Top Law Schools

My prep test scores from 39-43 (5 most recent) have been 161, 159, 162, 162, and 161.

I've been blind reviewing every single LR question and redoing the logic games. But I don't see any tangible improvements in my score, so I think I have plateaued. Knowing that LR and RC will only get tougher further adds to my worries.

Upon a little reflection, I think my logical reasoning skills are simply not good enough. I tried to convince myself that it's something other than my lack of skill that contributes to my poor LR scores (I range from -3 to -10). But now I'm sure I'm wrong. My skills are simply not good enough.

I just can't do the first 15 LR questions in 15 minutes (usually I hover around the 16-18 mark).

I have a lot of trouble with inference sections - I spend an inordinate amount of time on it and I still get them wrong. My logical reasoning skills in the Assumptions family are mediocre at best.

I'm inclined to think that no techniques or tricks will take my RC to the next level. So it probably comes down to doing more passages and reading more outside material. LG is sort of hit or miss for me. I'll keep drilling timed RC LG sections from PT's 1-38.

I'm not sure how to proceed with LR, which is the most important element. I'm considering taking 2 prep tests a week and spend more time drilling question types and doing more thorough reviews, instead of taking 3 each week according to my schedule. If that's the case, I won't be able to get through all the available prep tests before I take the real one in late September.

1) Should I go back to the Cambridge drilling packets and re-drill some question types (i.e. Inference and Assumptions family)?
2) Is slowing down PT'ing and going back to the basics my optimal strategy at this point?


Thanks in advance

logic games are the most learnable. IMO, anybody who can't get virtually all of them right virtually every time is not ready for the test.

your first priority should be getting all of those right, every time. start by giving yourself an extra five or ten minutes per LG section...or however long it takes you to get everything right. every one of those questions are get-right-able by anybody with decent intelligence if given enough time. this might involve drawing out every permutation/answer to see which one works.

then gradually decrease the time that you allow yourself. it'll feel like a scramble, but it should. eventually, answers will start coming together in your head and you will no longer need a picture where u previously did, or you'll start drawing it, and the answer will come to you before you are finished.


and do tons and tons and tons of them.

objctnyrhnr wrote:logic games are the most learnable. IMO, anybody who can't get virtually all of them right virtually every time is not ready for the test.

You know, I keep reading this, and all it does is serve to convince me that I may actually be a complete moron who has somehow gotten by on pretending to be intelligent up until now. (Impostor syndrome!) The PT I took yesterday was -2 RC, -3 and -4 LR, and -13 LG, and this after studying LG exclusively for two weeks now. My LG has not improved at all on PTs since I began studying for the LSAT in June. I actually did four untimed games yesterday before beginning my PT and scored like -1/20 and began to think I was maybe understanding some, but, NOPE. Could only solve one game on the PT.

Anyway...

OP, yes, #2! From my experience as a fellow depressed 160s-er:

For LR, I saw a huge difference in regards to my speed after finishing the Trainer. Actually, the Trainer was quite helpful in allowing me to skip formal logic diagramming, too, where I had previously needed to use it to organize my thoughts. I have also read the Manhattan, which was fantastic for learning the basics, but I'd say that the Trainer helped me to answer in the most efficient way possible, kind of tips and tricks, if you will.

If you have not read both of those, DO. If you have the Trainer, then go back to the Assumption Family chapters and drill. Do those dinky, obnoxious drills that don't have you actually answering questions, but doing things like identifying the conclusion and diagramming the logic. God, those are so obnoxious. But they really do work.

IMO, you can PT and PT, and blind review, but the only way that you're likely to see improvement is by picking up a book. I worry that by continuing to PT, you may solidify your bad habits, your tendency towards wrong answer choices. It isn't as though you have to forgo PTing totally in the meantime, but it will probably be most beneficial for you to return to your books.

I have not looked at anything related to RC, so I have no special insight to offer there. I am willing to tell you my personal strategy, if you are interested. I know that it works for me, but I don't know what the books are advocating, so, YMMV.

sfoglia wrote:

objctnyrhnr wrote:logic games are the most learnable. IMO, anybody who can't get virtually all of them right virtually every time is not ready for the test.

You know, I keep reading this, and all it does is serve to convince me that I may actually be a complete moron who has somehow gotten by on pretending to be intelligent up until now. (Impostor syndrome!) The PT I took yesterday was -2 RC, -3 and -4 LR, and -13 LG, and this after studying LG exclusively for two weeks now. My LG has not improved at all on PTs since I began studying for the LSAT in June. I actually did four untimed games yesterday before beginning my PT and scored like -1/20 and began to think I was maybe understanding some, but, NOPE. Could only solve one game on the PT.

Anyway...

OP, yes, #2! From my experience as a fellow depressed 160s-er:

For LR, I saw a huge difference in regards to my speed after finishing the Trainer. Actually, the Trainer was quite helpful in allowing me to skip formal logic diagramming, too, where I had previously needed to use it to organize my thoughts. I have also read the Manhattan, which was fantastic for learning the basics, but I'd say that the Trainer helped me to answer in the most efficient way possible, kind of tips and tricks, if you will.

If you have not read both of those, DO. If you have the Trainer, then go back to the Assumption Family chapters and drill. Do those dinky, obnoxious drills that don't have you actually answering questions, but doing things like identifying the conclusion and diagramming the logic. God, those are so obnoxious. But they really do work.

IMO, you can PT and PT, and blind review, but the only way that you're likely to see improvement is by picking up a book. I worry that by continuing to PT, you may solidify your bad habits, your tendency towards wrong answer choices. It isn't as though you have to forgo PTing totally in the meantime, but it will probably be most beneficial for you to return to your books.

I have not looked at anything related to RC, so I have no special insight to offer there. I am willing to tell you my personal strategy, if you are interested. I know that it works for me, but I don't know what the books are advocating, so, YMMV.

2 weeks is not a long time to study LG. try more like 3-5 months. a lot of people do not really understand what it takes to actually get good at this test.

you are in a really good spot score-wise. once you get those LG's to 100%, you will be looking really good. trust me--do not take the test until you have that or are very close to that. try doing what I suggested above...and be patient. it's a skill, and learning a new skill takes time. you will feel yourself getting better and it will be a good feeling. good luck. PM me if u wanna talk more.

2 weeks usually isn't enough time to see that much improvement on LG. I started off getting maybe 7 questions right in an entire LG section to going -0 almost every time after about 6 weeks. It just takes time. Sooner or later, it'll click. Just make sure you watch the 7sage videos and do games over and over until it becomes almost reflexive.

YeezusPiece wrote:2 weeks usually isn't enough time to see that much improvement on LG. I started off getting maybe 7 questions right in an entire LG section to going -0 almost every time after about 6 weeks. It just takes time. Sooner or later, it'll click. Just make sure you watch the 7sage videos and do games over and over until it becomes almost reflexive.

Okay, that makes me feel better.

I am going to sit down with 7Sage, watch the explanations for the the three LGs sections I didn't couldn't seem to diagram on the PT, and then do each at least five times tomorrow. (I know 7Sage says to do it 10 times, but there are just not enough hours in a day for that.) Ugh, LSAT. So fun.

objctnyrhnr wrote:

sfoglia wrote:

objctnyrhnr wrote:logic games are the most learnable. IMO, anybody who can't get virtually all of them right virtually every time is not ready for the test.

You know, I keep reading this, and all it does is serve to convince me that I may actually be a complete moron who has somehow gotten by on pretending to be intelligent up until now. (Impostor syndrome!) The PT I took yesterday was -2 RC, -3 and -4 LR, and -13 LG, and this after studying LG exclusively for two weeks now. My LG has not improved at all on PTs since I began studying for the LSAT in June. I actually did four untimed games yesterday before beginning my PT and scored like -1/20 and began to think I was maybe understanding some, but, NOPE. Could only solve one game on the PT.

Anyway...

OP, yes, #2! From my experience as a fellow depressed 160s-er:

For LR, I saw a huge difference in regards to my speed after finishing the Trainer. Actually, the Trainer was quite helpful in allowing me to skip formal logic diagramming, too, where I had previously needed to use it to organize my thoughts. I have also read the Manhattan, which was fantastic for learning the basics, but I'd say that the Trainer helped me to answer in the most efficient way possible, kind of tips and tricks, if you will.

If you have not read both of those, DO. If you have the Trainer, then go back to the Assumption Family chapters and drill. Do those dinky, obnoxious drills that don't have you actually answering questions, but doing things like identifying the conclusion and diagramming the logic. God, those are so obnoxious. But they really do work.

IMO, you can PT and PT, and blind review, but the only way that you're likely to see improvement is by picking up a book. I worry that by continuing to PT, you may solidify your bad habits, your tendency towards wrong answer choices. It isn't as though you have to forgo PTing totally in the meantime, but it will probably be most beneficial for you to return to your books.

I have not looked at anything related to RC, so I have no special insight to offer there. I am willing to tell you my personal strategy, if you are interested. I know that it works for me, but I don't know what the books are advocating, so, YMMV.

2 weeks is not a long time to study LG. try more like 3-5 months. a lot of people do not really understand what it takes to actually get good at this test.

you are in a really good spot score-wise. once you get those LG's to 100%, you will be looking really good. trust me--do not take the test until you have that or are very close to that. try doing what I suggested above...and be patient. it's a skill, and learning a new skill takes time. you will feel yourself getting better and it will be a good feeling. good luck. PM me if u wanna talk more.

Okay, and now you make me feel worse. Three months on LG alone? I understand that the LSAT is difficult, but I think three months is a bit of an excessive estimate. If I can solve most games within fifteen minutes, I'd hope it wouldn't take me three months to cut my time in half. That's a horrifying idea.

In any event, if I'm not prepared for the September test, which is looking more likely than not, then I will have exactly twelve more months to study. So, LG will get done either way.

yeah i mean it depends if you're doing it part time or full time. if you're doing it full time, you could figure out LG's in a matter of weeks. for part time, more like a matter of months.

and yeah--with those scores on the other parts of the test, you would be selling yourself short if u take the test prior to becoming proficient at the games. of course, if you were getting more like -13 on RC (like I was), that's a problem that is way less fixable.

objctnyrhnr wrote:yeah i mean it depends if you're doing it part time or full time. if you're doing it full time, you could figure out LG's in a matter of weeks. for part time, more like a matter of months.

and yeah--with those scores on the other parts of the test, you would be selling yourself short if u take the test prior to becoming proficient at the games. of course, if you were getting more like -13 on RC (like I was), that's a problem that is way less fixable.

Yeah, I work 45 hours a week. :/

For RC (I'm just going to completely hijack this thread, since the OP hasn't yet returned), how much more difficult has it gotten in the past few years? I've been taking PTs in the 30s for the past few weeks, and know I need to move on to more recent tests. Does the difficulty increase beginning in the 50s, maybe? Want to save my 60s until September...

Hijacking is alright, I appreciate all of your inputs.

There's a good chance that I'll never get out of this range. Like what other posters on TLS have said, you can't score in the top 90th or the top 95th percentile by hard work alone, natural aptitude comes into play here.

h3jk5h wrote:Hijacking is alright, I appreciate all of your inputs.

There's a good chance that I'll never get out of this range. Like what other posters on TLS have said, you can't score in the top 90th or the top 95th percentile by hard work alone, natural aptitude comes into play here.

Dont think like that man, thats a self defeating attitude.

h3jk5h wrote:Hijacking is alright, I appreciate all of your inputs.

There's a good chance that I'll never get out of this range. Like what other posters on TLS have said, you can't score in the top 90th or the top 95th percentile by hard work alone, natural aptitude comes into play here.

No, stop. Don't think that way. That is just not true. There's a good chance that you will, it's just that it is going to take more work than you initially had imagined. I mean, let's be honest, we are all willing to work "hard" for the LSAT, to spend three months at thirty hours a week studying, drilling, testing. But for anyone who isn't naturally gifted, three months is probably just not enough.

So, just because the average study time is three months doesn't mean that if you cannot get it in three, then you cannot get it at all. I don't know ANYONE who is currently in law school who scored above a 165. They all studied for about three months, and they all feel that the 160s are good enough, so, I imagine that the 160s are what three months of studying will get you, on average.

But, you know what?, I really want to be able to say that I scored 175+ on my LSAT, because I know that if that isn't the case, it's simply because I was not trying hard enough. I will postpone my September test date to December or February, and I will submit my applications a cycle later than I had intended, and it will suck, but I know that it will be worth it when I earn that 175+.

I know it's depressing. You put in so much time and you just don't see results, and you think, "Why am I doing this? Why am I going to waste another month studying if I won't even be able to raise my score by a single point?" But, eff that. It will catch up. The hours you accumulate in studying will show. You just need to keep with it.

Seriously, don't be that guy that gave up and went for "good enough."