Drilled a packet...now what? Forum

[WaltGrace83]

I read the chapter on Sufficient Assumption questions in the trainer a few days ago and have been doing timed drilling and then reviewing the problems fairly intensely for the past few days. I did fairly well, getting most of them correct that I had time to complete but including the amount that I didn't complete (the number in parenthesis) as incorrect too.

14/14 on level 1
19/20 on level 2 (1)
4/6 on level 3 (1)
13/18 on level 4 (2)

My question is, now that I have reviewed them, what do I do with this knowledge? I was going to make a big PDF of all the ones I got wrong with reasons why so I can review later and possibly redo them later. However, I just want to get everything I can out of a problem set rather than just continuing to go through more problems. How do I keep my mistakes fresh in my mind so that I can improve on them? Is there a proper way to review the whole packet, not just question by question? Any advice is appreciated.

EDIT: I did blind review so I have questions that I thought were difficult and questions that I got wrong on the initial drill.

[papercut]

Definitely redo these like it was your new religion. The LSAT is extremely repetitive once you see the structural patterns. You will get more improvement out of redoing these, even though you know the answer, than out of doing new questions. Don't just redo them once, redo them a 3-4 times. Memorize them.

Also, make sure that you know exactly why each wrong answer was wrong.

If you're running out of time this means that you're not anticipating the correct answer before you get to the answer choices. That's just unforgivable for SA questions, because they almost always allow you to figure out the EXACT right answer before you look at the answer choices.

One warning though, make sure that these are more modern SA questions. Some of the older ones (early 2000 down) are a bit more funky.

[WaltGrace83]

Definitely redo these like it was your new religion. The LSAT is extremely repetitive once you see the structural patterns. You will get more improvement out of redoing these, even though you know the answer, than out of doing new questions. Don't just redo them once, redo them a 3-4 times. Memorize them.

Also, make sure that you know exactly why each wrong answer was wrong.

If you're running out of time this means that you're not anticipating the correct answer before you get to the answer choices. That's just unforgivable for SA questions, because they almost always allow you to figure out the EXACT right answer before you look at the answer choices.

One warning though, make sure that these are more modern SA questions. Some of the older ones (early 2000 down) are a bit more funky.

I was drilling 1-38 so from roughly 1990 - 2002.

[papercut]

Yeah you'll be happy to know that the more modern SA questions are easier, more straight forward, and I honestly think better written.

Get yourself some newer tests to practice on. But definitely still redo the questions you missed.

[d cooper]

If you're just starting to drill LR, I wouldn't bother with timing yourself at all. It will only distort your process.

Continue to revisit the set, even after you've moved on to the next question type. Think about the parts of the stimulus, talk through each answer choice. There's no magic trick — the goal is to become familiar with the question type and associated arguments.

And I agree with the above poster; PTs 1-18 or so have a markedly different LR style.

[Miracle]

I found that older questions are different for every type. Not truly representative of he newer tests.

[Captainunaccountable]

In my experience, having done several of the assumption family question packets, I've developed a very keen eye for the types of flaws/holes and thus patterns in the arguments for all such question types in this family. Definitely review the ones you got wrong and, moreover, I would say, make sure to do them again later on in your studies (perhaps even repeat the whole packets). When I go back and do problems from the packets I first started with (the ones I missed), the problems in the arguments/structure of the arguments were (was) much easier to identify as a result of further experience and practice. In sum: keep at it consistently and try to notice patterns of arguments, etc.