Going from low 170s to high 170s Forum

[OVOXO]

My PT average is 173.2 over 13 tests with a high of 176 and a low of 169 (at the beginning). It seems like no matter what I do — drilling Cambridge packs, redoing old tough games, thoroughly and intensively reviewing PTs — I can’t crack the 176 ceiling and get in the high 170s. With the Dec LSAT 22 days away, what can I do to improve? [note: I take PTs in realistic conditions with the Kaplan LSAT proctor w/distractions, water bottle under the desk, same watch, experimental, bubble sheet. Only exception is I haven’t taken them at 9:00 am which will change starting tomorrow]

I usually go −0/-1 LG, −1 to −3 on RC, and −2/-3 PER LR.

I understand there’s diminishing returns with studying, but I’m open to any good advice. Thanks!

[Thorcogan]

My PT average is 173.2 over 13 tests with a high of 176 and a low of 169 (at the beginning). It seems like no matter what I do — drilling Cambridge packs, redoing old tough games, thoroughly and intensively reviewing PTs — I can’t crack the 176 ceiling and get in the high 170s. With the Dec LSAT 22 days away, what can I do to improve? [note: I take PTs in realistic conditions with the Kaplan LSAT proctor w/distractions, water bottle under the desk, same watch, experimental, bubble sheet. Only exception is I haven’t taken them at 9:00 am which will change starting tomorrow]

I usually go −0/-1 LG, −1 to −3 on RC, and −2/-3 PER LR.

I understand there’s diminishing returns with studying, but I’m open to any good advice. Thanks!

Looks like your biggest weakness (if u can call -2/3 per section a weakness) is LR. My guess would also be that u probably get the first 16 or 17 right every time, and miss a couple of the really hard LR problems. Try using practice tests that you haven't done yet, and just drill questions 15-25(26).

With the scores you are getting it's pretty obvious you understand all the principles and how the tests works, and sometimes u just get tripped up by the hardest questions. Work on that degree of difficulty should help. The only true plateau is 180. GL

[OVOXO]

The only true plateau is 180. GL

YES.

I get some early LR qs wrong too (Q10 on the last PT) which tells me timing/rushing/haste is an issue as well. Rhythm on LR is so imp. Getting tripped up on Q3 or Q8 is just not acceptable if one wants a high 170 score.

[Thorcogan]

The only true plateau is 180. GL

YES.

I get some early LR qs wrong too (Q10 on the last PT) which tells me timing/rushing/haste is an issue as well. Rhythm on LR is so imp. Getting tripped up on Q3 or Q8 is just not acceptable if one wants a high 170 score.

While that is 100% true, recent tests have had relatively difficult questions fairly early. I think questions 8, 10, 11, and 13 in different sections of recent PTs have been hard questions.

[SecondWind]

The only true plateau is 180. GL

YES.

I get some early LR qs wrong too (Q10 on the last PT) which tells me timing/rushing/haste is an issue as well. Rhythm on LR is so imp. Getting tripped up on Q3 or Q8 is just not acceptable if one wants a high 170 score.

While that is 100% true, recent tests have had relatively difficult questions fairly early. I think questions 8, 10, 11, and 13 in different sections of recent PTs have been hard questions.

The way to figure out how hard a question is is to go and see how many views the explanation has on MLSAT relative to the other questions. I.e. I'm checking it right now and it's clear that on PT 69 LR1 Q18,19,21,22 were all difficult because they have 550+ views. On the older 1-38 PTs, 1,000 views is the threshold for me to consider it difficult.

[Daily_Double]

.

[bobtheblob916]

Seconding the advice on drilling just the last 10 questions of LR sections. Put three of those 10-question packs together and do them as one within 40 minutes. Qs 8-10 are also difficult, as someone mentioned, but it's annoying to sift through them, though by all means go ahead if you want to be completely comprehensive.