Mid-160s to Mid-170s: the hardest jump? Forum

[carboncopyx]

So it's been about three weeks since my first diag of 156 and my most recent PTs have been 168 and 166. At this rate, it seems that it would be possible for me to hit the mid-170s by the time October rolls around (given linear progress). However, I've heard that breaking the 170s is an infinitely harder process than jumping the same number of points in the lower scores. Does anyone have any insight into the mid-160s to mid-170s improvement? Does it take longer than previous 10+ point jumps did? Are there different things that should be of focus in this improvement range?

I'm trying to figure out what I should be PTing at by Sept 14 in case I need to push my test date back. Any help appreciated, thanks!

[NoodleyOne]

I'd say that jump is the most difficult, or at least the most time consuming. Simply put, you just have less room for error. The difference between a 16x scorer and a 17x scorer, in my opinion, is simply knowing the LSAT. It's the internalization of concepts, the quick identifying of flaws and NA/SA and other things, and the automatic identification of conclusions and the like. It's thinking the LSAT.

Sorry I don't have more tangible advice at the moment. The thread about 170+ scorers is really enlightening on this subject, though.

[06102016]

..

[carboncopyx]

I'd say that jump is the most difficult, or at least the most time consuming. Simply put, you just have less room for error. The difference between a 16x scorer and a 17x scorer, in my opinion, is simply knowing the LSAT. It's the internalization of concepts, the quick identifying of flaws and NA/SA and other things, and the automatic identification of conclusions and the like. It's thinking the LSAT.

Sorry I don't have more tangible advice at the moment. The thread about 170+ scorers is really enlightening on this subject, though.

Would you say that's pretty much achieved through taking a lot of PTs and drilling the various question types/stimuli until they are immediately recognizable?

[NoodleyOne]

Manhattan LR helped me a ton (haven't gone more than -3 on an LR section in forever, and even that was a high outlier). Other than that, drilling absolutely helps. When you see 50 NA questions in a row, you start seeing the patterns. Make sure you're studying smart though. Too many people hear about drilling and PTing and try to brute force improvement. PTs and drilling are CRUCIAL to success, but the time in between needs to be spent wisely.

[wtrc]

What are you missing points on? Is it something like 3 or 4 in each section; or most in a single section?

[carboncopyx]

What are you missing points on? Is it something like 3 or 4 in each section; or most in a single section?

My LG is consistently -0/-1, RC is about -2, and LR is where I'm getting -4 to -6 on each section.

[carboncopyx]

Manhattan LR helped me a ton (haven't gone more than -3 on an LR section in forever, and even that was a high outlier). Other than that, drilling absolutely helps. When you see 50 NA questions in a row, you start seeing the patterns. Make sure you're studying smart though. Too many people hear about drilling and PTing and try to brute force improvement. PTs and drilling are CRUCIAL to success, but the time in between needs to be spent wisely.

Great, I'll check out Manhattan LR since LR has become by far my weakest section. Is Manhattan's method/categorization substantially different from the LRB?

[NoodleyOne]

It's different, but not so different that you can't figure it out. They lump both SA and NA together, but it works just fine. Also Parallel Reasoning is Matching, stuff like that. Nothing too different.

[carboncopyx]

It's different, but not so different that you can't figure it out. They lump both SA and NA together, but it works just fine. Also Parallel Reasoning is Matching, stuff like that. Nothing too different.

What about Manhattan helped you significantly improve over LRB, then? I just ordered the book but am curious as to why you advocate Manhattan LR so much (in other threads as well, I've seen).

[Darienk]

What are you missing points on? Is it something like 3 or 4 in each section; or most in a single section?

My LG is consistently -0/-1, RC is about -2, and LR is where I'm getting -4 to -6 on each section.

I'm in the same boat. My LG and RC scores are pretty consistent. Will try drilling and finishing Manhattans LR book to get it down.

[wtrc]

Check if there are patterns of what you are missing on the LR (necessary assumption questions; weaken question; etc.)... it could be a simple fix of drilling a certain type of LR. If you're doing that well on the RC then you probably have the skills to bring LR to about the same level.

(Note: I'm no expert, I'm still stuck in the high 160's/low 170's)

[NoodleyOne]

It's different, but not so different that you can't figure it out. They lump both SA and NA together, but it works just fine. Also Parallel Reasoning is Matching, stuff like that. Nothing too different.

What about Manhattan helped you significantly improve over LRB, then? I just ordered the book but am curious as to why you advocate Manhattan LR so much (in other threads as well, I've seen).

I really like their approach more. You look at the core of the argument and look for the gaps, which automatically helps NA, SA, Strengthen, Weaken, and Flaw. I'm of the opinion that if you study those chapters closely, you're going to absolutely rock those sections (paired with drilling, of course).

They also helped me in parallel reasoning (although we'll see if that sticks). I tend to get pretty daunted by those for some reason, but after I read over the section and drilled PR and PF, I went -0 on those question types my last PT. I still prefer LRB for Formal Logic, but MLR still isn't bad for it.

[BlaqBella]

Weathercoins and NoodleyOne, did you individually drill question types using Cambridge bundle packages? If not, how did you drill?

[NoodleyOne]

I use Cambridge personally. I guess you could get the PTs from the topic that's stickied and just cut them up, too. Drilling by type though definitely is worth it though.

[BlaqBella]

I use Cambridge personally. I guess you could get the PTs from the topic that's stickied and just cut them up, too. Drilling by type though definitely is worth it though.

Thanks! My only concern is that Cambridge only goes up to PT38 for their bundles.

[NoodleyOne]

That's a good thing. 39 on is there for full PTs.

[BlaqBella]

That's a good thing. 39 on is there for full PTs.

**thumbs up** Great point. Thanks Noodley!!!