Drilling / PTing using only intuition / one's logic = gains? Forum

[M.M.]

Basically, I don't currently use a strategy for LR or RC, I just underline what seems important in RC and try to identify the logical structure / twists and turns the RC passage makes, and for LR I just read the stimulus, underline the conclusion, and try to eliminate incorrect answers and keep correct answers. I only use a few "strategies" like the negation test for necessary assumption questions, (I'll be studying how to apply the transitive soon, big thanks to GAIAtheCHEERLEADER for hooking me up with exercises on this, and hopefully getting together with my symbolic logic professor to help me work out how to use conditional logic / diagramming statements to figure out conditional logic questions) but other than that my "strategies" are very rudimentary.
Of course, I use a method for games, from the LGB.

But do you think that I will see any gains in just simply PTing and drilling, or is using the methods of say, MLSAT LR and RC strategy guides, or PS LRB and RCB necessary to see improvement on your scores through drilling a method? People say you develop an intuitive sense of what needs to be focused on for RC, and I feel the same is probably true for LR, but my going ahead and not taking a course for the December LSAT hinges on whether you guys think I can make gains by just drilling and reviewing / PTing / reviewing.

I figure it's important to mention that I probably go -6 average total on LR, and -3 to -5 on RC.

For LR, inference questions comprise 35% of my misses, assumption Qs take up 30%, and paradox, logical flaw, and parallel reasoning just about entirely fill the rest. RC misses are all over the board (and I haven't really have any way of classifying them either, until now, again thanks to GAIA, so this explains partially why I have no idea if I miss a certain type more often.)

(If you've ready my other post, you'll recognize that I basically have only removed the other part from it - my apologies but I guess it was too long since no one is replying to it).

Thanks, TLS.

[VeeD101]

Honestly, I know where you're coming from since I do not use anything but intuition to do my LR and RC. Last year I started studying just using the way my brain already thinks and practising in a somewhat erratic manner. I didn't do very well when I took the LSAT the first time in October 2011 (162) and so I started studying again this year determined to use study guides or whatever else to think correctly and I suppose in a manner of speaking learn the LSAT. However I couldn't get my brain to cooperate, maybe I didn't give it enough time or maybe I was too comfortable thinking the way I already do to want to switch, but I just couldn't do it. So I simply stuck to doing the exams the way I had been in the past but practised hard and practised everyday till I had done every released LSAT exam (some twice). I think over time you can hone your skills and work your timing in a way to get to your desired score.

I understand that this might not work for everyone since everybody's head works differently. As a disclaimer you should know that I only had 11 weeks when I decided that I wanted to do the LSAT again which may have been part of the reason I stuck to studying the way that I knew best. If I had more time I probably would have tried harder with the study guides. I PT'd at about 171-173, with LG -0, RC -3-4 and LR -5-6 and I will be ok with this score since I only gave myself 11 weeks and did the best I could in this time frame. However, I think if you're looking for a 175+, you need to either be intuitively brilliant or use at least some of the techniques those guides look to teach you.

Maybe for LR you should look for techniques in the question types that give you the most difficulty. In retrospect if I had more time and was less stubborn, using an LR guide would have probably pushed me over that elusive 175. Ahh, hindsight.

[NoodleyOne]

RE: The Manhattan Guides

It's not the "methods" you're looking at per se. If you've read anything from me before you'll know I don't ascribe to a rigid approach to anything. What works for you may not work for something else. I rarely use the "negation test" or the "therefore test". How they helped me was more of seeing the perspective they looked at the test. It made sense because it was aggressive, instead of a more passive reading that I noticed in other prep materials. You find the core and flaw in every argument. Six question types (and the six most common, at that) are going to rely entirely on analyzing the arguments and it's components, so Manhattan is perfect for that. The RC is also good for the way it treats the questions within the passage.

With Manhattan it almost felt like they were teaching you how to cheat on the damn test. After you start seeing the questions as basically templates with the same answer, it's almost too easy.

[M.M.]

Honestly, I know where you're coming from since I do not use anything but intuition to do my LR and RC. Last year I started studying just using the way my brain already thinks and practising in a somewhat erratic manner. I didn't do very well when I took the LSAT the first time in October 2011 (162) and so I started studying again this year determined to use study guides or whatever else to think correctly and I suppose in a manner of speaking learn the LSAT. However I couldn't get my brain to cooperate, maybe I didn't give it enough time or maybe I was too comfortable thinking the way I already do to want to switch, but I just couldn't do it. So I simply stuck to doing the exams the way I had been in the past but practised hard and practised everyday till I had done every released LSAT exam (some twice). I think over time you can hone your skills and work your timing in a way to get to your desired score.

I understand that this might not work for everyone since everybody's head works differently. As a disclaimer you should know that I only had 11 weeks when I decided that I wanted to do the LSAT again which may have been part of the reason I stuck to studying the way that I knew best. If I had more time I probably would have tried harder with the study guides. I PT'd at about 171-173, with LG -0, RC -3-4 and LR -5-6 and I will be ok with this score since I only gave myself 11 weeks and did the best I could in this time frame. However, I think if you're looking for a 175+, you need to either be intuitively brilliant or use at least some of the techniques those guides look to teach you.

Maybe for LR you should look for techniques in the question types that give you the most difficulty. In retrospect if I had more time and was less stubborn, using an LR guide would have probably pushed me over that elusive 175. Ahh, hindsight.

Well to be honest, I am only aiming for 170+, though obviously that doesn't mean I won't stop working even if I get it. I just don't know if I have enough time before the December LSAT to realistically try for that 175+ level. If I don't make the December LSAT, I don't make law school in the fall... which is not much of an option for me. My plan is to see how I do in December, and if I don't score 170 or close... then take a prep course over next summer and try again at the LSAT, I guess.

RE: The Manhattan Guides

It's not the "methods" you're looking at per se. If you've read anything from me before you'll know I don't ascribe to a rigid approach to anything. What works for you may not work for something else. I rarely use the "negation test" or the "therefore test". How they helped me was more of seeing the perspective they looked at the test. It made sense because it was aggressive, instead of a more passive reading that I noticed in other prep materials. You find the core and flaw in every argument. Six question types (and the six most common, at that) are going to rely entirely on analyzing the arguments and it's components, so Manhattan is perfect for that. The RC is also good for the way it treats the questions within the passage.

With Manhattan it almost felt like they were teaching you how to cheat on the damn test. After you start seeing the questions as basically templates with the same answer, it's almost too easy.

Thanks, but I'm really only taking a MLSAT course at this point if I deem it absolutely necessary for scoring higher ... I'm already close to 170, if I can push over that threshold without taking a course, that honestly seems more beneficial purely in terms of potential scoring than taking a course. I just don't know if I can't fully internalize the techniques in 6 weeks with everything else on my plate.

[VeeD101]

RE: The Manhattan Guides

It's not the "methods" you're looking at per se. If you've read anything from me before you'll know I don't ascribe to a rigid approach to anything. What works for you may not work for something else. I rarely use the "negation test" or the "therefore test". How they helped me was more of seeing the perspective they looked at the test. It made sense because it was aggressive, instead of a more passive reading that I noticed in other prep materials. You find the core and flaw in every argument. Six question types (and the six most common, at that) are going to rely entirely on analyzing the arguments and it's components, so Manhattan is perfect for that. The RC is also good for the way it treats the questions within the passage.

With Manhattan it almost felt like they were teaching you how to cheat on the damn test. After you start seeing the questions as basically templates with the same answer, it's almost too easy.

I think you've pretty much nailed what I would have liked to get from a guide. In the end it can almost become like a automated sense of reading and comprehension. The questions are all templates and more often than not they come with similar correct and incorrect choices. The guides can help you see this. But then again, so can just sheer volume of practice the damn tests.

An advantage is that the guides are probably faster if you start off using them. Another is, if you have learnt this way of approaching questions your confidence will probably be sky high. Because I reached the same conclusion about the test on my own, even though I believed it while PT'ing - somewhere during the test I began to double guess what I already knew intuitively was the right answer, and took about 3 minutes longer to finish the two LR sections that I normally do. This may have cost me the test. I'll find out on Oct 26/ Oct 29.

[VeeD101]

M.M. - If I was in your place, 2 months away from the test and already scoring very close to where I want to be, no way would I change my method of studying. Continue what you are doing and hold strong. Hell you have two months, you can probably jump up a couple more points than what you wanted. Just don't stop being regular about the studying and introduce as many actual testing conditions as possible.

If you want, you can probably use a small quantity of what the guides say to smooth over your weak areas in LR. I think you'll do just fine

Make sure you learn from my mistakes and if you're following your intuition just trust it all the way through on test day. You mind may try to screw with you and shake your confidence. Don't let it. You got this!

[M.M.]

M.M. - If I was in your place, 2 months away from the test and already scoring very close to where I want to be, no way would I change my method of studying. Continue what you are doing and hold strong. Hell you have two months, you can probably jump up a couple more points than what you wanted. Just don't stop being regular about the studying and introduce as many actual testing conditions as possible.

If you want, you can probably use a small quantity of what the guides say to smooth over your weak areas in LR. I think you'll do just fine

Make sure you learn from my mistakes and if you're following your intuition just trust it all the way through on test day. You mind may try to screw with you and shake your confidence. Don't let it. You got this!

Wow, this actually pumped me up. Thanks VeeD

[VeeD101]

You're welcome! you can pm/ email (?) me if you run into trouble.

Manhattan LSAT should give you answers and explanations to previous LSAT exam questions you may run into trouble understanding.

[TripTrip]

.

[M.M.]

couple mo' replies before I dedicate myself to studying in 2 days plllllzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[M.M.]

Up.

[M.M.]

Last up..