Lsat Books/ Materials. Please help! Forum

[ScrewMick180]

Hi TLS,
I'm beginning my LSAT journey tomorrow in preparation for the December 2014 exam. Here are the materials I plan on purchasing:
1) LSAT Trainer
2) Manhattan LR
3) Blueprint LG
4) Cambridge LSAT Extreme Endurance Edition

Am I purchasing the right books? Should I purchase any others? I'd really appreciate any type of response. My goal is to score a 170+ and I'm willing to purchase anything and everything if it can help me score even one point higher.

My biggest weakness is LG, and my biggest strength is LR. RC falls somewhere in the middle.

Also, please feel free to offer any judicious advice on how to study effectively. I have 10 months to study and I want to do it right. Thank you in advance. This forum is amazing!

[Kimikho]

I didn't use any Blueprint books, and I don't know what Cambridge Endurance are (I just used packets and the PTs), but you look good. Maybe throw in MLSAT LG if you need to after the Blueprint one, but I've heard good things about the blueprint method anyways.

[mist4bison]

.

[ScrewMick180]

Just so you're aware, the Trainer and the Extreme Endurance pack don't go together very well. You'll encounter some trouble with drills, as the Trainer has you drill questions from tests 52-54 (or whatever they are), which have been placed into 5 and 6 section tests. You can either go through the tests and find the questions you need (the answer sheet lists which test each section is from) or you can just use the drills. Personally, I skipped drills for the first set of LR chapters and just began drilling the packs for the second set of LR chapters. Not a huge deal, but just figured I'd give you a heads up.

With that being said, I have the Trainer and MSLAT LR and find both to be very helpful. Good luck studying!

Thank you!

[10052014]

.

[Straw_Mandible]

I used BPLG as well, and I liked the book, but I would caution you to not to become too enthralled with its "simplified" grouping relationships. Having a strong background in conditional logic, I found their presentation a little bit misleading, especially for in/out games. When you hit the grouping lessons, I suggest taking a pause, drilling some in/out games and then watching the corresponding 7Sage videos. J.Y.'s approach is potent.

[BPlaura]

Hi - friendly resident BP stalker here! I was just wondering if you could elaborate on the below, even if only so I can present those games more clearly to my future classes. Thanks!

I used BPLG as well, and I liked the book, but I would caution you to not to become too enthralled with its "simplified" grouping relationships. Having a strong background in conditional logic, I found their presentation a little bit misleading, especially for in/out games. When you hit the grouping lessons, I suggest taking a pause, drilling some in/out games and then watching the corresponding 7Sage videos. J.Y.'s approach is potent.

[Straw_Mandible]

Hi BPlaura! Thanks so much for maintaining a presence on these forums. Your input is always solidly on point, and very valuable.

As I mentioned, I thought the Blueprint book was fantastic overall, but I found the extended analogy of the "big four" grouping relationships to be relatively weak and, at times, potentially misleading. One example that comes to mind is the application of the "hate" relationship to describe "not both" rules for in/out games. "If X --> not Y" means that at least one, but potentially both, of these elements must be in the "out" group. It might make more sense to present it as the inverse of the "baby" relationship (i.e., at least one out). Encouraging the student to think of this in terms of a "hate" relationship might lead the student to believe that the two elements must always be in opposing groups. Although the book does address this point, it is not emphasized strongly enough, and I believe it could be easily lost in this "simplified" relationship analogy.

While I really appreciated the effort on the part of the Blueprint team to make the learning process enjoyable--I earned a ton of dirty looks from college kids for laughing out loud on the quiet floor of the library!--the grouping relationships lesson was the one place where I found this approach to be more of a distraction than a benign source of much-needed entertainment.

Just my $0.02 -- thanks again for producing such a solid resource!

[BPlaura]

Encouraging the student to think of this in terms of a "hate" relationship might lead the student to believe that the two elements must always be in opposing groups. Although the book does address this point, it is not emphasized strongly enough, and I believe it could be easily lost in this "simplified" relationship analogy.

Yeah, I totally understand. I haven't read that part of the LG book, but I know that in our classes we make a big point of emphasizing that "rules do not apply to the Out group" for that very reason (and Shinners, BP TLSer emeritus, actually refers to it as the "Out list" rather than the "Out group" to emphasize that point). However, it's still an ongoing point of confusion sometimes - I suppose that's the struggle with balancing simplification and precision.

Anyway, thanks for the kind words and I'm glad you liked the rest of the book.