Top Law Schools

Hi all,

Just got my prep materials in the mail and decided it would be a good idea to start by taking a cold diagnostic. First off I want to say that the timing on the LSAT seems incredibly intense; however I did manage to finish all of the sections except for the logic games. To be honest I worked through about half of the section and then started guessing and rushing during the last five minutes. Anyway I ended up with a 158 for my cold diagnostic score and am a little discouraged.

So I have two questions.

1) Would it be reasonable to expect to raise my score to a 168 - 170 in time for the September test date or should I shoot for December? (I realize this is kind of a subjective and unanswerable question but I still appreciate any feedback.)

2) Are there any books you would recommend for logic games? (I currently have the Powerscore Logic Games Bible and am planning to get started with that tomorrow.)

Thanks for any advice!

A 158 for a stone-cold diagnostic with no prep is a fine place to start. Although this was never the case for me, a lot of people here end up routinely going -0 on Logic Games once they've figured them out and practiced.

You've got ~ 3-1/2 months until the September test, so I don't think it's out of the question. Study hard, and where you are as the test date approaches.

The PowerScore book is good. Also, check out the "7sage" logic games videos on YouTube - they're a great free resource.

that's actually a really good diagnostic score.

My cold was 147 and it took me about 4 months of crap lazy studying before I could hit 165 +...study hard you will be fine

Thanks for the responses guys. The 7sage videos look to be a great resource. It sort of sounds like the instructor is speaking a foreign language but I assume after I read the LG bible these terms will start to make more sense.

Wasr wrote:Thanks for the responses guys. The 7sage videos look to be a great resource. It sort of sounds like the instructor is speaking a foreign language but I assume after I read the LG bible these terms will start to make more sense.

I loved how manhattan explained LG. don't have my score back so I can't tell you how much I improved from my 156 diagnostic to the real deal

Wasr wrote:Thanks for the responses guys. The 7sage videos look to be a great resource. It sort of sounds like the instructor is speaking a foreign language but I assume after I read the LG bible these terms will start to make more sense.

Yeah, LSAT prep in general and Logic Games in particular has its own unique vocabulary - it'll make sense to you soon.

Just out of curiosity, since it sounds like LG was your worst section time-wise, what would your diagnostic score have been if you had gone -1 or -2 in Games instead?

ScottRiqui wrote:

Wasr wrote:Thanks for the responses guys. The 7sage videos look to be a great resource. It sort of sounds like the instructor is speaking a foreign language but I assume after I read the LG bible these terms will start to make more sense.

Yeah, LSAT prep in general and Logic Games in particular has its own unique vocabulary - it'll make sense to you soon.

Just out of curiosity, since it sounds like LG was your worst section time-wise, what would your diagnostic score have been if you had gone -1 or -2 in Games instead?

If I had gone -2 on LG my score would have been a 165. I did pretty well on all of the other sections but only got 10 correct on LG.

Wasr wrote:

ScottRiqui wrote:

Wasr wrote:Thanks for the responses guys. The 7sage videos look to be a great resource. It sort of sounds like the instructor is speaking a foreign language but I assume after I read the LG bible these terms will start to make more sense.

Yeah, LSAT prep in general and Logic Games in particular has its own unique vocabulary - it'll make sense to you soon.

Just out of curiosity, since it sounds like LG was your worst section time-wise, what would your diagnostic score have been if you had gone -1 or -2 in Games instead?

If I had gone -2 on LG my score would have been a 165. I did pretty well on all of the other sections but only got 10 correct on LG.

Yeah, you're in a *very* good position. Like I said earlier, there's no guarantee that you'll end up going -0 to -2 in LG on test day, but it's widely considered the easiest section in which to make improvements. I know it was the bane of my existence, though; I ended up going -8 in LG on my first test for a 167, and -4 on my second test for a 170.

7sage for logic games, all you need. Just use JY's foolproof method. The only way to get better at logic games is through repetition.

ScottRiqui wrote:

Wasr wrote:

ScottRiqui wrote:

Wasr wrote:Thanks for the responses guys. The 7sage videos look to be a great resource. It sort of sounds like the instructor is speaking a foreign language but I assume after I read the LG bible these terms will start to make more sense.

Yeah, LSAT prep in general and Logic Games in particular has its own unique vocabulary - it'll make sense to you soon.

Just out of curiosity, since it sounds like LG was your worst section time-wise, what would your diagnostic score have been if you had gone -1 or -2 in Games instead?

If I had gone -2 on LG my score would have been a 165. I did pretty well on all of the other sections but only got 10 correct on LG.

Yeah, you're in a *very* good position. Like I said earlier, there's no guarantee that you'll end up going -0 to -2 in LG on test day, but it's widely considered the easiest section in which to make improvements. I know it was the bane of my existence, though; I ended up going -8 in LG on my first test for a 167, and -4 on my second test for a 170.

That is good to hear. The other sections seemed somewhat intuitive; LG kind of felt like I was taking a math test without knowing any of the formulas.

tfinndogm wrote:

Wasr wrote:Thanks for the responses guys. The 7sage videos look to be a great resource. It sort of sounds like the instructor is speaking a foreign language but I assume after I read the LG bible these terms will start to make more sense.

I loved how manhattan explained LG. don't have my score back so I can't tell you how much I improved from my 156 diagnostic to the real deal

Is this the book you used?

http://www.amazon.com/Manhattan-Logic-S ... 1935707841

Wasr wrote:
That is good to hear. The other sections seemed somewhat intuitive; LG kind of felt like I was taking a math test without knowing any of the formulas.

The bolded is how it was for me, too. I was typically going between -0 and -2 in the LR and RC sections almost from the beginning of my prep, and I still can't talk intelligently about the different question types or type-specific strategies in those sections. For me, it was always just "read the prompt and give the answer"; I didn't sit there and think "okay, this is a Necessary Assumption question, so I need to do X, Y and Z".

ScottRiqui wrote:

Wasr wrote:
That is good to hear. The other sections seemed somewhat intuitive; LG kind of felt like I was taking a math test without knowing any of the formulas.

The bolded is how it was for me, too. I was typically going between -0 and -2 in the LR and RC sections almost from the beginning of my prep, and I still can't talk intelligently about the different question types or type-specific strategies in those sections. For me, it was always just "read the prompt and give the answer"; I didn't sit there and think "okay, this is a Necessary Assumption question, so I need to do X, Y and Z".

Yep exactly. I feel like over analyzing the LR and RC sections might actually do me more harm than good.

Wasr wrote:

ScottRiqui wrote:

Wasr wrote:
That is good to hear. The other sections seemed somewhat intuitive; LG kind of felt like I was taking a math test without knowing any of the formulas.

The bolded is how it was for me, too. I was typically going between -0 and -2 in the LR and RC sections almost from the beginning of my prep, and I still can't talk intelligently about the different question types or type-specific strategies in those sections. For me, it was always just "read the prompt and give the answer"; I didn't sit there and think "okay, this is a Necessary Assumption question, so I need to do X, Y and Z".

Yep exactly. I feel like over analyzing the LR and RC sections might actually do me more harm than good.

Go through a LR and RC study guide and drill questions by type anyway - there may still be room for improvement. Also, if you sign up at lsatqa.com, you can enter in your answers for a section and it will grade them and record them. After doing this for a while, you can pull up a chart that shows which types of questions you're missing most, allowing you to zero in on those types for more practice.

Wasr wrote:

tfinndogm wrote:

Wasr wrote:Thanks for the responses guys. The 7sage videos look to be a great resource. It sort of sounds like the instructor is speaking a foreign language but I assume after I read the LG bible these terms will start to make more sense.

I loved how manhattan explained LG. don't have my score back so I can't tell you how much I improved from my 156 diagnostic to the real deal

Is this the book you used?

http://www.amazon.com/Manhattan-Logic-S ... 1935707841

yeah. i'm a visual learner and manhattan gives you "boards" to set up to help with diff game types. helped me go from like -12 on my diagnostic to -2 on my final PT

ScottRiqui wrote:

Wasr wrote:

ScottRiqui wrote:

Wasr wrote:
That is good to hear. The other sections seemed somewhat intuitive; LG kind of felt like I was taking a math test without knowing any of the formulas.

The bolded is how it was for me, too. I was typically going between -0 and -2 in the LR and RC sections almost from the beginning of my prep, and I still can't talk intelligently about the different question types or type-specific strategies in those sections. For me, it was always just "read the prompt and give the answer"; I didn't sit there and think "okay, this is a Necessary Assumption question, so I need to do X, Y and Z".

Yep exactly. I feel like over analyzing the LR and RC sections might actually do me more harm than good.

Go through a LR and RC study guide and drill questions by type anyway - there may still be room for improvement. Also, if you sign up at lsatqa.com, you can enter in your answers for a section and it will grade them and record them. After doing this for a while, you can pull up a chart that shows which types of questions you're missing most, allowing you to zero in on those types for more practice.

Fantastic, thank you! I'm planning to drill all 3 section types as much as possible. I think fatigue was part of my problem, the first two sections went well, after that... not so well.