How to drill? Forum

[joeisreallycool]

So this is kind of a two part post, but the second part is more important of the two. To me, at least.

I recently have finally wrapped up all of the introductory learning phase of my LSAT study - thank god. Judging from various study guides and posts concerning how to best prep it looks like the next step is to drill.

A few things to keep in mind - I decided not to take a diagnostic, and I have never actually sat down and took a full length PT. I understand its important to gauge where I started and where I am now, but I am almost nervous to do so. I've been going at this full force and between work, the gym, and LSAT prep I don't do much else. If I take a PT and it turns out not as good as I expected, I am afraid I will lose motivation to continue. Anyone else have experience with this?

Second part - I plan on buying the cambridge LR and LG bundles because those seem so highly suggested here. Now my question is what to do with them? Do I just have at them and complete each question one by one? Do I time myself? Will doing these questions and reviewing the answers give me false confidence when I see them again in PTs that I will inevitably end up taking? What worked for you when you started drilling?

[Gray]

.

[chimera]

Take a PT but do not worry about your score, there is still a lot of time between now and September 27. For LR, note where you got the most wrong answers(you can do this manually or by putting in your responses into an analyzer on 7sage or lsatqa). Were they assumption family questions? Inference questions? etc. Now you know where to start drilling. For LG, do every single game. Start with the games you are most comfortable with. If you miss a question, reprint the game and do it over a few days later. Always review questions you got wrong, the LGs what took you forever, etc etc.

As for false confidence when taking PTs, you can avoid this by getting PTs 39-70 from cambridge. I would do this not only to avoid familiarity, but also to familiarize yourself with recent tests. But imo recognizing a questions isn't that bad, since you won't always remember the right answer and can use the familiarity to strengthen your reasoning process.

[joeisreallycool]

So this is kind of a two part post, but the second part is more important of the two. To me, at least.

I recently have finally wrapped up all of the introductory learning phase of my LSAT study - thank god. Judging from various study guides and posts concerning how to best prep it looks like the next step is to drill.

A few things to keep in mind - I decided not to take a diagnostic, and I have never actually sat down and took a full length PT. I understand its important to gauge where I started and where I am now, but I am almost nervous to do so. I've been going at this full force and between work, the gym, and LSAT prep I don't do much else. If I take a PT and it turns out not as good as I expected, I am afraid I will lose motivation to continue. Anyone else have experience with this?

Second part - I plan on buying the cambridge LR and LG bundles because those seem so highly suggested here. Now my question is what to do with them? Do I just have at them and complete each question one by one? Do I time myself? Will doing these questions and reviewing the answers give me false confidence when I see them again in PTs that I will inevitably end up taking? What worked for you when you started drilling?

I'd recommend taking an untimed PT. Take the pressure off, just see how you do with the questions and make sure you're comfortable with doing it all at once. I'd suggest taking note of how long each section takes you, just to know how far you have to go.

I'm sure people will recommend just sucking it up and doing a timed PT, but I didn't time my diagnostic, or my first couple PTs, and I'm doing just fine with time now. Doing full, timed PTs is very important, but I think it makes sense to ease yourself into it.

Have no idea about Cambridge - but I got books that only have problems from LSATs 1-40, specifically to take full PTs that have different questions (41-72). I drill by type for RC and LG, and that helped me a ton, because I learned to see the patterns. With LG, for example, the first couple of games in a type would be more challenging, but by the end of the section, I'd finish the games with no mistakes in 5 minutes.

Thank you both for your suggestions. I did end up taking an untimed PT this morning, the first Superprep one.

Completed none of the sections in under 35 minutes, and it broke down to this:

LR 1: -7. 39.30 minutes
RC: -6. 47 minutes
LG: -6. 56 minutes (holyshit)
RC 2: -10. 39 minutes

Gave me a score of 157. Pretty distraught, especially after I was doing so well during the individual drill sections provided by the trainer and BP LG. I was unable to identify most question stems on LR, but even if I was I wouldn't be able to implement specific strategies.

Seeing all three sections at the same time also seemed to be a problem. Felt overwhelmed.

I guess its time to buckle down drilling and PTs.

[gnomgnomuch]

Input your answer choice into lsatqa.com and figure out where you missed the most points per section. Drill those first, as those are the ones you need to improve the most on.

Don't be discouraged by the timing, you've only JUST finished the intro stage. Drilling - if done correctly - will take at least another 2 or 3 months. If you're still this bad on timing after 2/3 months of intensive drilling then you might have cause for worry, but the familiarity with each individual question type alone will cut down your time significantly.

For example, if you read the question stem and see "assumption/depends." you need to be automatically able to identify it as a N.A question, and without even thinking know the criteria for a correct N.A question. I very much doubt this is something that you're doing right now.

In regards to LG, I'd be more worried about the -6 then the time it took. Did you lose a lot of points in one game, or was it spread out evenly? All of these questions need to be addressed. But a 157 untimed diagnostic is pretty good, and you'll improve a fair amount just by virtue of familiarity with the test.

[joeisreallycool]

Input your answer choice into lsatqa.com and figure out where you missed the most points per section. Drill those first, as those are the ones you need to improve the most on.

Don't be discouraged by the timing, you've only JUST finished the intro stage. Drilling - if done correctly - will take at least another 2 or 3 months. If you're still this bad on timing after 2/3 months of intensive drilling then you might have cause for worry, but the familiarity with each individual question type alone will cut down your time significantly.

For example, if you read the question stem and see "assumption/depends." you need to be automatically able to identify it as a N.A question, and without even thinking know the criteria for a correct N.A question. I very much doubt this is something that you're doing right now.

In regards to LG, I'd be more worried about the -6 then the time it took. Did you lose a lot of points in one game, or was it spread out evenly? All of these questions need to be addressed. But a 157 untimed diagnostic is pretty good, and you'll improve a fair amount just by virtue of familiarity with the test.

You are right. I don't accurately identify the question type, and even if I did I most likely wouldn't remember the steps in going about how to answer that specific type. I'm assuming these skills just come from PTs and drills?

Took another PT today, and although the timing was basically the same I did much better on LG and RC. Sucks that LR has to be the problem considering its probably most important.

[BillPackets]

I think the Cambridge packets are incredibly helpful. PTs 1-38 are organized by section and question type, and by level of difficulty (eg LR, necessary assumption, sufficient assumption, levels 1-4). I drilled all those packets twice before taking a PT. I would just pick a certain number of questions and then go at them. Check answers, review, review, review. Review incorrect answers. Why are they wrong? There are patterns even in the incorrect answers.

[joeisreallycool]

I think the Cambridge packets are incredibly helpful. PTs 1-38 are organized by section and question type, and by level of difficulty (eg LR, necessary assumption, sufficient assumption, levels 1-4). I drilled all those packets twice before taking a PT. I would just pick a certain number of questions and then go at them. Check answers, review, review, review. Review incorrect answers. Why are they wrong? There are patterns even in the incorrect answers.

Did you find that it helped you better identify? If I know something is a necessary assumption question for example, because I'm doing questions from the necessary assumption packet, I would probably just not even focus on the stem because I already know what its asking. I may have solved my problem just by typing that out, but the question still stands.

When you sat down to drill, would you pick a certain number from the same packet? Or would you mix it up?

Thank you all by the way. I don't think I would have even got it in my mind that I can do this if it wasn't for this community.

[nightcheese]

Here's an overview of my drilling method. It may nor may not be perfect for you, but it's been working for me so far.

I have very little disposable income right now, so I need to prep as cheaply as possible. I bought some of the official PT books (which contain 10 tests per book) and use the older tests specifically for drilling. I'll use the newer tests (June 2007 and beyond) for taking full PTs, because the RC sections contain comparative reading, and the LG sections are more similar to what will be on the real test.

It took a bit of prep work to copy and organize all the games/questions, but luckily there are lots of awesome people who have already identified the types:

LR by type: PT #7-59

LG by type: PT #1-70

Target which types of questions and games are giving you the most trouble, then drill those types until you're feeling more comfortable with them. For LG, I recommend making 3-5 photocopies of each game, then replaying them until you finish with -0 in as little time as possible. Time yourself each time, but don't fret over it the first couple of tries. By the 3rd attempt or so, you should be picking up the pace with more accuracy. Be sure to wait at least a full day or two until you attempt the same game again, so the game is less fresh in your mind. Consistency is also key--make sure to practice every day, even if you can only make time for one game or a couple of LR questions. (Not sticking to my schedule has been my downfall lately.)

If you decide to drill from the PT books, keep in mind that they won't come with explanations for the answers. I find it more helpful to try to figure out on my own why I messed up and why the correct answers are correct. If you still can't figure it out, try checking here, the Manhattan forums, the LSAT Blog, etc. (But just keep in mind that LSAT Blog and some other online tutors charge a fee for most of their explanations.)

[BillPackets]

I think the Cambridge packets are incredibly helpful. PTs 1-38 are organized by section and question type, and by level of difficulty (eg LR, necessary assumption, sufficient assumption, levels 1-4). I drilled all those packets twice before taking a PT. I would just pick a certain number of questions and then go at them. Check answers, review, review, review. Review incorrect answers. Why are they wrong? There are patterns even in the incorrect answers.

Did you find that it helped you better identify? If I know something is a necessary assumption question for example, because I'm doing questions from the necessary assumption packet, I would probably just not even focus on the stem because I already know what its asking. I may have solved my problem just by typing that out, but the question still stands.

When you sat down to drill, would you pick a certain number from the same packet? Or would you mix it up?

Thank you all by the way. I don't think I would have even got it in my mind that I can do this if it wasn't for this community.

I had that same fear--will I recognize the stems outside of the packets--and that fear never ever came to fruition. Just make sure and read the stems when you drill.

I would just do, say 10 at a time and then review. Maybe 20. You can do more if you would like. Use a count up timer too to see how long they're taking you. You can mix the difficulty level if you would like, sometimes I did that, and sometimes I did questions from the same level of difficulty.

[nightcheese]

I had that same fear--will I recognize the stems outside of the packets--and that fear never ever came to fruition. Just make sure and read the stems when you drill.

+1
Reading the stems is important so you'll learn to recognize the curveballs LSAC can--and will!--throw at you. For example, Assumption questions most often have "assumption" or "assume" in the stem. But sometimes you'll get phrases like, "the argument presupposes" or "the conclusion does not follow unless" in an Assumption stem.

[Lying Lawyer]

I understand your apprehension. Like the rest of us you've put a lot of pressure on yourself with this test but you need to know where you stand. I don't know when you plan on taking the LSAT but you need to know if you are on track for let's say December or you need to push back to February. If you score low you might be let down but you need to understand this test is not going to be easy and law school will not be either. This test and law school or going to make you question what you're doing and if this is all worth it.

[joeisreallycool]

Here's an overview of my drilling method. It may nor may not be perfect for you, but it's been working for me so far.

I have very little disposable income right now, so I need to prep as cheaply as possible. I bought some of the official PT books (which contain 10 tests per book) and use the older tests specifically for drilling. I'll use the newer tests (June 2007 and beyond) for taking full PTs, because the RC sections contain comparative reading, and the LG sections are more similar to what will be on the real test.

It took a bit of prep work to copy and organize all the games/questions, but luckily there are lots of awesome people who have already identified the types:

LR by type: PT #7-59

LG by type: PT #1-70

Target which types of questions and games are giving you the most trouble, then drill those types until you're feeling more comfortable with them. For LG, I recommend making 3-5 photocopies of each game, then replaying them until you finish with -0 in as little time as possible. Time yourself each time, but don't fret over it the first couple of tries. By the 3rd attempt or so, you should be picking up the pace with more accuracy. Be sure to wait at least a full day or two until you attempt the same game again, so the game is less fresh in your mind. Consistency is also key--make sure to practice every day, even if you can only make time for one game or a couple of LR questions. (Not sticking to my schedule has been my downfall lately.)

If you decide to drill from the PT books, keep in mind that they won't come with explanations for the answers. I find it more helpful to try to figure out on my own why I messed up and why the correct answers are correct. If you still can't figure it out, try checking here, the Manhattan forums, the LSAT Blog, etc. (But just keep in mind that LSAT Blog and some other online tutors charge a fee for most of their explanations.)

I really like that photocopy idea, and will definitely use it once I start to focus on LG. That, as well as targeting my weak questions first, is giving me a pretty solid idea of how to go about this. LR seems to be my main problem in terms of general accuracy, so I am making the assumption (I'm starting to catch on) that is what I should focus on before timing.

I think the Cambridge packets are incredibly helpful. PTs 1-38 are organized by section and question type, and by level of difficulty (eg LR, necessary assumption, sufficient assumption, levels 1-4). I drilled all those packets twice before taking a PT. I would just pick a certain number of questions and then go at them. Check answers, review, review, review. Review incorrect answers. Why are they wrong? There are patterns even in the incorrect answers.

Did you find that it helped you better identify? If I know something is a necessary assumption question for example, because I'm doing questions from the necessary assumption packet, I would probably just not even focus on the stem because I already know what its asking. I may have solved my problem just by typing that out, but the question still stands.

When you sat down to drill, would you pick a certain number from the same packet? Or would you mix it up?

Thank you all by the way. I don't think I would have even got it in my mind that I can do this if it wasn't for this community.

I had that same fear--will I recognize the stems outside of the packets--and that fear never ever came to fruition. Just make sure and read the stems when you drill.

I would just do, say 10 at a time and then review. Maybe 20. You can do more if you would like. Use a count up timer too to see how long they're taking you. You can mix the difficulty level if you would like, sometimes I did that, and sometimes I did questions from the same level of difficulty.

That truly gives me some peace of mind - that being unable to recognize stems outside of the packets isn't something I should be too worried about. Would you ever mix up question types? Or would that be counterproductive? For example if you were on the Must be True packet, did 20 of those and reviewed, would you ever hop over to the Necessary Assumption packet and give a crack at a few of those?

I understand your apprehension. Like the rest of us you've put a lot of pressure on yourself with this test but you need to know where you stand. I don't know when you plan on taking the LSAT but you need to know if you are on track for let's say December or you need to push back to February. If you score low you might be let down but you need to understand this test is not going to be easy and law school will not be either. This test and law school or going to make you question what you're doing and if this is all worth it.

To be honest when it first popped into my mind I was signed up for this June, and my pre-law advisor said I only needed the month between the end of school and the test date to prepare. Didn't show up to that, and started studying with the intent for the September test shortly thereafter. It's taken me a bit longer than I had hoped for the learning stage however, and I'm feeling a bit overwhelmed with all of the things I need to do to reach my goal. The thought of pushing the date back, again, has recently been weighing on my mind.

It also doesn't help that I've got a gpa lower than most 25th's for the school's I am currently interest in (3.2), and I constantly hear about how the earlier the better in terms of applying. It hasn't been easy so far, and I don't expect it to get any easier.

Strangely enough though, I find myself enjoying the ride. I think, or at least hope, that is something everyone on this board has in common.

[ilikebaseball]

Here's an overview of my drilling method. It may nor may not be perfect for you, but it's been working for me so far.

I have very little disposable income right now, so I need to prep as cheaply as possible. I bought some of the official PT books (which contain 10 tests per book) and use the older tests specifically for drilling. I'll use the newer tests (June 2007 and beyond) for taking full PTs, because the RC sections contain comparative reading, and the LG sections are more similar to what will be on the real test.

It took a bit of prep work to copy and organize all the games/questions, but luckily there are lots of awesome people who have already identified the types:

LR by type: PT #7-59

LG by type: PT #1-70

Target which types of questions and games are giving you the most trouble, then drill those types until you're feeling more comfortable with them. For LG, I recommend making 3-5 photocopies of each game, then replaying them until you finish with -0 in as little time as possible. Time yourself each time, but don't fret over it the first couple of tries. By the 3rd attempt or so, you should be picking up the pace with more accuracy. Be sure to wait at least a full day or two until you attempt the same game again, so the game is less fresh in your mind. Consistency is also key--make sure to practice every day, even if you can only make time for one game or a couple of LR questions. (Not sticking to my schedule has been my downfall lately.)

If you decide to drill from the PT books, keep in mind that they won't come with explanations for the answers. I find it more helpful to try to figure out on my own why I messed up and why the correct answers are correct. If you still can't figure it out, try checking here, the Manhattan forums, the LSAT Blog, etc. (But just keep in mind that LSAT Blog and some other online tutors charge a fee for most of their explanations.)

I really like that photocopy idea, and will definitely use it once I start to focus on LG. That, as well as targeting my weak questions first, is giving me a pretty solid idea of how to go about this. LR seems to be my main problem in terms of general accuracy, so I am making the assumption (I'm starting to catch on) that is what I should focus on before timing.

I think the Cambridge packets are incredibly helpful. PTs 1-38 are organized by section and question type, and by level of difficulty (eg LR, necessary assumption, sufficient assumption, levels 1-4). I drilled all those packets twice before taking a PT. I would just pick a certain number of questions and then go at them. Check answers, review, review, review. Review incorrect answers. Why are they wrong? There are patterns even in the incorrect answers.

Did you find that it helped you better identify? If I know something is a necessary assumption question for example, because I'm doing questions from the necessary assumption packet, I would probably just not even focus on the stem because I already know what its asking. I may have solved my problem just by typing that out, but the question still stands.

When you sat down to drill, would you pick a certain number from the same packet? Or would you mix it up?

Thank you all by the way. I don't think I would have even got it in my mind that I can do this if it wasn't for this community.

I had that same fear--will I recognize the stems outside of the packets--and that fear never ever came to fruition. Just make sure and read the stems when you drill.

I would just do, say 10 at a time and then review. Maybe 20. You can do more if you would like. Use a count up timer too to see how long they're taking you. You can mix the difficulty level if you would like, sometimes I did that, and sometimes I did questions from the same level of difficulty.

That truly gives me some peace of mind - that being unable to recognize stems outside of the packets isn't something I should be too worried about. Would you ever mix up question types? Or would that be counterproductive? For example if you were on the Must be True packet, did 20 of those and reviewed, would you ever hop over to the Necessary Assumption packet and give a crack at a few of those?

I understand your apprehension. Like the rest of us you've put a lot of pressure on yourself with this test but you need to know where you stand. I don't know when you plan on taking the LSAT but you need to know if you are on track for let's say December or you need to push back to February. If you score low you might be let down but you need to understand this test is not going to be easy and law school will not be either. This test and law school or going to make you question what you're doing and if this is all worth it.

To be honest when it first popped into my mind I was signed up for this June, and my pre-law advisor said I only needed the month between the end of school and the test date to prepare. Didn't show up to that, and started studying with the intent for the September test shortly thereafter. It's taken me a bit longer than I had hoped for the learning stage however, and I'm feeling a bit overwhelmed with all of the things I need to do to reach my goal. The thought of pushing the date back, again, has recently been weighing on my mind.

It also doesn't help that I've got a gpa lower than most 25th's for the school's I am currently interest in (3.2), and I constantly hear about how the earlier the better in terms of applying. It hasn't been easy so far, and I don't expect it to get any easier.

Strangely enough though, I find myself enjoying the ride. I think, or at least hope, that is something everyone on this board has in common.

NEVER listen to those people... mine told me he studied 6 days a week for 4 weeks. 2 hours a day. Got a 167. You know what he did with this magically high score? Went to Arkansas-Little Rock.

[joeisreallycool]

Yeah it seems to be a pretty common occurence among advisors. Wonder why yours went to Little Rock though.

[HRomanus]

The pre-law advisor for my first two years was a history professor who had never been to law school and had been teaching history since the year I was born. He cared enough to have a basic understanding of law school admissions, so he gave tolerably good advice. My last two years, the school hired a history professor who had received his JD from UNC and profoundly abhored everything about it. When given a Con Law course to teach, he transformed it into a mock 1L course complete with Chemerinsky's casebook, the Socratic method, and one exam. He admitted this was to convince us NOT to go to law school.