, write out exactly why each of the multiple choice questions are either necessary or unnecessary. Don't do any of this "Oh, this feels like the answer" crap, else you are wasting your time.
4) If during this process you change your mind about the correct answer, fine.
5) Now that I have attempted to justify (fully) my responses, I look up the correct answer
6) If I get it wrong again, I repeat the process

Then finally, do a neat little write up of the problem

1) I thought the answer was X because...
2) This is wrong because Y...
3) I will not make this mistake again because Z...
4) The other tempting (incorrect) responses were P...
5) These are wrong because Q...
6) The correct answer is R...
7) This is the best answer because S...
(Now read a test explanation) Additional insight from the explanation is that ...


I don't care if this process takes me 30 minutes. Wrestling with the incorrect problems is the most important part of any prep test. Extensively working through an incorrect problem will create an 'impression' in your brain, which will help you avoid the same mistake in future problems. Quickly reading an explanation of your wrong answers will not.


This of course is my method, people are free to agree/disagree -- but I'm positive that this has helped me get from the upper 60's to the upper 70's (178 is highest to date)

If you have any questions feel free to ask.

holy shit. awesomness.

wish i asked this question earlier. thanks for taking the time to write your procedure out.


your method is hard work, but that is a good sign that it will work.

thanks again.

i have recently started doing a similar thing.

I type out the question i got wrong in to word.

then under each incorrect answer choice i type out why that answer choice is wrong and under the correct answer choice i type out why it's right - all in my own words

and then below all that i type out notes for what i did wrong and what i need to do in the future and i bold and italicize key words and phrases in the stimulus that i may have overlooked. I feel like the process of just doing this period is reinforcing proper reasoning in my head.

edit: i end up taking like an entire page on one question and it's a lot of typing but it's probably worth it.

penguinbrah wrote:i have recently started doing a similar thing.

I type out the question i got wrong in to word.

then under each incorrect answer choice i type out why that answer choice is wrong and under the correct answer choice i type out why it's right - all in my own words

and then below all that i type out notes for what i did wrong and what i need to do in the future and i bold and italicize key words and phrases in the stimulus that i may have overlooked. I feel like the process of just doing this period is reinforcing proper reasoning in my head.

edit: i end up taking like an entire page on one question and it's a lot of typing but it's probably worth it.

Only have ~60 tests, so might as well squeeze as much as you can out of each one.

That is a beast method. I think I've internalized that a bit but I also do a few other things. Instead of compiling question by question, I categorize my notes on mistakes by type - sometimes by their literal question type (e.g necessary assumption), other times by the mistake I made (e.g scope shift). I have this big page of notes, categorized fairly well, documenting things I need to know.

Also, sometimes I like to manipulate answer choices in my head (i.e I ask myself if this wrong answer choice had this part removed/changed, would it be correct?). I think this has really helped me understand some questions/answer choices at a deeper level.

That being said, I do wish I kind of followed Sloth Hero's method more rigidly. I can see how it would be very, very frustrating and very, very helpful to go through the question without knowing the answer choice.

I kind of compensate for this by, after like every 20ish PTs, categorizing each question I was unsure about/got incorrect using the Kaplan website (http://www.kaplanlogin.com/dl/LSAT/lsat ... qrater.asp). It is usually a list of around 100. Then I go drill them by type (e.g necessary assumption, strengthen/weaken). You'd be surprised how many patterns you can see in your own mistakes.

I'm fairly confident in my method (got me from 159 diag -> 173-180, hoping for 175+ on test day). Initially I just started by drilling each question by type from the first 20 PTs.

I started making a list of the question types that I got wrong in Logical Reasoning, and noticed there was no definite pattern. Not sure if this helps anyone else out, but my score improved when I started honing in on the patterns within individual sections and the ways the questions would be phrased to test certain concepts. For example, in general, there would be at least one question that covered certain flawed reasoning patterns (i.e. there is usually a question that deals with mistaking a sufficient condition for a necessary condition or vice versa, the assumption that because a characteristic was not shared by individuals in a group then the group wouldn't have that characteristic, etc.) per section. Keeping this in mind enabled me to strategically approach certain questions in relation to the section as a whole - in this case, reviewing not just the question type, but the logical reasoning being tested, helped build my confidence.

In terms of Reading Comprehension, what really helped me was double-checking the passage to confirm which answers were supported and which were not. Once I got comfortable with the knowledge that the right answer would be fully supported in the text, it allowed me to focus on understanding the text with active reading so that when I got to the questions, I was easily disposing of 2 or 3 contenders which really helped with time and confidence level. I got -3 on my last PT, which was the June 2010 test in this section, and have gotten -0 on other PTs.