Need a recommendation to drastically improve on LR for Dec Forum

[pauly_biegler]

Just got my score back the other day- 160. I was pting between 165-170 but always felt LR is my weakness. I have a 3.91 so I need to try to get between 165-170 to pull in some good acceptances. The reason why I think this is fixable: -1 on LG, -5 on RC, -20 on LR on october. I need to desperately brush up on that and it'll fix my problem IMO.


With that said, does anyone have any thoughts on how to have such a big turn around in just a month!? Please help me out TLS!

[AnonymousAlterEgoC]

I'm in a similar situation.

Following advice I've read on here, I ordered Manhattan's LR guide, one of the Cambridge LR sets, and the LSAT Trainer. I plan to drill baby drill.

[jingosaur]

I found the Cambridge Difficult LR to be incredibly helpful. I went -2 -3 on December 2012 LR, -2 -2 on June 2013 LR, and -0 -2 on October 2013 LR and the one I got -2 on was probably the only reason why that test had a -12 curve.

If you haven't read through the entire LR Bible, I would do that too. Every LR question that you get wrong should result in a visit back to the LR Bible. You should have that book memorized.

[bobtheblob916]

I'm not a big fan of the LR Bible. Its missing some key things. Manhattan LR is a must have.

[foundingfather]

I found the Cambridge Difficult LR to be incredibly helpful. I went -2 -3 on December 2012 LR, -2 -2 on June 2013 LR, and -0 -2 on October 2013 LR and the one I got -2 on was probably the only reason why that test had a -12 curve.

If you haven't read through the entire LR Bible, I would do that too. Every LR question that you get wrong should result in a visit back to the LR Bible. You should have that book memorized.

Offtopic, but would you say drilling the Cambridge difficult LG would have the same effect?

[pauly_biegler]

I have manhattan lsat, the cambridge bundles and now the lsat trainer. do i have sufficient time to turn it around?

[gatorchomps]

I have manhattan lsat, the cambridge bundles and now the lsat trainer. do i have sufficient time to turn it around?

Only if you hop offline this instant and start drilling!

j/k -- good luck!

[jingosaur]

I have manhattan lsat, the cambridge bundles and now the lsat trainer. do i have sufficient time to turn it around?

If you haven't done any of these guides for your first take, I suggest that you wait until the February or June tests and maybe sit out a cycle. I was PTing around 170 for my first take and after doing the Powerscore LR and Manhattan RC, my PT scores went up about 5 points. There's a chance you just missed something from studying without these materials and your true potential is much higher.

If you've used these materials already and you're just going through them again and you have free time, the December test is fine.

[pauly_biegler]

I have manhattan lsat, the cambridge bundles and now the lsat trainer. do i have sufficient time to turn it around?

If you haven't done any of these guides for your first take, I suggest that you wait until the February or June tests and maybe sit out a cycle. I was PTing around 170 for my first take and after doing the Powerscore LR and Manhattan RC, my PT scores went up about 5 points. There's a chance you just missed something from studying without these materials and your true potential is much higher.

If you've used these materials already and you're just going through them again and you have free time, the December test is fine.

I'd be going through them the second time. December will have to do!

[bp shinners]

-20 on LR after those scores on the other sections suggests a huge gap in your approach there. You simply shouldn't see that much of a difference in LR compared to the other sections; especially since the RC and LR overlap quite a bit.

Is there a specific subset of questions with which you struggle?

[pauly_biegler]

-20 on LR after those scores on the other sections suggests a huge gap in your approach there. You simply shouldn't see that much of a difference in LR compared to the other sections; especially since the RC and LR overlap quite a bit.

Is there a specific subset of questions with which you struggle?

I suppose I've always struggled with sufficient vs. necessary assumption, parallel reasoning, parallel flaw, and the questions where you have to state the function of a piece of the argument.

This may have also been an endurance thing- I got the last 7 questions wrong on section 5.

[pauly_biegler]

bump

[bp shinners]

-20 on LR after those scores on the other sections suggests a huge gap in your approach there. You simply shouldn't see that much of a difference in LR compared to the other sections; especially since the RC and LR overlap quite a bit.

Is there a specific subset of questions with which you struggle?

I suppose I've always struggled with sufficient vs. necessary assumption, parallel reasoning, parallel flaw, and the questions where you have to state the function of a piece of the argument.

This may have also been an endurance thing- I got the last 7 questions wrong on section 5.

That does seem like endurance is a bit of an issue.

Quick tips:
SUFFICIENT ASSUMPTION
At least 3/4 questions introduce a new term in the conclusion that doesn't show up in the premises. That term has to show up in the correct answer to a sufficient assumption question. You can usually eliminate 3 answers using this trick.

NECESSARY ASSUMPTION
The SA trick works about 25% of the time for NA questions. Otherwise, find the flaw, find an answer that deals with the flaw, and negate it to see if it kills the argument.

PARALLEL
Everything has to match up except the order of the premises. Logical force, quantifiers, conditionality, causality, comparisons, etc...

PARALLEL FLAW
This is just 6 flaw questions - find the two that match up.

ROLE (Function)
It will either be premise, conclusion, or subsidiary conclusion. If you have trouble spotting the latter two, you need to go back and review argument construction.
Premise is harder, as they throw 3-4 answers at you that all sound the same. Try to substitute the specific language of the stimulus into the abstract language of the answer choice - if you can't, it's not your answer.