Top Law Schools

I am trying to bring my 139 diagnostic up and do better than my "December Disaster", as I now call it. I am using the BluePrint Movie and all the way through lesson 6 I don't have huge complaints, just a brain fart now and then. Went from -15 on a section of LG to -3 on average, now I am hit with grouping games in Lesson 7 and I am TERRIBLE at them! Not bad, but -16 out of 20 TERRIBLE!

To make matters worse Lesson 7 also introduces more Flaw/Parallel Flaw questions and again, I miss almost every one of these. I am not sure what is wrong with my brain, but it just doesn't want to grasp these concepts. I get most (70%) of the Flaw questions correct, but Parallel Flaws are much worse (10%).

I will start on my Lesson 7 homework tonight, and hope I get better, but it is like I just disconnect during those long passages and long answers. I don't do this bad on RC though and they are longer passages.

Hints on how to approach these?

jared6180 wrote:I am trying to bring my 139 diagnostic up and do better than my "December Disaster", as I now call it.

I would consider an alternative career choice. A 139 diagnostic score is, indeed, a "disaster," as you called it. And a 20- or even 25-point boost wouldn't make you competitive for entry into a program that would come with reasonable job prospects after completion.

TopLawHopeful wrote:

jared6180 wrote:I am trying to bring my 139 diagnostic up and do better than my "December Disaster", as I now call it.

I would consider an alternative career choice. A 139 diagnostic score is, indeed, a "disaster," as you called it. And a 20- or even 25-point boost wouldn't make you competitive for entry into a program that would come with reasonable job prospects after completion.

I appreciate your input. Somehow I knew someone would make the comment. All you people that started in 130s-140s just give up now because this guy says you can't raise your score enough to get into a program with reasonable job prospects after completion.

...

TopLawHopeful wrote:

jared6180 wrote:All you people that started in 130s-140s just give up now because this guy says you can't raise your score enough to get into a program with reasonable job prospects after completion.

Well, with a mid- to high-140, maybe not. But a 139 represents more than a lack of learnable skill. You ought to look into other job fields.

I'm not saying this to disappoint you or offend you. In real life, few of your close friends will have the heart to tell it the way it is. Sometimes you need a relatively anonymous dude on a forum to tell you the truth.

Not true. Someone may just not know how to do the LSAT. A good amount of studying and practicing could significantly raise their score? I think there have been examples of this on TLS but you can search for them.

PS I got a 141 on a BARRON'S practice test and I sure as hell didn't know how to do the test, at least when it came to logic games. I had no idea how to do those. As for logical reasoning I never took a class in logic. I ordered the Manhattan books and I think they are helping me out. We shall see.

...

TopLawHopeful wrote:

BrianP wrote:Not true.

[...]

I ordered the Manhattan books and I think they are helping me out. We shall see.

Fail.

Yes, you did commit a logic fail. And you're still "hopeful".

@ OP: Ignore that guy. I didn't take a diagnostic at all but it would have probably been in the 130s. I got a 165 when I took the LSAT last year. I'm retaking in June and PT'ing in the mid 170s right now. The test is very learnable if you put in the work and hold yourself to a standard — this forum is filled with people who have demonstrated that. A diagnostic means nothing.

Manhattan will help. Be very thorough and check the many guides here for drilling by type.

...

TopLawHopeful wrote:

BrianP wrote:

TopLawHopeful wrote:

BrianP wrote:Not true.

[...]

I ordered the Manhattan books and I think they are helping me out. We shall see.

Fail.

Yes, you did commit a logic fail. And you're still "hopeful".

No, my friend. It's your fail, not mine. You said "not true" and then proceeded to not support it with any evidence--and instead claimed that you're hopeful that you'll improve.

The LSAT is a test of logic--and you, sir, have a ways to go before you master basic logic.

Bye.

First of all, I'm not your friend.

Second, the LSAT is a test of reading comprehension skills which you seem to lack. The evidence for this conclusion:

I said, "Not true. Someone may just not know how to do the LSAT. A good amount of studying and practicing could significantly raise their score? I think there have been examples of this on TLS but you can search for them."

Granted, I did not provide any evidence. But if I don't feel like doing your research for you then I don't feel like doing your research for you. Stop being lazy and hopeful and buck up on your reading comprehension skills.

Bye.

PS Where did I say I was "hopeful"? Provide evidence. Or shut up.