Law School Discussion Forums
https://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/
https://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=243988
Logic games.
I don't even know if I'm an anomaly since I do great in LG at -0 to -2, but get destroyed at LR (like -4 to -6 each). Haven't done so much RC, but it all pans out to mid-160s.Meursault wrote:Gonna break the trend and say reading comp. Logic games is hard, but once you get it, it's pretty consistent.
I found the reading comp. gains were much more hard fought and came more slowly.
If you have time....do tell the right way lol??js1663 wrote:For me it was LR. One day (after being taught the right way to approach the questions) it just clicked as to what the right way to read the questions were and how to actually think in order to bring out the right answers.It brought me up to about 22-23 correct LR's per section which was good enough for 170+. From there getting from 170 to any higher score was about just becoming much better and avoiding any stupid mistakes, overcoming timing issues, and just becoming more consistent on RC.
Essentially I just ceased making any assumptions or adding anything in my head and began reading it as something to be read very literally and critically. Beyond that explaining my approach would require going over the question tyeps. I find it hard to explain beyond that but I jumped from a PT of 165 to a PT of 177 (which was an outlier, but I never scored below 170 on a PT after that).ltowns1 wrote:If you have time....do tell the right way lol??js1663 wrote:For me it was LR. One day (after being taught the right way to approach the questions) it just clicked as to what the right way to read the questions were and how to actually think in order to bring out the right answers.It brought me up to about 22-23 correct LR's per section which was good enough for 170+. From there getting from 170 to any higher score was about just becoming much better and avoiding any stupid mistakes, overcoming timing issues, and just becoming more consistent on RC.
js1663 wrote:Essentially I just ceased making any assumptions or adding anything in my head and began reading it as something to be read very literally and critically. Beyond that explaining my approach would require going over the question tyeps. I find it hard to explain beyond that but I jumped from a PT of 165 to a PT of 177 (which was an outlier, but I never scored below 170 on a PT after that).ltowns1 wrote:If you have time....do tell the right way lol??js1663 wrote:For me it was LR. One day (after being taught the right way to approach the questions) it just clicked as to what the right way to read the questions were and how to actually think in order to bring out the right answers.It brought me up to about 22-23 correct LR's per section which was good enough for 170+. From there getting from 170 to any higher score was about just becoming much better and avoiding any stupid mistakes, overcoming timing issues, and just becoming more consistent on RC.
Wouldn't put much weight on miracles though, I practiced lots of LR questions and I unconsciously refined my approach and understanding of the questions after getting quite a few wrong and suddenly experienced the score increase. It wasn't entirely instantaneous but once I began realizing why I was getting questions wrong I began reading questions the way LSAC expects you to read and not the way a normal person might read a book as well as understanding what the correct answers for the various questions look like.
Same here. I never did "get right" with Games. Ended up going -8 in LG on my first LSAT for a 167, and then -4 in LG on my second one for a 170. That was enough to get me into my top choice, so I didn't take it a third time.Hikkomorist wrote:I guess LG was the last hurdle, because I never figured it out. RC never changed for me, and I guess I became more consistent with LR, but LG was my stumbling block the whole way through.