-18 to -3 on LR; feasible? Forum

[AHarpinng]

Hello all. I've been stalking this board for some time (albeit accountlessly until now). What a treasure trove of information!

I'm a sophomore, and over the winter break, I found that I had a good stretch of free time in front of me before the spring semester, so I decided to purchase the LG bible and do some speculative studying. Shortly after, I purchased the LSAC "10 Next, New, blahbidyblahblah" pre-tests. In total, I've been studying for approximately three weeks, although not hardcore. After finishing the bible I decided to do some of the sections individually; I didn't want to take a diagnostic, because if I got a low score I didn't want to be psychologically bound to it.

So after having "sampled" the LSAT in this manner, I got a -3 on LG, -4 on RC (for which I had no prep) but a disappointing -8, -4, and -9 on three separate LRs, which I suppose should properly be doubled if I were to account for a second section.

Given the above data, is a score in the upper 170s feasible? I understand that achieving this will primarily consist in improving my LR score, but is it as common to see these kinds of gains as it in LG?

[Teflon_Don]

Dude, yes

[gnomgnomuch]

HA! I have just posted this, how wierd is that!!

[TripTrip]

So after having "sampled" the LSAT in this manner, I got a -3 on LG, -4 on RC (for which I had no prep) but a disappointing -8, -4, and -9 on three separate LRs, which I suppose should properly be doubled if I were to account for a second section.

So you did three cold diagnostic sections and got a couple questions wrong? You're not cut out for law school.

No. What the hell is wrong with you, worrying like this? LR is completely learnable. I did terrible on my diagnostics. I went -0 for all of LR on the Dec. LSAT. Don't worry.

Go buy the rest of the PTs from LSAC though.