How to break this hump? Forum

[KissMyAxe]

Post Deleted

[RCSOB657]

#smartpeopleorhardworkproblems, #wishihadthoseproblemsproblem. Good luck to you next weekend, I'll be hoping to just break 158-160.

[sesto elemento]

IMO once you hit that 175, it comes down to luck. The test you take on game day may be better suited to your strengths or it may not. Luck favors those that are prepared and it sounds to me like you are. Trust that the skills you've obtained up to this point will be at your disposal on test day.

[B.B. Homemaker]

Yeah, it sounds like you're in the place I was at that stage, and that level of preparation + keeping calm during the real deal netted me a 179.

[jk148706]

once you hit that 175, it comes down to luck.

[03152016]

it really depends on the student

for plenty of people, sure, it's luck after 175
but that's not the case for everyone, it wasn't for me

how much review are you doing and how are you doing it
are you comfortable with oddball stuff like rule equivalency, sequencing with conditionals, quantitative terms, etc

[ikethegremlin]

So - I actually got a 174 on the day, and was PTing much like you - a couple of 180s, a 179, a sprinkling of 175s-178s.

I was initially really disappointed with my 174 because I knew I could do a lot better, though I'm not going to retake - instead, I'll pass on to you what I would do differently if I could do it over again.

1. Expect the unexpected. The last 10 published PTs all have very standard, easy LGs. And then the last two actual tests have changed things up by throwing in problems that haven't been seen in a long time. They aren't actually more difficult per se, but if you've become used to diagramming the same old things, they can take you by surprise. I think that that's a trend, now, and I'd mentally prepare yourself for one of the four LGs to be a bit of a surprise. I wasn't prepared, and even though the now-infamous game 4 of June didn't kill me, I missed a bunch of questions that if I'd just been a bit more open minded and less shocked shouldn't have been any trouble.

2. If you have time left, read each question as if you know you answered it wrong. Let me try to explain this one: I'm a very, very fast reader, and as a result finish LR and RC sections with somewhere between 8-12 minutes left over. The trouble is, that's enough time to superficially check the entire section, or to focus hard on the last 5/6 tricky ones. The dilemma is that if I missed a question the first time, a superficial run through probably won't catch anything. I try and mitigate this by circling/starring any Qs that struck me as tricky or problematic but again, if I realized it was a difficult one, I probably figured it out. In June, I missed a couple of RC questions and a couple of LR questions that were unbelievably moronic, that I've never missed before. Pressure is a tough thing. You have to get into the mindset of not reading over your answers to confirm your choice, but instead imagine you've been told that the answer you gave is wrong - then figure out why it's wrong, and which answer is right. This mental trick worked so well for me in PTs (I started doing it when I realized that the moment I graded myself and saw the answer was wrong I would understand why - and if I could understand why then, then why not before?) and I just failed to do it in the actual test. I was so happy to be done with a section and have a moment to recharge mentally that I skimped on the readthroughs and missed some absolute sitters.

3. Stress relief - I find mindfulness meditation really useful. I've always had real issues with butterflies in my stomach prior to exams, shaky hands, etc. For the LSAT, I got an app on my iphone with a bunch of guided meditations, arrived at the test center about 2 hours early, sat in my car and meditated. By the time I was ready to go to the test center I've never been so calm in my life - I'm sure that gave me a solid 2 point boost on that evil LG section...

That's all I have right now - good luck!

[PeanutsNJam]

I think the key to a 180 is just -0 in LR and LG, with a -1 in LR. LR is the most difficult one to ace.

I'm similar to you in that I make a few mistakes in LR, and it's probably down to choosing the wrong one of two possible choices, right? Lately though I've realized that regardless of logic or anything, if you're trying to pick between two, it's almost always possible to tell just by feel which one the writers decided would be the right one, and which one would be the wrong one due to a word or something. There are only 1 or 2 of those questions between the 2 LR sections, but that's the difference between a 176 and a 174.

LG needs to be aced, can't get any wrong if you want 175+.

I think you can consistently get 175+ if you approach the test the right way, but 175-180 is luck based.

[03152016]

175-180 is luck based.

wrong
why are people saying this
where did this idea come from

[ilikebaseball]

can i have your "hump"

[PeanutsNJam]

175-180 is luck based.

wrong
why are people saying this
where did this idea come from

Because a person capable of scoring a 175, like I said, is very likely already scoring -0 on LG, and perhaps 1 of the LR sections as well. A person capable of a 175 is capable of accurately answering any question on the LSAT. The reason they don't score the 180 is due to a lack of consistency.

Think of it this way. You're an archer. 175 is already in the bulls-eye. 180 is dead center of the bulls-eye. When you're within the little red dot, millimeters of variation come down to luck.

Consistently getting a 180 would mean striking the center of the bulls-eye with the first arrow, and then striking that arrow with subsequent ones. Some people can do it, but those are exceptions to the rule.

[03152016]

that's a completely arbitrary cut-off
a 173 is an exception to the rule
and so is a 170 for that matter

[PeanutsNJam]

that's a completely arbitrary cut-off
a 173 is an exception to the rule
and so is a 170 for that matter

The flaw in your argument is you're attacking a premise that is not essential to my conclusion. My point is that consistency is affected by a number of factors unrelated to personal intellect or competence. In order to score 180 every time, you not only need mastery of the LSAT, but an ability to answer each question to the best of your abilities every single time.

It's luck-based for Lebron James to get a triple double. There are factors outside of his personal control that determine whether he is or isn't capable of doing that.

Same goes for 180, or 179, or 178, or whatever.

Place the cutoff wherever you wish, my argument stands.

[03152016]

you've completely abandoned your prior argument
and have moved the goalposts to an intangible

you're not fooling anyone

[PeanutsNJam]

Because a person capable of scoring a 175, like I said, is very likely already scoring -0 on LG, and perhaps 1 of the LR sections as well. A person capable of a 175 is capable of accurately answering any question on the LSAT. The reason they don't score the 180 is due to a lack of consistency.

Think of it this way. You're an archer. 175 is already in the bulls-eye. 180 is dead center of the bulls-eye. When you're within the little red dot, millimeters of variation come down to luck.

Consistently getting a 180 would mean striking the center of the bulls-eye with the first arrow, and then striking that arrow with subsequent ones. Some people can do it, but those are exceptions to the rule.

The flaw in your argument is you're attacking a premise that is not essential to my conclusion. My point is that consistency is affected by a number of factors unrelated to personal intellect or competence. In order to score 180 every time, you not only need mastery of the LSAT, but an ability to answer each question to the best of your abilities every single time.

It's luck-based for Lebron James to get a triple double. There are factors outside of his personal control that determine whether he is or isn't capable of doing that.

Same goes for 180, or 179, or 178, or whatever.

Place the cutoff wherever you wish, my argument stands.

You're just making unsupported claims.

You're not fooling anyone.

[03152016]

what claim did i make that was unsupported?
what claim did you make that was supported?

no, seriously, keep going
you're really improving your credibility here brainiac

[03152016]

btw, i scored a 179 and taught lsat for years
have you even taken the test?

[PeanutsNJam]

what claim did i make that was unsupported?

you've completely abandoned your prior argument

what claim did you make that was supported?

Because a person capable of scoring a 175, like I said, is very likely already scoring -0 on LG, and perhaps 1 of the LR sections as well. A person capable of a 175 is capable of accurately answering any question on the LSAT. The reason they don't score the 180 is due to a lack of consistency.

Think of it this way. You're an archer. 175 is already in the bulls-eye. 180 is dead center of the bulls-eye. When you're within the little red dot, millimeters of variation come down to luck.

Consistently getting a 180 would mean striking the center of the bulls-eye with the first arrow, and then striking that arrow with subsequent ones. Some people can do it, but those are exceptions to the rule.

The flaw in your argument is you're attacking a premise that is not essential to my conclusion. My point is that consistency is affected by a number of factors unrelated to personal intellect or competence. In order to score 180 every time, you not only need mastery of the LSAT, but an ability to answer each question to the best of your abilities every single time.

It's luck-based for Lebron James to get a triple double. There are factors outside of his personal control that determine whether he is or isn't capable of doing that.

Same goes for 180, or 179, or 178, or whatever.

Place the cutoff wherever you wish, my argument stands.

you're really improving your credibility here brainiac

ad-hominem, irrelevant

btw, i scored a 179 and taught lsat for years
have you even taken the test?

again, irrelevant. Attacking an argument based on the merits of the spokesperson, instead of the argument itself. FWIW, I scored a 170 2 years ago, although I took it a week before mid-terms and was sick. Take from that what you will.

[03152016]

you've just quoted pieces of the thread
answer my question {edit: good sir}

what claim did i make that was unsupported
and what claim did you make that was supported

are you dense or something

[PeanutsNJam]

what claim did i make that was unsupported

You claimed I abandoned my prior argument. This claim was unsupported.

and what claim did you make that was supported

I claim that within a certain scoring range, it comes down to luck where you land in that range. I supported this claim with an argument that you haven't even addressed.

Sorry I have to spoon feed it to you, I expected more.

[03152016]

jesus do i have to hold your hand through this entire thing
i know you're 2.4 but come on, at least try to follow the thread here

let me put this in words you can understand

you, peanutsnjam, made a post
that post said that 175-180 was luck based
did you support that with data? no
did you make inane arguments about archery and lebron james? yes

where is the support

i mean, come on man, you can't seriously be this stupid

[03152016]

if you'd like to discuss variations in score once you reach a certain range, let's have that discussion
but cite data
don't just invent a bunch of inane shit and pretend you're making a point

[PeanutsNJam]

jesus do i have to hold your hand through this entire thing
i know you're 2.4 but come on, at least try to follow the thread here

let me put this in words you can understand

you, peanutsnjam, made a post
that post said that 175-180 was luck based
did you support that with data? no
did you make inane arguments about archery and lebron james? yes

where is the support

i mean, come on man, you can't seriously be this stupid

I'm starting to believed I'm being trolled... you're simply not reading or selectively ignoring bits and pieces of things I've said. I'm flattered you decided to stalk my post history and decided to continue with ad-hominem attacks against me instead of addressing my argument. If statistical data is the only evidence you'll accept, and logic itself is insufficient for you, then there's no convincing you, because I don't have access to such data.

Since you're a fan of the socratic method and derogatory rhetorical questions, here we go:

Can you score 179 and up every single time you take the test?
If not, is there a score that you absolutely will never dip below, for example, a 175?
What factors determine where you land within this range?
If it's not luck-based, then it must be based upon your personal competence. Does your competence fluctuate with each test you take? Do you rapidly oscillate between being more consistent, less consistent, smarter, dumber, independent of external factors?

[03152016]

you're sounding pretty desperate dude

i'm not one of your idiot friends
you're not going to get me to lose the thread

you made a claim that 175-180 was luck
now back it up

[PeanutsNJam]

you're sounding pretty desperate dude

i'm not one of your idiot friends
you're not going to get me to lose the thread

you made a claim that 175-180 was luck
now back it up

I've already made a bunch of logical arguments to support that claim, but you refuse them on the grounds that "they're a bunch of inane shit". What would be sufficient evidence?

Numbers?

We could ask everybody on TLS who have scored anything between 175-180, and ask them if they can confidently bet their life that they can always always always score that or higher, never dipping below. Because if they do, it's at least partially dependent on luck.

However, as of now, I'm not capable of collecting this data. But I don't see why you're unwilling to accept support for a claim that isn't hard data. In that same vein, your claim that I'm wrong is unsupported because I don't see you posting any stats. Lack of evidence for a claim doesn't inherently make that claim false. This is a common LSAT question, you should know better.