s Forum

[Teflon_Don]

s

[llachans]

You could definitely achieve a significant increase by June. How much prep did you do before taking that practice test?

[Jsa725]

.

[Teflon_Don]

I've done some random questions here and there, MAYBE two full timed sections in the past.. I really had no idea on the games, surprised I even got half right. I just thought I'd do better on the other sections, but apparently I scored dead average. It was my first full timed/proctored test though, I hope I can make an upper 160s increase by June! Thanks for the support

[180asBreath]

If you're willing to put in the work required to get a 165+, then you can get a 165+.

Start by reading Dave Hall's '3 180's' thread.

[Jsa725]

.

[noleknight16]

151 is a fine diagnostic.

Get the logic games bible by Powerscore. Master logic games to almost 100% accuracy and move on from there

[danitt]

Out of curiosity, why does everyone seem to focus so much on mastering logic games when there are two logical reasoning sections? Or does mastery of the games heavily influence mastery of the LR?

[noleknight16]

Out of curiosity, why does everyone seem to focus so much on mastering logic games when there are two logical reasoning sections? Or does mastery of the games heavily influence mastery of the LR?

Most points to gain. LG are a quick point boost too as you get better pretty much once you've seen and practiced them all. It's best to master the logic games first, then move on to LR.

[Geetar Man]

Out of curiosity, why does everyone seem to focus so much on mastering logic games when there are two logical reasoning sections? Or does mastery of the games heavily influence mastery of the LR?

Well, the reason people say this is because it's (in theory) the easiest section to master. Once you've mastered the games, anything they throw at you will seem elementary and routine.

With that being said, of course a top score requires a good understanding of LR, since it is half the test.

And no, mastery of the games is not necessary for mastery of LR. They are two different beasts, though LG is a smaller beast.

[ampersand5]

I got a 150 diagnostic and after two months of studying was consistently pting in the low 170's with a peak of 176.
There is no reason why you shouldnt be able to get a 170 if you commit yourself to working hard and studying SMART.

[Teflon_Don]

v

[beebela]

How important is going over an exam after you take it? I know it's obviously important, but is it worth the time? After my diagnostic I don't even want to review that entire test. I just want to start drilling more and more problems, to gain familiarity. Would this technique be more detrimental or would it work just fine? Also, how many full exams should I put aside for later? To elaborate, I'm going to buy logic game and other sections organized by type, for LSAT 21-40, so I can drill my weaknesses. Do you think from 41-present will suffice for full exam prep?

IMO, taking the time to fully review a test is just as important as taking the test. You want to get into good habits from the first test and think about why you chose each right answer (to make sure it wasn't just luck) and, if you got it wrong, why you chose the wrong answer and more importantly why you eliminated the correct answer. I only took 10 full-length PT in my full prep so I think that will be fine as long as you use each test to its full utility (and a big part of this is the review!).

[Teflon_Don]

Given my stats above on my diagnostic, would you recommend focusing on LR, games or RC? If you could only pick two which would they be? I first thought RC & the games, since games are easiest to improve. But, I began to think it'd be better to prep the LR & RC, since LR makes up half the exam. Thoughts?

[beebela]

Given my stats above on my diagnostic, would you recommend focusing on LR, games or RC? If you could only pick two which would they be? I first thought RC & the games, since games are easiest to improve. But, I began to think it'd be better to prep the LR & RC, since LR makes up half the exam. Thoughts?

I'd say LG and LR because like you said games are the easiest to improve upon and LR is half of the test. At the same time, even though RC is probably the hardest to improve upon it is still over 25% of the test (has more questions than LG) so you can't just let it go. On your diagnostic did you make it through all of the sections or run out of time?

I'd say its definitely possible for you to get 165+ by June you'll just have to work for it.

[breadbucket]

Given my stats above on my diagnostic, would you recommend focusing on LR, games or RC? If you could only pick two which would they be? I first thought RC & the games, since games are easiest to improve. But, I began to think it'd be better to prep the LR & RC, since LR makes up half the exam. Thoughts?

You need to improve them all....

[bobbyh1919]

Given my stats above on my diagnostic, would you recommend focusing on LR, games or RC? If you could only pick two which would they be? I first thought RC & the games, since games are easiest to improve. But, I began to think it'd be better to prep the LR & RC, since LR makes up half the exam. Thoughts?

You need to improve them all....

You're not taking the test for months, focus on all 3.