Worth studying LR/RC? Forum

[Radioheader]

I'm going to be a senior and hoping to take the September LSAT. Literally just decided about a week ago that I'm going to try. I don't have much experience with the LSAT besides taking a proctored practice test a few years ago in my Freshman year. I dug out the paper they gave me with my scores: -16 LG/-14 LR/-12 RC.

I bought a book with recent preptests and took a couple more full, timed tests the past couple of days. I scored the following:

Test 1:
LG: -18
LR: -3
RC: -1

Test 2:
LG: -17
LR: -6
RC: -4

I don't know how I managed to improve so drastically on LR and RC from my first test, but I'll take it.

My question is, with only two months until the September test, do you think it would be most beneficial to really hit LG hard and not focus on LR and RC besides from when I do full practice tests? Or could I stand to improve those two sections consistently by a couple points through buying prep books and drilling? I have no issues with timing when it comes to LR and RC, I've been finishing with about 8-10 minutes to spare.

Also, is it even realistic to improve my LG that drastically in 2 months? If I'm not consistently practicing in the 170s by around that time then I won't take it and will just wait until December. I'm leaning towards not going straight through to law school, but ideally I'd like to be able to apply and consider any offers even if I decide to take a year off.

[vracovino]

Curious- what PTs did you take?

Also why not study until December? Especially if you don't mind taking a year off. Two months of studying is pretty prohibitive.

Congrats on the high LR and RC scores though

[ilikebaseball]

I think someone can master LG in a matter of a few weeks of hardcore drilling several types of games... but that's just me. It sorta came easy to me for some reason. My first LG section was horrible, and I looked at a PRINCETON REVIEW book for about an hour and a half and I've never missed over 5 since. Princeton Review sucks by the way. So I'm sure if you use a real guide, like the bible, you could do the same. I think you could easily get it under 5 by the September test. However, that doesn't necessarily mean you'll score in the 170's, cuz you're still missing 10 from the other sections.

Edit: although I keep saying that PR sucks, it seems to have helped me understand the games really easy. So I'll give credit to where its due. Maybe give it a try? Unconventional, but gives fantastic step by steps for every LG you could find and makes it really simple. Everyone here will tell you to avoid it, which you DEFINITELY should for the other two sections, but all I'm saying is it helped me conquer the games in like under a day. I can't thank that review enough.

[bombaysippin]

Study everything, take when ready aka don't rush september

[BP Robert]

You're definitely going to want to study everything, because if you miss a combined ten questions on RC and LR (as with PT2) you'll miss your target score.
While LR and RC come intuitively to many people, there are methods and techniques that can help you shore up deficiencies and ensure that you get questions 21-26.

That said, I do think triage is important, so it'd make sense to give a disproportionate amount of time to LG at this point.

[sfoglia]

I'm going to be a senior and hoping to take the September LSAT. Literally just decided about a week ago that I'm going to try. I don't have much experience with the LSAT besides taking a proctored practice test a few years ago in my Freshman year. I dug out the paper they gave me with my scores: -16 LG/-14 LR/-12 RC.

I bought a book with recent preptests and took a couple more full, timed tests the past couple of days. I scored the following:

Test 1:
LG: -18
LR: -3
RC: -1

Test 2:
LG: -17
LR: -6
RC: -4

I don't know how I managed to improve so drastically on LR and RC from my first test, but I'll take it.

My question is, with only two months until the September test, do you think it would be most beneficial to really hit LG hard and not focus on LR and RC besides from when I do full practice tests? Or could I stand to improve those two sections consistently by a couple points through buying prep books and drilling? I have no issues with timing when it comes to LR and RC, I've been finishing with about 8-10 minutes to spare.

Also, is it even realistic to improve my LG that drastically in 2 months? If I'm not consistently practicing in the 170s by around that time then I won't take it and will just wait until December. I'm leaning towards not going straight through to law school, but ideally I'd like to be able to apply and consider any offers even if I decide to take a year off.

Life story.

I'm at about an average of -13 for LG. That includes lucky guesses, of course. I will be postponing if I do not hit mid 170s consistently by two/three weeks before the test date.

Let me know if you want to trade strategies, horror/sob stories, whatever.

[HRomanus]

Life story.

I'm at about an average of -13 for LG. That includes lucky guesses, of course. I will be postponing if I do not hit mid 170s consistently by two/three weeks before the test date.

Let me know if you want to trade strategies, horror/sob stories, whatever.

If you're hitting -13 consistently you haven't done adequate drilling and shouldn't be PTing.

[sfoglia]

Life story.

I'm at about an average of -13 for LG. That includes lucky guesses, of course. I will be postponing if I do not hit mid 170s consistently by two/three weeks before the test date.

Let me know if you want to trade strategies, horror/sob stories, whatever.

If you're hitting -13 consistently you haven't done adequate drilling and shouldn't be PTing.

Do watch the tone. I accept advice only without condescension. You don't know anything about how much drilling I have or have not done, or why I might be scoring the way that I am. I may have dyscalculia for all you know.

[dowu]

It's so odd to me that people can crush RC and LR but get destroyed by games. Games are way easier imo.

[Colonel_funkadunk]

It's so odd to me that people can crush RC and LR but get destroyed by games. Games are way easier imo.

This. It's the only section I seem to consistently get less than 2 wrong.

[sfoglia]

It's so odd to me that people can crush RC and LR but get destroyed by games. Games are way easier imo.

I'm a writer, so I've studied a lot of literary theory and criticism. My assumption is that those who are easily strong in RC and LR have backgrounds in literature and/or philosophy.

An example, if you're curious: If you can read this, you can easily read the abbreviated passages that LSAC chooses.

I wonder if they've done surveys.

[HRomanus]

Life story.

I'm at about an average of -13 for LG. That includes lucky guesses, of course. I will be postponing if I do not hit mid 170s consistently by two/three weeks before the test date.

Let me know if you want to trade strategies, horror/sob stories, whatever.

If you're hitting -13 consistently you haven't done adequate drilling and shouldn't be PTing.

Do watch the tone. I accept advice only without condescension. You don't know anything about how much drilling I have or have not done, or why I might be scoring the way that I am. I may have dyscalculia for all you know.

"Whoa there cowboy!" would be condescending. What I said was actual advice. PTs are for reinforcing skills and building section-long time management skills. I don't see how section-long time management skills would result in a consistent -13 if your game skills are where they should be, so it is likely a better idea to drill rather than PT.

[ilikebaseball]

Life story.

I'm at about an average of -13 for LG. That includes lucky guesses, of course. I will be postponing if I do not hit mid 170s consistently by two/three weeks before the test date.

Let me know if you want to trade strategies, horror/sob stories, whatever.

If you're hitting -13 consistently you haven't done adequate drilling and shouldn't be PTing.

Do watch the tone. I accept advice only without condescension. You don't know anything about how much drilling I have or have not done, or why I might be scoring the way that I am. I may have dyscalculia for all you know.

"Whoa there cowboy!" would be condescending. What I said was actual advice. PTs are for reinforcing skills and building section-long time management skills. I don't see how section-long time management skills would result in a consistent -13 if your game skills are where they should be, so it is likely a better idea to drill rather than PT.

Ya he definitely didnt mean anything by it. The common sentiment on the board is that if you're scoring above 2 or 3 on LG then you arent ready to PT. He was being genuine. LG are extremely learnable, and literally everyone can get 0's consistently. So he was just suggesting that you arent ready to PT until you master them so then you can take a PT and see a) an increase in your score and b) where to specify the rest of your drilling

[blueberrycrumble]

Life story.

I'm at about an average of -13 for LG. That includes lucky guesses, of course. I will be postponing if I do not hit mid 170s consistently by two/three weeks before the test date.

Let me know if you want to trade strategies, horror/sob stories, whatever.

If you're hitting -13 consistently you haven't done adequate drilling and shouldn't be PTing.

Do watch the tone. I accept advice only without condescension. You don't know anything about how much drilling I have or have not done, or why I might be scoring the way that I am. I may have dyscalculia for all you know.

There wasn't really any condescension at all. It's honest advice. -13 = should probably be drilling for any normal situation. And it makes MUCH more sense to assume you don't have dyscalculia than that you do have dyscalculia given you never mentioned it.

[sfoglia]

Life story.

I'm at about an average of -13 for LG. That includes lucky guesses, of course. I will be postponing if I do not hit mid 170s consistently by two/three weeks before the test date.

Let me know if you want to trade strategies, horror/sob stories, whatever.

If you're hitting -13 consistently you haven't done adequate drilling and shouldn't be PTing.

Do watch the tone. I accept advice only without condescension. You don't know anything about how much drilling I have or have not done, or why I might be scoring the way that I am. I may have dyscalculia for all you know.

"Whoa there cowboy!" would be condescending. What I said was actual advice. PTs are for reinforcing skills and building section-long time management skills. I don't see how section-long time management skills would result in a consistent -13 if your game skills are where they should be, so it is likely a better idea to drill rather than PT.

Yes, it may be likely. What you wrote, however, was not "It's likely that you haven't done adequate drilling. Maybe you shouldn't be PTing?" Read what you wrote again. Read it as someone who does not know you, who has not interacted with you previous. Your tone is presumptuous.

If you actually are genuinely interested in an explanation: My game skills are the only weakness left for me. PTing has been extremely helpful for testing my mental endurance in regards to LR and RC. I AM drilling, as I PT. In the meantime, my LR and RC scores are increasingly strong.

I find that LG is great in that I can do many games multiple times over the course of a few weeks, and even if I recognize that I have completed the game previous, I am still entirely unlikely to recall the correct answer. I'm required to go through the exact motions of diagramming and inferring. I am, however very likely to remember LR and RC, and I do not want to waste sections by practicing with them in non-testing conditions. I cannot ignore LR and RC completely while I drill LG, so PTing is the best way for me to strengthen those areas, even if it is at the expensive of a higher LG score.

My experience is that I have been substantially increasing my LR and RC accuracy over the past three PTs I have taken while at once studying LGs "full time", and learning more about how I react to testing conditions, to the way in which a particular test in organized, as well. As I see it, I'm losing absolutely nothing by PTing with weak LG skills, while at once drilling.

Study strategies should be tailored to suit individual needs. Nothing is gospel.

Feel free to ask me about my PT scores in another week or two, when I have finished drilling. If you were right, I'll happily concede to it. But I feel very strongly that I am not making the wrong decision.

[HRomanus]

Yes, it may be likely. What you wrote, however, was not "It's likely that you haven't done adequate drilling. Maybe you shouldn't be PTing?" Read what you wrote again. Read it as someone who does not know you, who has not interacted with you previous. Your tone is presumptuous.

All right bro.

Since you think I'm condescending and presumptuous, I might as well be condescending and presumptuous.

[03152016]

sfoglia you sound like a really fun person to hang out with

[03152016]

op, losing -10 on lr/rc is not generally a sign that you're good to go
obviously lg should be the priority for now
but if you don't have time to cover all three topics (or at least lr and lg) thoroughly
you ought to postpone to dec, as others have mentioned

[sfoglia]

sfoglia you sound like a really fun person to hang out with

Thank you, Brut. That's very kind of you to say.