Questions for "Naturals" Forum

[lawschool2014hopeful]

By "naturals" I am referring to people who scored 170+ with minimum effort (~ 1 month of study). I am just curious what are your hobbies? E.g., do you read political columns/fantasy novels/literature for fun on a consistent basis? Do you think your lifestyle choices/certain class made you specifically effective at taking this test?

[cynthiad]

By "naturals" I am referring to people who scored 170+ with minimum effort (~ 1 month of study). I am just curious what are your hobbies? E.g., do you read political columns/fantasy novels/literature for fun on a consistent basis? Do you think your lifestyle choices/certain class made you specifically effective at taking this test?

I haven't taken the LSAT yet, but I scored above 175 on a cold diagnostic. I think these factors contributed:
1. I did logic games as a kid. Not LSAT ones, but similar idea. They were my favorite kind of puzzle and I got really good at them.
2. I read a lot. I don't read nearly as much for fun now as I used to, but I read newspapers, scifi/fantasy novels, nonfiction books on history, politics, economics, pop science, etc. I can also read really fast while still comprehending.
3. I studied formal logic in high school and college (not in a specific class, in my math classes). When I look at an LR stimulus with an assumption, I can see the "gap" intuitively.

[Poo-T]

By "naturals" I am referring to people who scored 170+ with minimum effort (~ 1 month of study). I am just curious what are your hobbies? E.g., do you read political columns/fantasy novels/literature for fun on a consistent basis? Do you think your lifestyle choices/certain class made you specifically effective at taking this test?

I haven't taken the LSAT yet, but I scored above 175 on a cold diagnostic. I think these factors contributed:
1. I did logic games as a kid. Not LSAT ones, but similar idea. They were my favorite kind of puzzle and I got really good at them.
2. I read a lot. I don't read nearly as much for fun now as I used to, but I read newspapers, scifi/fantasy novels, nonfiction books on history, politics, economics, pop science, etc. I can also read really fast while still comprehending.
3. I studied formal logic in high school and college (not in a specific class, in my math classes). When I look at an LR stimulus with an assumption, I can see the "gap" intuitively.

dam I'm jealous as hell.

[luxlisbon]

I was into logic games and math brainteasers as a child (still am now). I'm majoring in math and I believe that helped me develop the skills to think analytically. However, I do not read a lot.

[abcde12345]

Not a "natural" for LR and LG, but one of my friends, a math major, goes -0 on LG with no studying (he's taking the LSAT). LG = super easy for many math majors.

I guess I could be called a "natural" for RC, however. On my first 2 timed RCs I went -0, never having studied for RC before and never really looking at RC sections. This just comes from doing college reading. But this was on early PTs and RC has changed a bit, so I don't really know if it's possible to be an RC natural anymore (always one or two bullshit questions in a RC section).

[lawschool2014hopeful]

Thanks for the responses everyone.

Not a "natural" for LR and LG, but one of my friends, a math major, goes -0 on LG with no studying (he's taking the LSAT). LG = super easy for many math majors.

I guess I could be called a "natural" for RC, however. On my first 2 timed RCs I went -0, never having studied for RC before and never really looking at RC sections. This just comes from doing college reading. But this was on early PTs and RC has changed a bit, so I don't really know if it's possible to be an RC natural anymore (always one or two bullshit questions in a RC section).

What sort of college reading do you do? Major/class/average reading for week?

[thsmthcrmnl]

I haven't taken the LSAT yet, but I scored above 175 170 on a cold diagnostic. I think these factors contributed:
1. I did logic games as a kid. Not LSAT ones, but similar idea. They were my favorite kind of puzzle and I got really good at them.
2. I read a lot. I don't read nearly as much for fun now as I used to, but I read newspapers, scifi/fantasy novels, nonfiction books on history, politics, economics, pop science, etc. I can also read really fast while still comprehending.
3. I studied formal logic in high school and college (not in a specific class, in my math classes). When I look at an LR stimulus with an assumption, I can see the "gap" intuitively.

So basically same here.

[abcde12345]

What sort of college reading do you do? Major/class/average reading for week?

. I don't know; there's always reading to be done. I'd say at least 14 hours a week total? But you also have to add papers. I write A LOT of papers, which basically involves reading. Papers alone are 20 hours a week, I'd say. So I do reading/thinking about reading ~34 hours a week. Plus classes, you're up to 45 hours a week. Let's say I overestimated and put it at 35. So I do 35 hours of reading-related stuff a week.

[elterrible78]

By "naturals" I am referring to people who scored 170+ with minimum effort (~ 1 month of study). I am just curious what are your hobbies? E.g., do you read political columns/fantasy novels/literature for fun on a consistent basis? Do you think your lifestyle choices/certain class made you specifically effective at taking this test?

I got a 175 by my third diagnostic. LG was rough for me at the beginning.

I read a lot, almost exclusively non-fiction. More than anything, I think the stats-based poli-sci and economic research I did in grad school was super, super helpful in reading comp, but especially in logical reasoning. When you spend a lot of time building statistical models, you have to think of the many ways that things fit together, alternate causes, and the like. I don't think I'd have done nearly as well straight out of the gate had it not been for that kind of work.

I also really like any kind of logic problems, number puzzles, and stuff like that.

[lawschool2014hopeful]

What sort of college reading do you do? Major/class/average reading for week?

Philosophy. I don't know; there's always reading to be done. I'd say at least 14 hours a week total? But you also have to add papers. I write A LOT of papers, which basically involves reading. Papers alone are 20 hours a week, I'd say. So I do reading/thinking about reading ~34 hours a week. Plus classes, you're up to 45 hours a week. Let's say I overestimated and put it at 35. So I do 35 hours of reading-related stuff a week.

Sorry I meant page-wise. Are you reading ancient philosophy or contemporary writers, whose writing are more straight forward?

By "naturals" I am referring to people who scored 170+ with minimum effort (~ 1 month of study). I am just curious what are your hobbies? E.g., do you read political columns/fantasy novels/literature for fun on a consistent basis? Do you think your lifestyle choices/certain class made you specifically effective at taking this test?

I got a 175 by my third diagnostic. LG was rough for me at the beginning.

I read a lot, almost exclusively non-fiction. More than anything, I think the stats-based poli-sci and economic research I did in grad school was super, super helpful in reading comp, but especially in logical reasoning. When you spend a lot of time building statistical models, you have to think of the many ways that things fit together, alternate causes, and the like. I don't think I'd have done nearly as well straight out of the gate had it not been for that kind of work.

I also really like any kind of logic problems, number puzzles, and stuff like that.

You mind PMing me a link of a paper that has what you are describing?

[elterrible78]

What sort of college reading do you do? Major/class/average reading for week?

Philosophy. I don't know; there's always reading to be done. I'd say at least 14 hours a week total? But you also have to add papers. I write A LOT of papers, which basically involves reading. Papers alone are 20 hours a week, I'd say. So I do reading/thinking about reading ~34 hours a week. Plus classes, you're up to 45 hours a week. Let's say I overestimated and put it at 35. So I do 35 hours of reading-related stuff a week.

Sorry I meant page-wise. Are you reading ancient philosophy or contemporary writers, whose writing are more straight forward?

By "naturals" I am referring to people who scored 170+ with minimum effort (~ 1 month of study). I am just curious what are your hobbies? E.g., do you read political columns/fantasy novels/literature for fun on a consistent basis? Do you think your lifestyle choices/certain class made you specifically effective at taking this test?

I got a 175 by my third diagnostic. LG was rough for me at the beginning.

I read a lot, almost exclusively non-fiction. More than anything, I think the stats-based poli-sci and economic research I did in grad school was super, super helpful in reading comp, but especially in logical reasoning. When you spend a lot of time building statistical models, you have to think of the many ways that things fit together, alternate causes, and the like. I don't think I'd have done nearly as well straight out of the gate had it not been for that kind of work.

I also really like any kind of logic problems, number puzzles, and stuff like that.

You mind PMing me a link of a paper that has what you are describing?

You mean some kind of a stats-based political science or economics paper?

[lawschool2014hopeful]

What sort of college reading do you do? Major/class/average reading for week?

Philosophy. I don't know; there's always reading to be done. I'd say at least 14 hours a week total? But you also have to add papers. I write A LOT of papers, which basically involves reading. Papers alone are 20 hours a week, I'd say. So I do reading/thinking about reading ~34 hours a week. Plus classes, you're up to 45 hours a week. Let's say I overestimated and put it at 35. So I do 35 hours of reading-related stuff a week.

Sorry I meant page-wise. Are you reading ancient philosophy or contemporary writers, whose writing are more straight forward?

By "naturals" I am referring to people who scored 170+ with minimum effort (~ 1 month of study). I am just curious what are your hobbies? E.g., do you read political columns/fantasy novels/literature for fun on a consistent basis? Do you think your lifestyle choices/certain class made you specifically effective at taking this test?

I got a 175 by my third diagnostic. LG was rough for me at the beginning.

I read a lot, almost exclusively non-fiction. More than anything, I think the stats-based poli-sci and economic research I did in grad school was super, super helpful in reading comp, but especially in logical reasoning. When you spend a lot of time building statistical models, you have to think of the many ways that things fit together, alternate causes, and the like. I don't think I'd have done nearly as well straight out of the gate had it not been for that kind of work.

I also really like any kind of logic problems, number puzzles, and stuff like that.

You mind PMing me a link of a paper that has what you are describing?

You mean some kind of a stats-based political science or economics paper?

Yes, exactly. Something that is readable without extensive background knowledge would be appreciated as well.

[elterrible78]

Yes, exactly. Something that is readable without extensive background knowledge would be appreciated as well.

Ok. I will PM you a copy of a paper I wrote that shouldn't be too hard to wrap your mind around. Bear in mind that it was the process of WORKING on this stuff, and not so much the process of reading it, that I found to be helpful.

[Davidbentley]

Surfing, Weightlifting, Guitar, Sex.

[abcde12345]

Sorry I meant page-wise. Are you reading ancient philosophy or contemporary writers, whose writing are more straight forward?

And page count varies widely. How much reading am I REQUIRED to do a week? About 600 pages. Does anyone do all required reading? Not after freshman year. It's just too much. And there are diminishing returns on reading--the more you read, the less you take in/the less you are able to think about what you read.

A 10-page article can be extremely dense. What counts is that you think about what you're reading, which is, admittedly, very difficult. Papers force you to think about what you're reading, which is why they help. Never underestimate the importance of writing for reading. I'd say frequency of essays (not pages written, but how many different essays you have to write) are a better indicator than pages read.

Edit: I just saw this:

Ok. I will PM you a copy of a paper I wrote that shouldn't be too hard to wrap your mind around. Bear in mind that it was the process of WORKING on this stuff, and not so much the process of reading it, that I found to be helpful.

S/he is exactly right.

[lawschool2014hopeful]

Sorry I meant page-wise. Are you reading ancient philosophy or contemporary writers, whose writing are more straight forward?

Both ancient and contemporary. Also, I go to a school with required courses (most colleges now have required courses). So my reading isn't limited to my major. I also have to read novels, scientific articles, scholarly articles on music and art, etc. If you're familiar with RC, you'll know why this helps.

And page count varies widely. How much reading am I REQUIRED to do a week? About 600 pages. Does anyone do all required reading? Not after freshman year. It's just too much. And there are diminishing returns on reading--the more you read, the less you take in/the less you are able to think about what you read.

Also, it seems that you are familiar with philosophy, so you know that page count doesn't matter. A 10-page article can be extremely dense. What counts is that you think about what you're reading, which is, admittedly, very difficult. Papers force you to think about what you're reading, which is why they help. Never underestimate the importance of writing for reading. I'd say frequency of essays (not pages written, but how many different essays you have to write) are a better indicator than pages read.

Edit: I just saw this:

Ok. I will PM you a copy of a paper I wrote that shouldn't be too hard to wrap your mind around. Bear in mind that it was the process of WORKING on this stuff, and not so much the process of reading it, that I found to be helpful.

S/he is exactly right.

Awesome, thanks for the insightful post.

This is what I thought as well, great to get confirmation.

In my UG career so far I have avoided these abstract, heavy-reading focused courses because I was obsessive about my GPA, that it was impossible to get a A+ in them. But now, after suffering from the Oct LSAT, I feel like that has come back to bite me in the ass, because my mind is so wired on remembering minute details for multiple-choice exams.

Next semester, I think I will go all abstract courses and start picking up reading as a hobby instead of wasting time on video games.

[abcde12345]

Awesome, thanks for the insightful post.

This is what I thought as well, great to get confirmation.

In my UG career so far I have avoided these abstract, heavy-reading focused courses because I was obsessive about my GPA, that it was impossible to get a A+ in them. But now, after suffering from the Oct LSAT, I feel like that has come back to bite me in the ass, because my mind is so wired on remembering minute details for multiple-choice exams.

Next semester, I think I will go all abstract courses and start picking up reading as a hobby instead of wasting time on video games.

No problem, and good luck. May I ask what your numbers are? You must have an outstanding GPA if you targeted A+ classes. Also, what is your major? The important thing is to get a professor who won't let you get away with anything; who will nitpick every little statement you make and force you to be precise and analytical.

Edit: I don't know how much you've studied for RC, but the BEST POSSIBLE thing to do to boost your RC is just A LOT of RC. If you've already done this and it isn't working, then you might need some brain-training. But when studying for the LSAT, I'd say that nothing beats the LSAT.

[lawschool2014hopeful]

Awesome, thanks for the insightful post.

This is what I thought as well, great to get confirmation.

In my UG career so far I have avoided these abstract, heavy-reading focused courses because I was obsessive about my GPA, that it was impossible to get a A+ in them. But now, after suffering from the Oct LSAT, I feel like that has come back to bite me in the ass, because my mind is so wired on remembering minute details for multiple-choice exams.

Next semester, I think I will go all abstract courses and start picking up reading as a hobby instead of wasting time on video games.

No problem, and good luck. May I ask what your numbers are? You must have an outstanding GPA if you targeted A+ classes. Also, what is your major? You definitely don't need to take philosophy; a lot of people are put-off by its esoteric quality. The important thing is to get a professor who won't let you get away with anything; who will nitpick every little statement you make and force you to be precise and analytical.

And haha, good luck on breaking away from video games! By some miracle, I did that senior year before college, and haven't played since. Videogames, I maintain, are more fun than real life.

Edit: I don't know how much you've studied for RC, but the BEST POSSIBLE thing to do to boost your RC is just A LOT of RC. If you've already done this and it isn't working, then you might need some brain-training. But when studying for the LSAT, I'd say that nothing beats the LSAT.

Major: Social Sciences (not being to specific to avoid dem pesky admission officers).

Aha sounds like me, senior year, finally quitting ahah! ONCE FOR GOOD!

You are right, I had that experience with a professor last year in Philosophy, he would destroy every sentence/claim you make. I will try find him again this year. I might be able to enroll in some grad level philosophy course aha, I hope I dont kill myself.

I have tried to do alot of R.C, but I always struggle with literature passages, it just seem to descriptive, without too much a main point for me follow along. Any suggestions?

[elterrible78]

Edit: I don't know how much you've studied for RC, but the BEST POSSIBLE thing to do to boost your RC is just A LOT of RC. If you've already done this and it isn't working, then you might need some brain-training. But when studying for the LSAT, I'd say that nothing beats the LSAT.

+1

[abcde12345]

My Culum GPA is 4~, that is because I screwed up first year chasing girls (3.6~) LOL. My 2nd/3rd GPA: 4.20~, I am expecting something similar for my final year. I am usually within top 5% in every single class.

Major: Social Sciences (not being to specific to avoid dem pesky admission officers).

Aha sounds like me, senior year, finally quitting ahah! ONCE FOR GOOD!

You are right, I had that experience with a professor last year in Philosophy, he would destroy every sentence/claim you make. I will try find him again this year. I might be able to enroll in some grad level philosophy course aha, I hope I dont kill myself.

I have tried to do alot of R.C, but I always struggle with literature passages, it just seem to descriptive, without too much a main point for me follow along. Any suggestions?

I meant senior year of high school, before college =P. But senior year of college works too!

RC is by far the hardest section to improve on, so unfortunately I don't have any suggestions. After 2 months of prep, I was exactly the same as RC as when I started (-0 to -2). I know you don't want to hear this, and I know it's terrible advice, but it's true: nobody really has any good ideas about RC that work for everyone. You'll just have to try different methods and see what works for you. But if you're going, say, -5 or more, there's definitely room for improvement.

Just a question, though: when you say you struggle with lit. passages and they seem too descriptive, what do you mean? I find lit. passages very easy, and I think this is in part because I've taken so many lit courses.

Also, timing is a big factor (like anything). Work on finishing the easiest passages in 7 minutes, which will give you more time for the difficult ones.

[lawschool2014hopeful]

My Culum GPA is 4~, that is because I screwed up first year chasing girls (3.6~) LOL. My 2nd/3rd GPA: 4.20~, I am expecting something similar for my final year. I am usually within top 5% in every single class.

Major: Social Sciences (not being to specific to avoid dem pesky admission officers).

Aha sounds like me, senior year, finally quitting ahah! ONCE FOR GOOD!

You are right, I had that experience with a professor last year in Philosophy, he would destroy every sentence/claim you make. I will try find him again this year. I might be able to enroll in some grad level philosophy course aha, I hope I dont kill myself.

I have tried to do alot of R.C, but I always struggle with literature passages, it just seem to descriptive, without too much a main point for me follow along. Any suggestions?

I meant senior year of high school, before college =P. But senior year of college works too!

RC is by far the hardest section to improve on, so unfortunately I don't have any suggestions. After 2 months of prep, I was exactly the same as RC as when I started (-0 to -2). I know you don't want to hear this, and I know it's terrible advice, but it's true: nobody really has any good ideas about RC that work for everyone. You'll just have to try different methods and see what works for you. But if you're going, say, -5 or more, there's definitely room for improvement.

Just a question, though: when you say you struggle with lit. passages and they seem too descriptive, what do you mean? I find lit. passages very easy, and I think this is in part because I've taken so many lit courses.

Also, timing is a big factor (like anything). Work on finishing the easiest passages in 7 minutes, which will give you more time for the difficult ones.

I have taken 0 lit courses aha. Well is just that I just cant keep track what the passage is saying most of the time or what the main point of it, especially when heavy abstract metaphors are used, or comparing 15th century lightning techniques vs 16th techniques, and they differ only slightly, and the Q expect you to remember the difference. I think having what is killing me is that with 0 knowledge in literature, I just get shocked because everything is new, the content and the style, just hard to comprehend. I am definitely going to take some literature class next semester. I have tried reading a short history of english literature, I swear to god it was impossible for me to read, I just fall asleep.

Do you have any good book suggestions for introduction to literature?

[fruitoftheloom]

I think if you're trying to improve your RC, you're going about it wrong. I think that reading outside the LSAT would mostly be useful if you need to speed up your reading. Wormfather has some good ideas about how to improve RC - I think he suggested underlining key ideas and writing a 1 sentence synopsis about a paragraph at the end. I think, unfortunately, that the people who kick ass at RC are people who have been reading regularly since childhood. I've always been a "natural" at RC (0 -2), but I've also been a "natural" at that in all other standardized tests I've taken (ACT, SAT, etc). I would suggest that you attend one of the test reviews with TLSers and have them help you figure out where you're going wrong. Depending on where you tutor was from, they may be more useful for techniques/tips than your tutor.

[lawschool2014hopeful]

I think if you're trying to improve your RC, you're going about it wrong. I think that reading outside the LSAT would mostly be useful if you need to speed up your reading. Wormfather has some good ideas about how to improve RC - I think he suggested underlining key ideas and writing a 1 sentence synopsis about a paragraph at the end. I think, unfortunately, that the people who kick ass at RC are people who have been reading regularly since childhood. I've always been a "natural" at RC (0 -2), but I've also been a "natural" at that in all other standardized tests I've taken (ACT, SAT, etc). I would suggest that you attend one of the test reviews with TLSers and have them help you figure out where you're going wrong. Depending on where you tutor was from, they may be more useful for techniques/tips than your tutor.

Not just R.C, but everything. I have spent 3 years memorizing details for exams, and I found that was contradicting to my efforts on LSAT, because I would remember all the "techinques/strategies" but when something new comes up, I wasnt flexible in my thinking, resulting in failing "zones" and couple other weird LR Qs/RC passages.

[abcde12345]

Not just R.C, but everything. I have spent 3 years memorizing details for exams, and I found that was contradicting to my efforts on LSAT, because I would remember all the "techinques/strategies" but when something new comes up, I wasnt flexible in my thinking, resulting in failing "zones" and couple other weird LR Qs/RC passages.

Hmm, that's an interesting problem then. But as I said, the LSAT is still your best solution to the LSAT, because it's a good test--doing the LSAT teaches you to use your mind in a critical way; and learning to think critically is important for the LSAT.

As far as what novels I read: it wasn't the novels, but reading scholarly articles on those novels and being familiar with academic trends in literature.

[09042014]

By "naturals" I am referring to people who scored 170+ with minimum effort (~ 1 month of study). I am just curious what are your hobbies? E.g., do you read political columns/fantasy novels/literature for fun on a consistent basis? Do you think your lifestyle choices/certain class made you specifically effective at taking this test?

They are smarter than you bro.