Focus on Logic Games or Logical Reasoning Questions Forum

[tuffyjohnson]

A lot of these forums have suggested to focus most attention the logic games since they offer the most upside to study. Would anyone argue that the logical reasoning questions are a better focal point since the test scores two sections of them? Please keep in mind my goal on the LSAT is 160+ range not the 170+ some of you are rocking

Yes, I've read and re-read pithy's study plan.

[totoro]

I would say because your score range is in the high 150's right now, you should focus on the LG section. I think people tend to focus on LR to really get them over the 170's hump and higher. But LG should be the basis of your score. Try to get down to -0-3 for every LG you do, and you will be in much better shape in terms of overall score. People suggest studying LG because they offer the most upside, but also because it's the most controllable part of your score. Of course, you should not be ignoring LR, though getting consistent on LG should be your first priority.

[tuffyjohnson]

My *goal* is mid to high 160's. I am not there yet.

[Mik Ekim]

I would suggest that you focus on both, but that you make sure you spend your time studying fundamentals (basic idea: work to get pretty good at all q's, rather than really good at just some). To that end, here are the basic fundamentals that I think you ought to work on most --

For LG --

1) understanding the various game scenarios they can throw your way (don't worry about memorizing every nuance - focus on the big picture)
2) developing basic diagramming systems that you are comfortable utilizing under pressure (again, don't worry about memorizing every notation -focus on the rules/situations that appear most often)
3) developing a basic strategy (pick right answer or eliminate wrong answers / make inferences off question stem, etc) for each question type.

For LR -
1) understanding exactly what each question means and asks of you
2) being able to see the argument within a stimulus when there is one
3) utilizing correct strategies for each type of question

If you can get comfortable with the above six things, I think that will go a long way towards getting you into the mid to high 150's -- I also think you may find that studying for the LSAT is slightly addictive, and you may find yourself going for 160, then 165, then 170, as many others on this forum have. In any case, good luck.

[tuffyjohnson]

I also think you may find that studying for the LSAT is slightly addictive, and you may find yourself going for 160, then 165, then 170, as many others on this forum have. In any case, good luck.

Wow, a twenty five point swing?! I never even considered that possible. Maybe I'm more pragmatic than I thought. Then again, I am thinking about going to law school

[Theopliske8711]

Making into the 160s is not that difficult, respectively, compared to getting that extra 10 to the 170+ range, that is where the real hard work comes in.

[tuffyjohnson]

Making into the 160s is not that difficult, respectively, compared to getting that extra 10 to the 170+ range, that is where the real hard work comes in.

I hope you're right, and this is fascinating. I always thought of my sports/physical side that way but never stopped to realize my brain is similar.

[Theopliske8711]

Keep in mind, I did say respectively. Not to say that getting to the 160s will be an easy job, just that it is very very much achievable. I would recommend the cambridge lsat logic game/LR/RC by type working in conjunction with the ManhattanLSAT guides. Or tutoring if you wish.

[RhymesLikeDimes]

There is no law school worth going to that you can get into with a 157. Even with a full scholarship, which you won't get at 157. 165 should be the minimum score you are shooting for, and it's doable for virtually anyone. Don't get discouraged by a bad diagnostic, especially if it was due to -15 on LG and -22 on LR, or something like that.

If you put in the time on LG, there is no reason you should ever miss more than 3 on test day (go through the LGB, then drill the hell out of the games from PTs 1-40). LR takes a lot more work, and you are probably never going to be able to lock it down like you can with LG. But, it is worth half your score. Regardless, you should be doing both.

[dusters]

Depends on the person I think. I spent the most time on LG but made pretty average progress, while I spent a lot less time on LR but it became my best section getting consistent -0 to -3.

[tuffyjohnson]

Really appreciate the advice you guys. And, damn, the idea that most everyone can get to 160 never entered my thoughts. So count me in as encouraged with all guns set to fire there.

Perhaps I'm wrong, but I will take issue with the idea that a 157 means I should forget law school.

Reason #1: North Dakota is $9500 per year in tuition. This is a very manageable loan to repay with even a modest salary. Some of the medium-sized firms from my area will interview people from this school. It's not a guarantee, but not a goddamned thing in this world is except for death and taxes.

Reason #2: not everyone on this board is aiming at 80 hours a week in biglaw. Some of us are looking for middle level law with firms containing 20-40 lawyers. I have confirmed with a manging partner I know who stated good perfomance at a TTT could be just as valuable as a higher ranked school assuming they take interviews from that school. And, you can find out which firms take interviews from which TTT's. Usually, it's regional. I know for a fact that if I go to William Mitchell I have a good shot at some interviews at Minneapolis law firms. Then again, I know a couple partners in the industry, so that also helps.

Reason #3: the economy will not suck forever. It's as if people think law is the only profession to suffer in the last few years. Yes, some contractions will be permenant due to off-shored work.

Reason #4: Applications to law schools are coming down. This means that we might be heading back to a different normal when a good personality and a 150 could make partner at a big law firm.

[objection_your_honor]

I think the point is a 165+ or 170+ can get you a substantial scholarship to your local TTT. It doesn't run counter to your goals.

[tuffyjohnson]

I think the point is a 165+ or 170+ can get you a substantial scholarship to your local TTT. It doesn't run counter to your goals.

Truth.

[RhymesLikeDimes]

Fair enough on North Dakota. I suppose public schools like that with ~$10K tuition aren't a bad choice. The rest of that I think is very optimistic. William Mitchell is $36K a year, and they place less than 5% of grads into firms of 20+ members (probably even less now, these numbers are a couple years old). Take anecdotes about the validity of TTTs with a grain of salt. Yes, horrible schools have had graduates go on to do great things. But for every one who made partner, you have a thousand making $30K a year at jobs that have nothing to do with a JD. Where you go to school is a big deal for most firms when you are looking for your first job.

No, the economy won't always be bad, but there are many who believe we have seen a fundamental shift in how the law business is going to work going forward. You also have to contend with a glut of out-of-work recession-era JDs who aren't just going to disappear once the economy gets going.

Going to a TTT isn't a death sentence, but it is not something you should be content to settle for. Particularly when the main factor in where you go to school (and/or how much scholarship money you receive) is a test as learnable as the LSAT. 10 points is the difference between TTT and T20; between full ride and $200K in debt (depending on where you decide to go). It's obviously not my place to tell folks how to live their life, but I just think people do themselves a disservice in not taking a couple hours a day for 4 months to shoot for a 170+.

[tuffyjohnson]

Fair enough on North Dakota. I suppose public schools like that with ~$10K tuition aren't a bad choice. The rest of that I think is very optimistic. William Mitchell is $36K a year, and they place less than 5% of grads into firms of 20+ members (probably even less now, these numbers are a couple years old). Take anecdotes about the validity of TTTs with a grain of salt. Yes, horrible schools have had graduates go on to do great things. But for every one who made partner, you have a thousand making $30K a year at jobs that have nothing to do with a JD. Where you go to school is a big deal for most firms when you are looking for your first job.

No, the economy won't always be bad, but there are many who believe we have seen a fundamental shift in how the law business is going to work going forward. You also have to contend with a glut of out-of-work recession-era JDs who aren't just going to disappear once the economy gets going.

Going to a TTT isn't a death sentence, but it is not something you should be content to settle for. Particularly when the main factor in where you go to school (and/or how much scholarship money you receive) is a test as learnable as the LSAT. 10 points is the difference between TTT and T20; between full ride and $200K in debt (depending on where you decide to go). It's obviously not my place to tell folks how to live their life, but I just think people do themselves a disservice in not taking a couple hours a day for 4 months to shoot for a 170+.

Sobering but great points nonetheless. I was unaware just how trainable this test is. Thank you.