Can a high diagnostic be improved upon Forum

[meadow201]

edit

[bernaldiaz]

Plan to take the real LSAT within the year.

1 year ago I took a PT without any previous exposure to the LSAT, but it was unofficial (from a test prep company's book) Got a 169.
Forgot about LSAT prep since then. Found some spare time recently, took an official PT (post20): 89 raw, 171. So I've taken 2 PT's.

Is that just a fluke, or is it too early to tell? I doubt I will have time to take another PT until a few weeks from now.

I hear of +15 score improvements from the diagnostic, but are those all something like 155->170?

If I already have ~170 on diag, can I increase it to 174-175?
Or is it hard to make improvements upon an already high diagnostic?

Oh, and both were untimed. I finished about 10min OT, but my time wasn't evenly spread (i.e., OT on one section, under on another. Wasn't keep track of time until the end, and I didn't revisit questions).

Sorry to burst your bubble, but you don't have a high diagnostic. The most challenging part of the LSAT is time. Give me 10 minutes more and I'm going to get a 180 almost every time. Take a real test and see where you are at. You'll probably fall closer to the mid 160 range, then you'll have that room to improve that you are looking for. I went from a 163 to a 174 with quite a bit of work. It's a challenge but doable.

[meadow201]

edit

[BlueDiamond]

not to defend anything, (and unsure whether this matters much), but when I say 10OT, i mean I finished the entire thing with 10min over--I probably went 2-3 min over on each individual section

so then take about 8-10 correct answers off of your score.. and thats probably closer to what you really got.. leaving out the ones you got wrong anyway of course

[thestalkmore]

1. Yes
2. Above posters are correct. Your "diagnostic" wasnt a diagnostic.

[meadow201]

edit

[rinkrat19]

Hmmm the prevailing wisdom seems to be "take untimed until you get a feel"

I don't follow why I must deduct 8-10 correct answers--it's not like I would've never gotten to the last questions--I probably would've moved at a faster pace, and I wouldnt have gotten up to go to a fountain to drink water or something so often.

No, the prevailing wisdom is to take one proper cold diagnostic, TIMED.

Once you have the basic concepts down, time is the single biggest limiting factor.

[thestalkmore]

Hmmm the prevailing wisdom seems to be "take untimed until you get a feel"

This is true for developing your skill-sets. This is completely unrelated to your initial diagnostic.

[shifty_eyed]

1. Yes
2. Above posters are correct. Your "diagnostic" wasnt a diagnostic.

3. This is a dumb question anyway.

[thestalkmore]

1. Yes
2. Above posters are correct. Your "diagnostic" wasnt a diagnostic.

3. This is a dumb question anyway.

*High five*

[llachans]

When people refer to a diagnostic, they're usually referring to a practice test given within the same time constraints as the real test.

That's why people are correctly saying that your practice test was not a true diagnostic score.

[Systematic1]

If I already have ~170 on diag, can I increase it to 174-175?
Or is it hard to make improvements upon an already high diagnostic?

3. This is a dumb question anyway.

TCR. Feeble attempt by OP to brag about an inflated PT score.

[meadow201]

edit

[Nom Sawyer]

I was so disconcerted (nonetheless convinced) by everyone's assertion that neither was a true diagnostic that I made the time to take another PT (again official, post20).
It was timed and a true simulation in just about every respect imaginable.

I finished every section with enough time to double check 1 or 2 questions, except the LG section, where I had to skip 3 (whereas, before, under no time constraints, I would've spent lots of time on those 3). However on each of those 3, I spent a lot of time testing 2 of the choices, so with a minute left I guessed between the 2 choices--I got 2 of the 3 right.

Ended up with 175.

That narrative aside, some legitimate questions (i.e., not posed to brag, not even partly--I derive no satisfaction from advertising my PT scores to others):

1. This most recent one being the first timed one I've taken, does it sufficiently count as a diagnostic, or will no LSAT I ever take count as a diagnostic, because of the other 2 untimed ones' giving me some previous exposure (although I've still never consulted explanations or even a book--the book I had referred to was a supplemental collection of PT's)?

2. Is it unusual for one to score ~175 on the diagnostic? Could it still be a fluke? Is it safe to believe that I'm in good shape, and that, come test day, I won’t fall precipitously?

3. Finally, now that I have (or think I have) standing to ask this: can it be improved upon (i.e., to 177+)?

Diagnostic or not it doesn't really matter... I've never seen the value in the whole emphasis on what you "first scored". Anyways what it boils down to now is:

Congrats you're scoring well on a actual, timed PT meaning you're in good shape. However two things to note are that the past PTs are often a little more lenient in the curve and also the LSAT has had some shifts in terms of LG/ RC in the more recent exams.

At this point though you just want to build your accuracy and comfort with the entire test so continue to work through more PTs and start to try some of the more modern ones.

Finally, of course 177+ is in range for you eventually, but at the 172+ level the difference between say a 173 and a 176 can come down to two questions. Thus there is always going to be fair bit of variance on your actual test... the goal is to minimize that variance as much as possible.

[rayiner]

I'd imagine most people who score in the mid 170's have high diagnostics. I had a timed diagnostic of 167, and with a couple of months of study and 9-10 practice tests ended up at 176. So you can definitely post big gains even starting up pretty high.

As for how precisely timed your diagnostic was... who cares. If you're getting that many right within roughly the allotted time you clearly have an intuitive grasp of the format that should let you get to the high 170's easily. At this point what you really need to do is eliminate mistakes (as Nom said above, minimize variance). Search my posts for my general advice on the subject, but the gist of it is to go very thoroughly over every single mistake on every practice test you take, justifying why the correct answer is clearly, unambiguously correct and why every incorrect answer is clearly, unambiguously incorrect. Once you see the patterns in how they write the test and use distractors, you'll be able reliably get the LR/RC perfect or nearly so. This is less effective for games where timing is really the only issue.

[094320]

..

[AffordablePrep]

even untimed it's still kin of high, but the answer is yes. even a 179 can be improved. if you can't improve a 170, then how does anyone get a 171?

[meadow201]

edit

[rayiner]

Although I may have a decent intuitive grasp, I noted that I had felt less than confident on a handful of questions from which I moved on in the interest of time. From incomplete confidence, (i.e., inability to explain why something is unambiguously correct or incorrect), does it follow that I could have easily misplaced my faith in an answer? Or is that the nature of the first few tests one takes, and thus I can safely believe that I have established a reliable benchmark?

As I mentioned above, if you carefully go over your wrong answers after taking a practice exam, and do this for 5-10 practice exams, eventually you will be able to build confidence in your answer choices.

[094320]

..

[meadow201]

edit