LR Practicing with preptest sections or by "type"? Forum

[mx23250]

So in between taking full PTs I've been doing drilling using the PS book that has all questions from PTs 1-20. (I got these before realizing Cambridge sells PDFs of 1-38). I'm hoping to improve on LR the most in the next couple months. In your opinion, after practicing by "type" over the first 20 PTs, do you think my practice time on the next 18-20 PTs, (#21-38/40) are better spend just by making extra copies of the full PT and then practicing each section containing random questions a couple extra times, or would it be better to get the questions (from PT 21-38/40, depending on if it's PS or Cambridge) arranged by "type" and then drill on specific question types? FYI, I will be taking almost every PT from 7-68 before test day and will be studying #52-68 quite substantially in the weeks before the Oct test. I also take the full PT before "drilling" on the questions. I'm just curious about whether to get PTs 21-38/40 by "type" or to just study entire sections to get better accustomed to the "random" arrangement of question types.

Thanks for your input. It's much appreciated!

[Otunga]

Earlier in my prep and up until about a couple weeks ago (started late March), I did a little of both, with more drilling full sections as opposed to going by question type. If anything, I think mixed drilling by section hindered my progress a little, particularly as I was forcing myself to do them timed. Slowing down, and really making sure to understand the argument core, while going by question type, has enabled me to do better on timed sections when I decide to drill those. I think I've gotten a deeper grasp of each question by slowing down and going by type.

That said, I've been doing full PTs once a week since a couple weeks ago. I think an emphasis on mixed practice (so full PTs or a section here and there) should be made closer to the test. Right now, I suggest going by type and slowing down, making sure you REALLY understand each question type and the nuances of LR in general. Then you'll still have a couple months before October to train yourself to thrive with time constraints. I know you probably want to dive right into timed mixed practice (I did too), but at least in my case, I've benefitted big time with slowing my practice down and going by type.

[mx23250]

Earlier in my prep and up until about a couple weeks ago (started late March), I did a little of both, with more drilling full sections as opposed to going by question type. If anything, I think mixed drilling by section hindered my progress a little, particularly as I was forcing myself to do them timed. Slowing down, and really making sure to understand the argument core, while going by question type, has enabled me to do better on timed sections when I decide to drill those. I think I've gotten a deeper grasp of each question by slowing down and going by type.

That said, I've been doing full PTs once a week since a couple weeks ago. I think an emphasis on mixed practice (so full PTs or a section here and there) should be made closer to the test. Right now, I suggest going by type and slowing down, making sure you REALLY understand each question type and the nuances of LR in general. Then you'll still have a couple months before October to train yourself to thrive with time constraints. I know you probably want to dive right into timed mixed practice (I did too), but at least in my case, I've benefitted big time with slowing my practice down and going by type.

Thanks!

[Otunga]

No problem. I actually initially drilled by type from PT1-20 LR questions very early in my prep too, but it was with hardly any direction. It was also pre-MLSAT LR, which has worked well for me. I've been drilling through 1-20 again lately, making sure to implement MLSAT techniques (if they work for you, use them), and I've gotten way less wrong. And I don't think the fact that I've seen them before is contributing much. If it means anything, I got -3 on PT39 LR and -5 on PT40 LR, which is just about in line with the percentage I'm getting right in drilling the PT1-20 questions.

One more thing to add: I haven't gotten the Cambridge packets by type. I just bought the actual Preptest book issued by LSAC of the earliest tests. I simply go through by type for each section. But looking back, I think it's better to buy the Cambridge packets. Less time is wasted sorting through the separate tests. And you can do them in bigger bunches. I guess my method is sort of mixed, at least in the sense that I'm doing say, 5 flaw questions, then 6 assumption questions, then 5 strengthen/weaken, then 4 inference, and so on.

[mx23250]

No problem. I actually initially drilled by type from PT1-20 LR questions very early in my prep too, but it was with hardly any direction. It was also pre-MLSAT LR, which has worked well for me. I've been drilling through 1-20 again lately, making sure to implement MLSAT techniques (if they work for you, use them), and I've gotten way less wrong. And I don't think the fact that I've seen them before is contributing much. If it means anything, I got -3 on PT39 LR and -5 on PT40 LR. Which is just about in line with the percentage I'm getting right in drilling the PT1-20 questions.

One more thing to add: I haven't gotten the Cambridge packets by type. I just bought the actual Preptest book issued by LSAC of the earliest tests. I simply go through by type for each section. But looking back, I think it's better to buy the Cambridge packets. Less time is wasted sorting through the separate tests. And you can do them in bigger bunches. I guess my method is sort of mixed, at least in the sense that I'm doing say, 5 flaw questions, then 6 assumption questions, then 5 strengthen/weaken, then 4 inference, and so on.

I initially went through all the PS bibles, including LR. It was alright, but I was still missing roughly 8-10 LR questions per PT (-4/5 per LR section), so I also got the MLSAT LR book and I'm in the process of reading that as well. I only recently started drilling PTs 1-20 by LR type as I initially focused on nailing down the LG section. I can tell that slowing things down and drilling by type has definitely helped me but I'm hoping the MLSAT will help even more.

[Otunga]

I was stuck in the -8 to -12 (total) zone for LR until I picked up MLSAT. I was pretty much mediocre with every question type. Regularly missed inference and sufficient assumption questions, particularly. Now those questions are close to layups. Improving on inference questions has also improved my RC scores. It's gotten me from the -4 to -6 zone to the 0 to -2 zone.

[mx23250]

I was stuck in the -8 to -12 (total) zone for LR until I picked up MLSAT. I was pretty much mediocre with every question type. Regularly missed inference and sufficient assumption questions, particularly. Now those questions are close to layups. Improving on inference questions has also improved my RC scores. It's gotten me from the -4 to -6 zone to the 0 to -2 zone.

Great to hear! Nice job! I think those are some of my major trouble areas as well so I'm glad to hear MLSAT helped with that.

[seagan823]

I definitely recommend drilling these questions by type and then heavily reviewing individual questions that either gave you trouble or you got incorrect.

It's like a sport. If you are having trouble hitting curveballs, you aren't going to just hope that with each at-bat you get better at it, or that the pitcher only throws fastballs. There simply aren't enough at-bats in a game to count on those things. So you go to the batting cage and work on your form.

The same applies to the LSAT. Doing LR sections and reviewing isn't going to be as helpful as drilling by type and reviewing because with whole sections you only have a snapshot. You got a parallel reasoning question wrong, but you don't know what you missed exactly. Or you do do know why you missed it, but you need to apply that knowledge over and over in order to make it stick. Its just like hitting balls in a batting cage. Once you get it down, bring it to the game.

[TheMostDangerousLG]

By type, definitely by type!

[meegee]

Kinda a tangent. But when drilling by type (specifically using Cambridge LR packets), when do you advance to the next difficulty level? After how many questions? How many questions answered correctly?

Any tips on how to divide up/tackle the Cambridge packets would be much appreciated, thanks.

[TheMostDangerousLG]

Kinda a tangent. But when drilling by type (specifically using Cambridge LR packets), when do you advance to the next difficulty level? After how many questions? How many questions answered correctly?

Just work straight through the packet, unless you're confident that you've got a difficulty level down (i.e., if you're getting all of the difficulty one Qs right with absolutely no trouble, I might move on to the next difficulty level).

[Clyde Frog]

Kinda a tangent. But when drilling by type (specifically using Cambridge LR packets), when do you advance to the next difficulty level? After how many questions? How many questions answered correctly?

Any tips on how to divide up/tackle the Cambridge packets would be much appreciated, thanks.

Try PT12 S1Q24. If you can handle that without an issue then you're awesome.

[TheMostDangerousLG]

Kinda a tangent. But when drilling by type (specifically using Cambridge LR packets), when do you advance to the next difficulty level? After how many questions? How many questions answered correctly?

Any tips on how to divide up/tackle the Cambridge packets would be much appreciated, thanks.

Try PT12 S1Q24. If you can handle that without an issue then you're awesome.

It's funny you have a go-to painful question.. Now I have to look this Q up.

[magickware]

As others have mentioned, go through the packets first in order. Do them untimed. Once you can do them untimed perfectly, then you can move onto timed PTs or mixed stuff.

But untimed is essential for developing your strategies and methods for the questions.

[Clyde Frog]

Kinda a tangent. But when drilling by type (specifically using Cambridge LR packets), when do you advance to the next difficulty level? After how many questions? How many questions answered correctly?

Any tips on how to divide up/tackle the Cambridge packets would be much appreciated, thanks.

Try PT12 S1Q24. If you can handle that without an issue then you're awesome.

It's funny you have a go-to painful question.. Now I have to look this Q up.

15% got it right on the LSAT. Let me know what you think.

[magickware]

I got the right answer out of POE. Everything else just doesn't plain make sense.

[TheMostDangerousLG]

Kinda a tangent. But when drilling by type (specifically using Cambridge LR packets), when do you advance to the next difficulty level? After how many questions? How many questions answered correctly?

Any tips on how to divide up/tackle the Cambridge packets would be much appreciated, thanks.

Try PT12 S1Q24. If you can handle that without an issue then you're awesome.

It's funny you have a go-to painful question.. Now I have to look this Q up.

15% got it right on the LSAT. Let me know what you think.

I recognized that question; I saw it while drilling a week or two ago. I got it right, but then, it's probably easier to get the hardest LSAT Qs right in the comfort of one's own home than under the pressure of test day. How do you know what percent got it right?

[Clyde Frog]

Powerscore has it listed on their site. Statistically it is the second hardest LR question ever.

[TheMostDangerousLG]

Powerscore has it listed on their site. Statistically it is the second hardest LR question ever.

Really? What's the hardest?

[Clyde Frog]

Powerscore has it listed on their site. Statistically it is the second hardest LR question ever.

Really? What's the hardest?

PT34 S3Q25

Parallel question with 14% success rate. Factor in that it also comes at the end of the section.

[TheMostDangerousLG]

Powerscore has it listed on their site. Statistically it is the second hardest LR question ever.

Really? What's the hardest?

PT34 S3Q25

Parallel question with 14% success rate. Factor in that it also comes at the end of the section.

That's a nasty Q. (And I would factor that in, but I do Qs 15-19 last.)

[Otunga]

I got the right answer out of POE. Everything else just doesn't plain make sense.

Same here. May have to take a minute to really see what makes it right. It was quickly clear to me why the wrong ones were wrong.

[magickware]

The answer is written in a convoluted manner, but if you take a step back and see exactly what the stimulus is suggesting, then read the answer, it becomes rather clear.