LR drilling analysis Forum

[malleus discentium]

I would like some advice on how to interpret my LR drilling scores. In drilling with the LR sections from PTs up to 38, I've noticed some remarkable swings in the number of questions I get wrong. My drilling sessions usually consist of section, score, review, repeat with the other section from the PT. I spend as much time as I need to on each question so I don't review them before I score.

Here is the data from PrepTests whose LR sections I used in drilling:
19 -0, -2
20 -2, -4
21 -3, -2
22 -0, -3
23 -1, -1
24 -0, -0 (!)
25 -0, -5
26 -0, -1
27 -1, -1
28 -1, -5
29 -3, -4
30 -3, -0

These are the scores from full, timed PTs:
A -0, -3
B -2, -3
C -4, -0
39 -1, -3
47 -1, -1
48-1, -1
49 -0, -3


I suspected that mental fatigue was to blame for poorer second sections (as generally indicated by the score distribution). So today I did four sections (29.1/4, 30.2/4) straight through without stopping. The results here fly in the face of that hypothesis: I was perfect on my last section, and my worst section was 29.4, where I should've been hitting my stride. So I conclude that mental fatigue is not the culprit for widely divergent scores.

There also seems to be a strange tendency where I do better on sections from tests with looser curves. On 23 and 24, with -16 and -14 curves, I went -2 and -0, respectively. And on 26 and 27, with -14 and -16, I went -1 and -2.

There is no pattern to the question types I've been missing. There may be a slight overrepresentation of parallel reasoning/flaw, which I've always found a particularly wretched question type, but otherwise it's pretty random. Only seldom do I miss a question because of a task error (almost exclusively this means that I forget halfway through about EXCEPT).

I know this question is kind of vague, but is there anything in here that might indicate something specific I should work on? Or why I might be so inconsistent among the drilled sections (since there is curious consistency among the full PTs)? Any insight will be appreciated.

[malleus discentium]

Bump for any advice

[NoodleyOne]

Without knowing question types, or what common trends missed questions have, it's impossible to give you a detailed analysis. It seems like you have an excellent grasp, but you need to work on consistency. If you disproportionately miss parallel reasoning, drill and practice those. Whatever your weakest question type is, drill that to perfection, and then move on to your next weakest.

[vuthy]

Honestly, if you're not timing yourself, there is no way to read anything into these. Getting LSAT questions right without timing them, while an important step early on, is also a totally different skill from getting them right under time constraints. People vastly underestimate this disparity in my opinion. So unfortunately, until you start timing, all you have in front of you is a somewhat encouraging sign that you have the potential to possibly do well on LR on the LSAT.

ETA: To give some additional perspective, basically all of the elite scorers (172+) would get -0 on every single LR section you listed above if they were untimed.

[Otunga]

My vaguely relevant anecdote is that I focused on untimed drilling for a bit, then went into semi-timed drilling of the Cambridge packets (going as fast as I could but also not strictly timing myself). My untimed scores were quite indicative of my now timed scores. I was hitting about -2 untimed (per section - and only did like 10 of these). and then the first timed PT I took after all that, I hit -2 on each section, which was also in line with my success rate on the packets (just about 92%). But note that I'm the type to miss questions even supposing I could've had unlimited time on them.