Top Law Schools

People who have gone into test day with minimal or no prep and scored 170+, I need your help! What strategy did you use while taking the test that helped you? Is it as simple as making inferences and guessing a letter multiple times across sections? While I am going through preptests and understanding why some answers are right and others are wrong, I know that there surely has to be a way to infer and BS some things to make it to the promised land. Please share your stories of survival and triumph.

Post removed.

This isn't going to work

modusponen wrote:People who have gone into test day with minimal or no prep and scored 170+, I need your help! What strategy did you use while taking the test that helped you? Is it as simple as making inferences and guessing a letter multiple times across sections? While I am going through preptests and understanding why some answers are right and others are wrong, I know that there surely has to be a way to infer and BS some things to make it to the promised land. Please share your stories of survival and triumph.

This is absolutely the worst attitude to have about the LSAT, especially on this forum.

I can totally understand if you have a very busy life and don't have time to do a lot of PrepTests (judging from your earlier posts), but then you should be asking about ways to use what little time you have efficiently. Unless by fluke or by seraphic intervention, the test is successful in ensuring that people who rely on "guessing a letter multiple times across sections" and other forms of "BS" do not score in that so-called "promise land" range.

The people whom you describe — "naturals" who walk into the test cold and score above the 98th percentile — aren't using a magic trick; they naturally have some abilities that usually take a lot of practice to build up.

I am going through practice tests and consulting different strategy guides. I just found it miraculous that some people had the ability to go into the test and do well with minimal study. I don't think I'm tarnishing the forum by posing a question of this sort.

Post removed.

There are two ways to score a 170:

1. Be a genius and do it cold.
2. Study properly.

modusponen wrote:I am going through practice tests and consulting different strategy guides. I just found it miraculous that some people had the ability to go into the test and do well with minimal study. I don't think I'm tarnishing the forum by posing a question of this sort.

Well, good luck. If you do find the secret shortcut to a quick-170, you'll pull the rug from under the entire LSAT-prep industry's feet. Mazel tov.

With a natural knack for that sort of thing it's possible to do well on the LSAT coldish- but only if you devote time to learning how to get the logic games diagramed in a hurry. I put in about 20-40 hours of study time. I guess you also have the advantage of not being as nervous as people who have spent hundreds of hours studying for the test. Also, guess "A" when in doubt. Seems like a solid plan.

rinkrat19 wrote:There are two ways to score a 170:

1. Be a genius and do it cold.
2. Study properly.

I think being a borderline genius and studying a little bit could yield a 170.

honestly wouldnt equate genius with high lsat score. Being intelligent doesnt necessarily, and moreso sufficiently, provide you will do well on the lsat. Being from a logic background, being extremely well read and used to dense reading passages, and being a world champion soduku player I think would yield pretty high results

.

What do you think OP? That we all just studied for hundreds of hours for fun? Or that that there is some secret way the entire site didn't pick up on?

steel_shot wrote:What do you think OP? That we all just studied for hundreds of hours for fun? Or that that there is some secret way the entire site didn't pick up on?

I mean has anyone tried to find a pattern in the lsat question answers? Perhaps we've all overlooked it and the answers always follow some sort of code that we never noticed! We wouldnt have to study and we could just no the answers due to a pattern

I don't expect to find a secret formula to 170. The fact that people have found a way to succeed using other methods beyond the consensus of dozens of practice tests and strategy guides, I thought, was impressive and worth soliciting advice about in order to have a range of strategies that included potential inferences being made on certain sections. Of course studying will always be the main way to do one's best. Again, the leap that the question being disrespectful to the forum is maddening in its overreach.

Post removed.

.

.

modusponen wrote:I don't expect to find a secret formula to 170. The fact that people have found a way to succeed using other methods beyond the consensus of dozens of practice tests and strategy guides, I thought, was impressive and worth soliciting advice about in order to have a range of strategies that included potential inferences being made on certain sections. Of course studying will always be the main way to do one's best. Again, the leap that the question being disrespectful to the forum is maddening in its overreach.

"Guessing a letter" and "BS"ing aren't examples of valid strategies.

modusponen wrote:I don't expect to find a secret formula to 170. The fact that people have found a way to succeed using other methods beyond the consensus of dozens of practice tests and strategy guides, I thought, was impressive and worth soliciting advice about in order to have a range of strategies that included potential inferences being made on certain sections. Of course studying will always be the main way to do one's best. Again, the leap that the question being disrespectful to the forum is maddening in its overreach.

It seems that you think high diags are attributable to a skill that is acquired right before (or while) someone takes the LSAT. It's not. If you venture deep into these forums, which I'm sure you will, you will find that those who score highly on the LSAT either:

1. Aquired the skills via correct and intense study. Or

2. Acquired the skills via a lifetime of reading, doing puzzles, and other activities (Like ppl w/ high diags tend to be the type of people that when they had free time throughout childhood, they would read, as opposed to ppl like me who just watched television and did stupid shit).

Obviously "Guessing a letter" and "BSing somethings" was not the most artful way of saying looking closely at questions and making an inference. If those portions of the post were inferred as disrespectful to the thousands of you who are studying diligently and putting in work to succeed, I apologize.

Post removed.

.

modusponen wrote:Obviously "Guessing a letter" and "BSing somethings" was not the most artful way of saying looking closely at questions and making an inference. If those portions of the post were inferred as disrespectful to the thousands of you who are studying diligently and putting in work to succeed, I apologize.

Nobody is offended or thinks you were disrespecting anyone. We think you're deluded.

Of course you can "look closely" at questions and make "inferences." That's called reading the question and choosing an answer. And the more you study and drill in the months leading up to the exam, the better at it you get.

modusponen wrote:Obviously "Guessing a letter" and "BSing somethings" was not the most artful way of saying the exact opposite of saying looking closely at questions and making an inference. If those portions of the post were inferred as disrespectful to the thousands of you who are studying diligently and putting in work to succeed, I apologize.

FTFY