December retaker Forum

[flowerhair789]

I took the October LSAT last Saturday and plan on retaking this December.

Target score: 170
Highest PT so far: 167 (Barring a miracle, I would have retaken in December anyway)
Prep materials: Powerscore bibles (did nothing for me); Velocity program (very helpful); LSAT trainer book (lots of great tips; I got the book 2 weeks before October 5th, and I believe reading through this unlocked the switch to more consistent 165+ PTs).
My strengths/weaknesses: I was going -1/-3 (LR), -3/-5 (RC) and -6/-8 (LG). I consistently run out of time during the games section and end up guessing on 4-5 questions.

My plan is to keep refining my LR and RC skills. I haven't done many RC sections, and know I can improve my stats to -0/-2. I need to keep working on LR so as maintain/further sharpen my abilities.

LGs are my biggest problem! They suck away my progress in LR and RC. And I will be nearly impossible to get to 170 unless I can 1) finish all four games 2) Bring my LG scores to at least -2/-3.

I have logical games from PTs 32-53 and PTs 54-69.
I have PTs 7,9,10-16, 18, 29-38, 52-69

Would getting the Cambridge LSAT Logic Games by Type (PrepTests 1–38) be helpful?

Also, given the recent changes in LR stimuli types/length, would I still benefit from prepping LR by type using PT 1-38? And RC?

Material from 52-69 is still super-fresh on my mind.

Thanks

[iamgeorgebush]

The Cambridge LGs by Type are great. Definitely get them and drill those babies, by type, until you collapse. LG was my weakest section starting out (-6 on June and guessed on 2 questions), and that is how I managed to make it my strongest (finished in 32 minutes on the October test and I'm pretty sure I got a -0, unless I made a careless mistake).

Make sure you photocopy the games before you do them too, because you'll want to do them all multiple times (2-3 times each, depending on how much time you can devote).

Also, FYI the Cambridge packets do sometimes categorize LGs in what I believe to be the incorrect way. The CD rating game comes to mind. So don't get too held up on doing them in the way that they are organized.

[dosto]

.

[flowerhair789]

The Cambridge LGs by Type are great. Definitely get them and drill those babies, by type, until you collapse. LG was my weakest section starting out (-6 on June and guessed on 2 questions), and that is how I managed to make it my strongest (finished in 32 minutes on the October test and I'm pretty sure I got a -0, unless I made a careless mistake).

Make sure you photocopy the games before you do them too, because you'll want to do them all multiple times (2-3 times each, depending on how much time you can devote).

Also, FYI the Cambridge packets do sometimes categorize LGs in what I believe to be the incorrect way. The CD rating game comes to mind. So don't get too held up on doing them in the way that they are organized.

Thanks, Bush. I'm going to get the game sets! I'll buy the PDF versions because I don't want to deal with erasing gazillions of prior work once it's time to repeat the games .

Any thoughts about the usefulness of getting LR and RC sections from PTs 1-38?

[flowerhair789]

I second what Bush said. I went from getting essentially nothing right on games to perfect just by drilling them over and over and over. It sounds awful (and it kind of is) but for me it worked. Use 7sage videos if you don't already.

The months leading up to June, I did an hour of games everyday (carried photocopies of games and a notepad to work and added games each time I took a PT). I averaged -0/-1 on PTs 45-68 going over -3 only once of twice. You can too, just takes time but eventually things will click. I think a big part of it is not only getting your brain to think in the correct way, but really to maintain it (which is where the daily hour comes in).

Thanks for sharing your experience. I'll be ecstatic if I ever arrive to the point where I consistently get -0/-3 on LG sections.

[dosto]

.

[iamgeorgebush]

The Cambridge LGs by Type are great. Definitely get them and drill those babies, by type, until you collapse. LG was my weakest section starting out (-6 on June and guessed on 2 questions), and that is how I managed to make it my strongest (finished in 32 minutes on the October test and I'm pretty sure I got a -0, unless I made a careless mistake).

Make sure you photocopy the games before you do them too, because you'll want to do them all multiple times (2-3 times each, depending on how much time you can devote).

Also, FYI the Cambridge packets do sometimes categorize LGs in what I believe to be the incorrect way. The CD rating game comes to mind. So don't get too held up on doing them in the way that they are organized.

Thanks, Bush. I'm going to get the game sets! I'll buy the PDF versions because I don't want to deal with erasing gazillions of prior work once it's time to repeat the games .

Any thoughts about the usefulness of getting LR and RC sections from PTs 1-38?

The earlier RCs are pretty good for drilling; I recommend doing so. RC hasn't changed too much over the years, aside from the addition of the comparative passages. It's definitely hard to raise your score on RC, but do enough of them in succession and you can improve a little bit. You should read through the Manhattan RC book first, though. It's short, so it won't take you more than a few days, and then you can drill those earlier passages afterwards to put the principles into practice.

Regarding LR, I never drilled LR (just worked through the Manhattan LR book), but my study partner did (using the Cambridge packets from the earlier tests, I believe), and he found it super helpful. I did take a bunch of those earlier tests as PTs, and I thought the questions were in most cases similar to modern LR questions, but sometimes they were definitely a bit different.

Considering that you only have two months, though, I don't think you should focus on LR. Definitely read and work through the Manhattan LR Guide (very very useful, can't recommend it highly enough), but other than that, I think you should focus on drilling LG and RC. Mostly LG. Drill, baby, drill.

Another thing: the PowerScore in/out method sucks, IMO. Try the Manhattan method. If you live in New York and want to buy me coffee, I'm happy to show you my method in person, which is similar to Manhattan but even better.

Oh, and do sudoku. Try two a day, one in the morning and one before sleep, and try to write down as little as possible (mostly do the inferences in your head). It's kind of like a break from the LSAT that isn't actually a break from the LSAT...or a study tool that doesn't feel like studying.

[flowerhair789]

The Cambridge LGs by Type are great. Definitely get them and drill those babies, by type, until you collapse. LG was my weakest section starting out (-6 on June and guessed on 2 questions), and that is how I managed to make it my strongest (finished in 32 minutes on the October test and I'm pretty sure I got a -0, unless I made a careless mistake).

Make sure you photocopy the games before you do them too, because you'll want to do them all multiple times (2-3 times each, depending on how much time you can devote).

Also, FYI the Cambridge packets do sometimes categorize LGs in what I believe to be the incorrect way. The CD rating game comes to mind. So don't get too held up on doing them in the way that they are organized.

Thanks, Bush. I'm going to get the game sets! I'll buy the PDF versions because I don't want to deal with erasing gazillions of prior work once it's time to repeat the games .

Any thoughts about the usefulness of getting LR and RC sections from PTs 1-38?

The earlier RCs are pretty good for drilling; I recommend doing so. RC hasn't changed too much over the years, aside from the addition of the comparative passages. It's definitely hard to raise your score on RC, but do enough of them in succession and you can improve a little bit. You should read through the Manhattan RC book first, though. It's short, so it won't take you more than a few days, and then you can drill those earlier passages afterwards to put the principles into practice.

Regarding LR, I never drilled LR (just worked through the Manhattan LR book), but my study partner did (using the Cambridge packets from the earlier tests, I believe), and he found it super helpful. I did take a bunch of those earlier tests as PTs, and I thought the questions were in most cases similar to modern LR questions, but sometimes they were definitely a bit different.

Considering that you only have two months, though, I don't think you should focus on LR. Definitely read and work through the Manhattan LR Guide (very very useful, can't recommend it highly enough), but other than that, I think you should focus on drilling LG and RC. Mostly LG. Drill, baby, drill.

Another thing: the PowerScore in/out method sucks, IMO. Try the Manhattan method. If you live in New York and want to buy me coffee, I'm happy to show you my method in person, which is similar to Manhattan but even better.

Oh, and do sudoku. Try two a day, one in the morning and one before sleep, and try to write down as little as possible (mostly do the inferences in your head). It's kind of like a break from the LSAT that isn't actually a break from the LSAT...or a study tool that doesn't feel like studying.

Bummer. I'm about 8 hours from NYC.

I'll take your advice and focus on LG, then RC. Thanks for the tips.