Will changing my technique hurt me? Forum

[ryanfaro]

.

[03152016]

.

[03152016]

.

[ryanfaro]

Some additional food for thought -- I did the exact same thing as you: 168 quasi-diagnostic, started with Barron's, then used LRB/LGB/MLSAT RC. The combo (minus Barron's) worked out well for me; by the end of my prep I was mostly 178+ on PTs, with several 180s (now waiting on June scores).

If you keep hitting perfect sections in LR/RC, pour just about 100% of your time for the next few weeks into LG. It's the most learnable section, and most people who become proficient at it can hit perfect LG sections most of the time. LGB + Cambridge LSAT LG by Type is a powerful combination; read the LGB chapter, then drill using the relevant chapter in Cambridge.

Thank you for all your input, considering I am twelve months out from the LSAT, when should I really begin to drill heavily?

[03152016]

.

[Scotusnerd]

Sounds like you're doing good. I had a hell of a time when I started out using a McGraw hill method. It completely messed me up. You're far enough away from the LSAT that you can comfortably switch methods. For logic games, your method makes sense.

I would suggest holding off on the other two supplements until you have taken more (timed) tests. You don't know enough about your score on those to see if you need help or not. One test clearly isn't enough. After four preptests, if you are starting to have problems, you should consider it. Until then it sounds like that method is fine.