Top Law Schools

I have finished the LRB, gone through all the questions I did wrong, and I am working on Manhattan LR right now. I realize I still have problems with lots of question types, such as weaken, principle, flaw in the argument, and so on. How do I drill on these question types? Should I just erase the answers I have on the Manhattan and then do it over and over again, and then what else? I read some other TLSers suggested to label the question types on prep tests and then work on them, but doesn't it waste the prep tests? since there are only that many prep tests, and I have to use them for studying later on. If I already did some of the questions on the prep tests, doesn't it ruin the whole point of testing yourself on prep tests? So how exactly can I nail LR? Thanks.

Oh also, I am bad at timing. I couldn't finish all the questions under 35 mins, always left around 6 questions.

Use PTs 1-38 for drilling. You won't be wasting anything because it is helping you master the test. You can take PTs 39 on under timed conditions.

Companies like Cambridge offer packets that have each question from these tests arranged by type, which is ideal for the type of drilling you are wanting to do.

http://www.cambridgelsat.com/problem-se ... reasoning/

Keep in mind that the older (1991-2000s) LR questions are rather quite different than the more modern (04 and onward) ones.

However, you can easily cut your teeth on the older ones, and that is very much the way to do it.

I also strongly urge you to get your PTs from that site. The ability to reuse PTs at will is incredibly useful.

As for general issues with LR- Read the Manhattan LR book through about four times. I'd be surprised if you continue to have issues with LR that is based off concepts if you do that.

I really recommend the Cambridge bundles as well. It's all separated into question types and very ideal for drilling. Also you can print it as many time as you want so you don't have to keep erasing previous work and so on.

How are the older LR questions different? Ive heard logic games 1-38 are pretty tricky compared to the newer ones also.

(Just opinion)
The newer one tends to less wordy than the older ones. As such, they're more detail and logic orientated.

In other words, the newer ones demand that you pay attention to every word more closely than the older ones. I think this is most noticeable for the assumption family questions. I find the newer ones a lot easier than the older ones, as finding the chain of logic used is easier when there are fewer things to pay attention to.

There are no difference between LG from old ones and new ones, besides the fact that the older LG tend to have more mixes and misc. types. It's more the case that people just get better at doing LG from practicing on old ones before they do new ones.

Thanks, I've heard people say that people but never really understood why.