Took a practice test cold and scored a 175. Now what? Forum

[PeanutsNJam]

Guys, guys... this is the internet.

I can claim I am an astronaut. You can believe me and ask me what it's like to be an astronaut or doubt me and try to explain how I don't type like an astronaut. Either way, this is the internet. Nothing we say on here anonymously matters. Me? I don't believe this guy who has never seen the LSAT before sat down, took it, and got a 170+. I also don't believe a 13 year old kid (who is not autistic or anything) could get a 173 cold.

That's just my opinion. You can talk to him like he actually did it, in which case, just do ~10 practice tests and he should be hitting 180 soon because he is practically LSAC incarnate in human form (175-180 is going from like -7 to -2). He needs maybe 2-3 weeks of prep to hit 180 on the real LSAT, because he had never seen this shit before, sat down for a 3 hour session and smashed through it like he is above this shit.

I can say I got a 37 on the MCAT cold without studying and am also a non-premed English major...

If this kid has the innate abilities to score a 175 on his first try cold, then he should have the common sense to know how to prep for the LSAT and wouldn't ask a stupid question like this.

Another reason I'm skeptical is because the LSAT is not 100% logical abilities. I would say up to 40% of it is understanding the test, the test writers, and about identifying the difference between the "definitely true" answer choice and the "could be true" answer choice (applies to LR and CR only). Logically speaking, the "could be true" answer choices should be correct because they are sufficient [to weaken the argument/be support by the above statements/etc.].

[crumpetsandtea]

I haven't read the other posts, but I would recommend a few things:

- Set your PT sections at 30 instead of 35 minutes
- Be as stringent as possible about mimicking test day settings
- DO MOAR PTS!!!
- Still do drills on the sections you have issues with (Your LG section should be a consistent -0, btw). It wouldn't hurt to get the PS Bibles and work through them just to make sure you have the concepts down.
- Don't put too much pressure on yourself on test day. Allow yourself to get comfortable, although not overly cocky. Test day anxiety is what makes people scoring in the low-to-mid-170s drop below their normal average score.

[PDaddy]

So, since I read all the powerscore books, told a timed LSAT test for the first time and got a 170, did I take the lsat "cold"?

I would say that anyone who has exposure to any aspect(s) of the test prior to taking a full, timed test IS NOT taking a "cold" LSAT. A cold test means, straight-out never having been exposed to the LSAT format or questions, or any related educational resources. It means never having even done an LSAT section (especially not timed) or even questions known by the test-taker to be related to the LSAT/GMAT/GRE/MCAT. It means never having looked at an LSAT or similar test (see aforementioned exams).

[PDaddy]

Guys, guys... this is the internet.

I can claim I am an astronaut. You can believe me and ask me what it's like to be an astronaut or doubt me and try to explain how I don't type like an astronaut. Either way, this is the internet. Nothing we say on here anonymously matters. Me? I don't believe this guy who has never seen the LSAT before sat down, took it, and got a 170+. I also don't believe a 13 year old kid (who is not autistic or anything) could get a 173 cold.

That's just my opinion. You can talk to him like he actually did it, in which case, just do ~10 practice tests and he should be hitting 180 soon because he is practically LSAC incarnate in human form (175-180 is going from like -7 to -2). He needs maybe 2-3 weeks of prep to hit 180 on the real LSAT, because he had never seen this shit before, sat down for a 3 hour session and smashed through it like he is above this shit.

I can say I got a 37 on the MCAT cold without studying and am also a non-premed English major...

If this kid has the innate abilities to score a 175 on his first try cold, then he should have the common sense to know how to prep for the LSAT and wouldn't ask a stupid question like this.

Another reason I'm skeptical is because the LSAT is not 100% logical abilities. I would say up to 40% of it is understanding the test, the test writers, and about identifying the difference between the "definitely true" answer choice and the "could be true" answer choice (applies to LR and CR only). Logically speaking, the "could be true" answer choices should be correct because they are sufficient [to weaken the argument/be support by the above statements/etc.].

TITCR. Although I know people with freakish abilities and thus would not be too quick to dismiss stellar performances with little or no prep, OP sounds like a flame. Cold? No exposure? Yeah...Good Will Hunting wouldn't have time to talk to us mere "immortal mortals". If what he says is true, he's an immortal immortal.

Still, I stand by what I said earlier. I know someone who can do LG in her head...yet she kinda sucks at LR. I do believe that some people just have freakish problem-solving abilities. That wouldn't explain someone knowing the difference between "could be true" and "must be true", and how to solve for the correct answers, or knowing what types of test-taking skill traps the LSAC throws at you.

A 165 cold diagnostic I can totally believe. A 175 cold diagnostic? That's the top .0005% of the population, and even that is not completely cold...more like "lukewarm".

Could OP be that guy/gal? Sure. Is it likely? No!

[aroquentin]

--Innate ability: This would be things like working memory or IQ. The former in particular seems to be relevant if we're talking about the difficulty holding all the LG information in your head at once. Either way, the point is that not everyone is the same. If you lock 1000 babies in a room from birth, they won't all score the same on the LSAT. It is to some degree (far from 100%) correlated with various heretic factors.

Heritable? Good thing you aren't taking a GRE cold.

[snailio]

--Innate ability: This would be things like working memory or IQ. The former in particular seems to be relevant if we're talking about the difficulty holding all the LG information in your head at once. Either way, the point is that not everyone is the same. If you lock 1000 babies in a room from birth, they won't all score the same on the LSAT. It is to some degree (far from 100%) correlated with various heretic factors.

Heritable? Good thing you aren't taking a GRE cold.

5 out of 4 people haz trouble with fractions.

[lra234]

I took my first cold, timed LSAT and got a 176 - I didn't get another score that high until my last week of LSAT prep. Like everyone else is saying, make sure you get it consistently. For all you know, the questions you did miss were all the same type, and there will be three times as many of those questions on the LSAT you end up taking.

Just study the same way you would if you got a 165 on your first practice - it certainly can't hurt you, right?

[lra234]

Oh, though I did do a lot of logic puzzles over the years...so maybe that doesn't count as "cold"? Either way, just keep studying. Also, if the one you got a 175 on is the first one in the first prep test book - it's by far the easiest PT I ever took, explaining why I got 176 on that and then didn't get it again for a long time.

[AlanShore]

Sure, one can do the questions in their head. But cold, without any diagramming, and in 35 minutes? No way. It would require going over too many variables in your head that the time restraint would be too much to overcome.

.

Eh I know a few people people who can do logic games in their head (I can't) and a few more people than that who also got 170+ cold. They're all good at math. If you're making the right logical deductions, there aren't actually very many variables to keep track of.

With practice, sure. Even in your head I can see it.


Do people really go -0 on LG, never having heard of what a logic game is, not knowing it exists on the section, finishing some 35 minute RC section then being thrown these LG scenarios they haven't seen in their entire life? Not knowing there are 4 different games beforehand?

The hardest part I don't believe is picking up the learning curve in 35 minutes and than acing the material.

I feel most of these people didn't take a truly 'cold' test but a mostly cold test.


Maybe I'm wrong, I just don't see it.

Each of these actions independently is whatever, but as a whole I become skeptical.


Edit: I can buy it if you practiced something similar as a kid or just out of passion that just so happened to be related to LG, I can buy it. But being "good at math" doesn't fit such a pre-requisite.

My ex got a 173 cold. I witnessed it. He had never seen an LSAT, never completed a question. I was beginning to study so he took it cold. He was an engineering and math major. He got 0 wrong on LG and I honestly dont think in the 20-30 PT he completed afterwards, he got 1 wrong more than 2 or 3 times maximum.

He also got a 760 on the gmat cold.. I realize the gmat is a much easier test but my point is some people really do have the cognitive ability to score that high cold. I was/am VERY jealous as I am definitely much more learned. oh well!

[sinfiery]

Oh, though I did do a lot of logic puzzles over the years...so maybe that doesn't count as "cold"? Either way, just keep studying. Also, if the one you got a 175 on is the first one in the first prep test book - it's by far the easiest PT I ever took, explaining why I got 176 on that and then didn't get it again for a long time.

Still considered cold, but it makes me believe it because being exposed to such a thing would obviously, along with some level of apptitude, make you initially very good at tackling the games section.

My ex got a 173 cold. I witnessed it. He had never seen an LSAT, never completed a question. I was beginning to study so he took it cold. He was an engineering and math major. He got 0 wrong on LG and I honestly dont think in the 20-30 PT he completed afterwards, he got 1 wrong more than 2 or 3 times maximum.

He also got a 760 on the gmat cold.. I realize the gmat is a much easier test but my point is some people really do have the cognitive ability to score that high cold. I was/am VERY jealous as I am definitely much more learned. oh well!

Meh, I never thought of math to help in taking a LG section cold.

Every single LG after the initial one doesn't faze me 1 bit. It's not a hard section, but having never seen anything like that elsewhere in my life, I'm curious what experience they had that helped them on that initial diagnostic.

Maybe math/engineering major alone is enough, never thought that would be the case but then again I am not either of those majors.


Or maybe he's just stupid smart on a different level, but I highly doubt that.

[lra234]

Oh, though I did do a lot of logic puzzles over the years...so maybe that doesn't count as "cold"? Either way, just keep studying. Also, if the one you got a 175 on is the first one in the first prep test book - it's by far the easiest PT I ever took, explaining why I got 176 on that and then didn't get it again for a long time.

Still considered cold, but it makes me believe it because being exposed to such a thing would obviously, along with some level of apptitude, make you initially very good at tackling the games section.

I think I've only missed one or two of the games questions ever, on about 30-35 PTs before my October LSAT. My score always seems to be dependent on how tough RC is...

[sinfiery]

Oh, though I did do a lot of logic puzzles over the years...so maybe that doesn't count as "cold"? Either way, just keep studying. Also, if the one you got a 175 on is the first one in the first prep test book - it's by far the easiest PT I ever took, explaining why I got 176 on that and then didn't get it again for a long time.

Still considered cold, but it makes me believe it because being exposed to such a thing would obviously, along with some level of apptitude, make you initially very good at tackling the games section.

I think I've only missed one or two of the games questions ever, on about 30-35 PTs before my October LSAT. My score always seems to be dependent on how tough RC is...

on my last 30-35 PTs same here.
I also got a 720 cold on my math SAT 4 years ago (didn't even know what sections they had) all whilst making Cs in highschool and graduating at 50% of my class(moral: i didn't particularly try)

doesn't mean when I saw LG for the first time, I didn't have any idea how to attack it. Missed like 13 questions the first time.


but you provided some form of activity I had absolutely no experience in that would explain such a result on a diagnostic

[Cobretti]

Or maybe he's just stupid smart on a different level, but I highly doubt that.

Those people definitely exist, there's always a bigger fish afterall.

[sinfiery]

Or maybe he's just stupid smart on a different level, but I highly doubt that.

Those people definitely exist, there's always a bigger fish afterall.

true enough


such is life

but I won't let anyone claim such things before I attempt to belittle their accomplishments as much as possible

[NoodleyOne]

I didn't -0 LGs on my first go through cold, but I did do -4 to -6 (can't remember) or so. I had done a ton of Sudoku before, and had some formal logic classes, so while they didn't directly correlate, they did allow me to kind of think abstractly. I also barely diagrammed, so there is that.

[AlanShore]

Oh, though I did do a lot of logic puzzles over the years...so maybe that doesn't count as "cold"? Either way, just keep studying. Also, if the one you got a 175 on is the first one in the first prep test book - it's by far the easiest PT I ever took, explaining why I got 176 on that and then didn't get it again for a long time.

Still considered cold, but it makes me believe it because being exposed to such a thing would obviously, along with some level of apptitude, make you initially very good at tackling the games section.

My ex got a 173 cold. I witnessed it. He had never seen an LSAT, never completed a question. I was beginning to study so he took it cold. He was an engineering and math major. He got 0 wrong on LG and I honestly dont think in the 20-30 PT he completed afterwards, he got 1 wrong more than 2 or 3 times maximum.

He also got a 760 on the gmat cold.. I realize the gmat is a much easier test but my point is some people really do have the cognitive ability to score that high cold. I was/am VERY jealous as I am definitely much more learned. oh well!

Meh, I never thought of math to help in taking a LG section cold.

Every single LG after the initial one doesn't faze me 1 bit. It's not a hard section, but having never seen anything like that elsewhere in my life, I'm curious what experience they had that helped them on that initial diagnostic.

Maybe math/engineering major alone is enough, never thought that would be the case but then again I am not either of those majors.


Or maybe he's just stupid smart on a different level, but I highly doubt that.

yeah, he's stupid smart on a different level.. like got invited by stephen hawking to do research with him and whatever, just aces everything academic that hes ever done. BLAH HATE HIM! not only cuz hes my ex!

[PeanutsNJam]

everybody is talking about innate ability to get -0 on LG. You guys do realize that that's the easiest thing to do, right? You can -0 on LG, the difficulty is getting no more than -3 in each of the other 3 sections. That's what I don't believe is possible. Tell me you can -0 on your first try at LG in 35 minutes and I will believe you. Tell me you -8 on the whole test and I am dubious because LR/CR requires knowledge of the test beyond simple sufficient/necessary assumption logic.

[NoodleyOne]

everybody is talking about innate ability to get -0 on LG. You guys do realize that that's the easiest thing to do, right? You can -0 on LG, the difficulty is getting no more than -3 in each of the other 3 sections. That's what I don't believe is possible. Tell me you can -0 on your first try at LG in 35 minutes and I will believe you. Tell me you -8 on the whole test and I am dubious because LR/CR requires knowledge of the test beyond simple sufficient/necessary assumption logic.

Buuuuuullllll

Shiiiiiiiiit

Just because the test was hard for many of us to learn, does not mean that it was hard for everyone. Some people are smart.

[vegso]

everybody is talking about innate ability to get -0 on LG. You guys do realize that that's the easiest thing to do, right? You can -0 on LG, the difficulty is getting no more than -3 in each of the other 3 sections. That's what I don't believe is possible. Tell me you can -0 on your first try at LG in 35 minutes and I will believe you. Tell me you -8 on the whole test and I am dubious because LR/CR requires knowledge of the test beyond simple sufficient/necessary assumption logic.

you realize the LSAT is not testing (RC/LR) abilities that are unique only to people who have ever studied for the LSAT, you could most certainly have picked these skills up in life somewhere else and be incredibly practiced and good at them. It is very very very easy for me to conceive people out there that have no problem going -0 on RC cold, and only slightly harder to imagine how someone would pick up -0 LR skills through life

[mattviphky]

I hate this thread and half of the people in it. I don't come here so people can make me feel like a neanderthal .

I studied 5 months for a 164. My hard work compensated for my innate stupidity.

[unitball]

lol. I wish I was one of these people who just "get" the lsat right off the bat. Having a high GPA as a physics major from a top uni did almost nothing to prepare me for the lsat.


Nothing in math and science I ever encountered required the kind of mental juggling that logic games require. All the people I've known who did super-well on LG cold had been playing all kinds of mental puzzles for years for fun (like sudoku and other spacial arrangement brain teazers), been on debate teams for years, done mock trial in undergrad etc. Basically they'd been exercising all the skills necessary to do well on the lsat without ever studying specifically for the lsat.

[patentlybored]

Itt: sinfiery is butthurt that he didn't get lg right away

[PeanutsNJam]

everybody is talking about innate ability to get -0 on LG. You guys do realize that that's the easiest thing to do, right? You can -0 on LG, the difficulty is getting no more than -3 in each of the other 3 sections. That's what I don't believe is possible. Tell me you can -0 on your first try at LG in 35 minutes and I will believe you. Tell me you -8 on the whole test and I am dubious because LR/CR requires knowledge of the test beyond simple sufficient/necessary assumption logic.

Buuuuuullllll

Shiiiiiiiiit

Just because the test was hard for many of us to learn, does not mean that it was hard for everyone. Some people are smart.

My argument isn't about how hard the test is to learn, but whether the test needed to be learned or not.

[NoodleyOne]

Answer: it doesn't.

[flippacious]

I took my first PT completely cold (so cold, I wasted precious time reading the instructions to every section, not realizing that was pointless). I finished every section in 35 minutes and only missed 1 on LG and 3 or 4 on LR (combined). RC killed me though and I ended up with a 170.

Obviously, a cold 170 is pretty different from a cold 175, but my advice would be to still look over some prep materials (Manhattan LR & LG, mostly). While I could do pretty well just going off my intuition, I liked having all the question types explained so I was 100% sure I understood everything. Also, even though I didn't write down much for my diagnostic LG, I found it important to develop a strong shorthand system.

Also, don't immediately give up on reading LR and LG guides if your PT score goes down right away. After I read the Powerscore books, my next PT dropped to a 168 because I was overthinking some questions while trying to implement the strategies. Don't freak out and abandon the strategies because your innate ability initially worked better. Innate ability + strategies = the best way to go, imo.

And yes, I think some people just "get" parts of the LSAT. I was a history major, I only took one math class in college, I never did logic puzzles as a kid and I suck at sudoku. LG just always clicked for me. Although I do think my history major helped with LR, since all I did for four years was essentially read and analyze written arguments (albeit mostly in book form).