jasmine138 wrote:mjsjr wrote:jasmine138 wrote:Hello,
I am preparing for the Oct exam which is coming up in a month, and need advice for improving my score. I have been stuck in the low 170 range for about a month now, and it seems that I really cannot improve my score beyond 172. The problem is that I am not sure how to improve - I have cut down mostly on careless mistakes now, and almost all of the questions I get wrong are questions that I did not understand, or none of the answer choices seem to make sense. My strongest section is LG, although there have been times where I have done poorly on this section. I tend to fluctuate heavily in LR, ranging from -2 to -8, and have been drilling my weak spots (identify the flaw, justify and required assumption Qs), which as helped my score, but seems to no longer do so. As for RC, I generally score a -4 or worse, and I am generally weak on application questions and detail questions. Also, I have noticed that I tend to get more wrong on dual passage questions and science passages. in general, I try to read for structure and pay attention to names, keywords, and transitions, but even when I feel like I have a good understanding of the passage, I get a lot of questions wrong on certain passages.
Below are my PT scores during the last month. It seems that whenever I do relatively better on one section, there's another section that brings me down and the average score after applying the curve ends up being very consistent. I think I am a point where I have a good grasp of the concepts involved in the test, but I am certainly not at the level of mastery in which I could read behind the question and see what the test makers are going for.
Currently I am only doing PTs and reviewing each wrong answer (I try to do BR sometimes as well but honestly I am hardly able to catch my wrong answers through this...), and occasionally drilling for LR and LG. I am planning on continuing to do 3 PTs a week til test day, making sure I cover all the recent PTs. Any advice would be much appreciated!
PT score results:
PT 57 - LR -3, LG -1, RC -4; Scaled score: 172
PT 58 - LR -2, LG -5, RC -2; scaled score: 171
PT 59 - LR -8, LG -0, RC -5; scaled score: 170
PT60 - LR -6, LG -0, RC -3; scaled score: 172
PT 63 - LR -4, LG -0, RC -4; scaled score: 172
PT 64 - LR -7, LG -2, RC -2; scaled score: 172
PT 65 - LR -4, LG -1, RC -8(!!); scaled score: 171
I completely understand how you feel. I'm signed up to take the test in October as well, and I find the same thing often happens to me--which is obviously very unsettling. Ultimately, I may postpone because of it, but I haven't decided yet.
Anyhow, here are my thoughts:
What my pattern has taught me is that I'm not necessarily getting better at certain sections just because I score relatively lower on them (something you allude to as well by your comment about you not being a master of the concepts). Sometimes, I will get a -0 or -1 on LR only to get a -7 on RC (give me a second to pull my hair out because it's so frustrating). But just like you said, it seems like the test makers balance out easy sections with more difficult sections. So, whenever I congratulate myself on getting a -0 on LR, I should instead really focus on whether it was my improvement in that section or whether the section was just generally easier. Same thing with RC. I got a 170 on the last PT I took with a -2 on RC, but then I got destroyed in LR (-8). Am I really beginning to "master" RC? Or did I encounter easier RC passages to balance out the moderately difficult LR sections?
Sure, there likely is some improvement in both sections (hah, I hope), but the point is that I think I haven't improved my understanding of the questions to a satisfactory level (satisfactory for one who wants to score above the low 170's anyhow). I don't have that ability to read certain LR questions and quickly understand what the test makers are trying to do, or the capability to react quickly and accurately to questions that are very well crafted.
In summary, my understanding isn't high enough. I may stumble through an easy section (either RC or LR) and get a -0, but that's probably because it is a relatively easy section. I need to go start to think about questions at a new level. I think I'm going to postpone so I have enough time to go back over older questions and start to "massage" my brain into a pattern of deeper analysis and understanding for LR questions. And I want more time to basically do the same for RC. I have probably only drilled 20 RC sections (compared to maybe 80 LR sections?).
Sorry if this post was more for my benefit than yours. I hope it helps in some way!
Edit:
Another thought just occurred to me that may relate to your experience:
I have improved my ability in LR enough that I can score a -0 on easier sections, and that's great. But what's the next step? I need to understand questions at a deeper level because there are certain sections that are harder than the sections I score -0. Maybe I should go back to some of those sections and study those questions in order to attempt to familiarize my brain with that level of difficulty. Perhaps if the questions become more common to me, I'll start to improve beyond the level of -0 on the easy sections but -4 on the tougher ones.
I think the same thing can be said for RC.
Hey mjsjr, thanks so much for the reply. Wow, I was nodding the whole time while reading your post. I feel exactly the same way, and totally agree with you that when I actually do better on a section, it's really because that was a relatively easy one. LSAC overall balances the test so that in general, there's also a harder section in the test, which leads to the consistency of scaled scores despite fluctuations in sections. I also strongly feel that I am just not at a satisfactory level for comprehending the questions - I've learned the tricks and basics, and can maneuver through the test somewhat, but really I know that I don't have a complete grasp of it. Also, I am basically in the same position as you in terms of RC drilling. This is the section that I have drilled the least so far, and I am wondering if I should start doing that more. I am skeptical, however, whether simply doing more questions is going to help me deepen my understanding, especially given that I am already doing 3PTs a week, hence exposing myself to a substantial number of new questions. I really want to find a way to do more in-depth analysis of my weaknesses, and I'm not sure simply getting through more questions is going to help me do that. Are you doing anything else besides PT and drilling to increase your score? Any prep books? I have already gone through Powerscore LR, LG, and all of the LR and some RC from the LSAT Trainer, which has been helpful, but not too substantially. Especially for RC, I feel like I need more of a strategy in approaching the sections, and I am not sure where to go to find that. Again, thanks for the reply! It does make me feel better than someone out there feels the same way
Also, based on the addition to your post at the end, are you recommending that I review my mistakes more carefully? I am making a collection of all the questions I get wrong in LR and RC (just cutting and pasting them in a notebook and writing explanations for them on the side), and while the answer usually does make sense after reading Manhattan forums' explanations, I am frustrated that I usually cannot get to that same reasoning myself without assistance or can get the right answer on second try, but only after knowing that the answer I originally picked was wrong. Thanks!
Great! I'm glad I took the time to write it out. Haha, when I read your OP, I was like "hey, this sort of sounds like me."
So, Reading Comp. I understand what you mean about developing a strategy. You certainly don't want to just do more questions aimlessly. I went through the Manhattan RC book. It definitely helped establish a methodology because I didn't really have one before. After that I think it comes down to creating your own methods that are tailored to your individual style. One thing, though: please don't accept the idea that RC is a section that can't be substantially improved upon with effort and time. I see people say that often. While I agree that if you can barely read, it will be a very difficult skill to master, I don't think this is the case for most people. I think it's a section a lot of people neglect for a long time, and I also think it's a very tough section, and I think both of those reasons contribute to the perpetuation of the idea that RC is largely the product of your reading skill that was developed throughout earlier periods of cognitive development. Through my own experience and based on the advice and counsel of three or four LSAT masters, I have come to realize that RC is a skill that can be developed with time.
What helped me improve (and there is still so much more to learn) was reading through the Manhattan book to get a basic idea of what I should be doing. They will tell you to read for scale and structure, which is great. I went through their book and practiced their methods on 4 sections, and I started to see slight improvements. What REALLY helped me was changing my approach in general. I used to rush through the passage so that I could get to the questions quicker. A lot of people endorse this method because they read for structure to get a general idea of the author's attitude and main purpose, and then they refer back to the passage when a question asks them for specific details. I briefly tried this method but I didn't like it. Maybe I didn't practice enough, but I just couldn't get quick enough at the questions. They would take me SO long. I consulted with Graeme Blake and a couple other known LSAT gurus and they suggested slowing down through the passage. I thought "this makes sense. I take forever on the questions because I don't really understand the passage at all." Honestly this was my greatest epiphany moment so far. Maybe I'll get even better or learn even more, but this definitely has had the biggest impact to date. People say don't waste time trying to understand or remember every detail in the passage, and I pretty much agree with that; don't attempt to remember silly details that won't be tested. But I also think that by slowing down and understanding exactly what the passage is saying is crucial. On easier passages, this is a win-win because it doesn't take that long to read through the passage thoroughly anyway. On tougher passages you really notice the increased amount of time reading through the passage, but then it's worth it because it's much easier to remember the information when you're tested on it, and if you must refer back to the passage, it's much easier to quickly remember where the appropriate material is.
For example, on science passages I used to attempt to read through the entire passage really quickly to just get the main idea of what the author was saying. And guess what? I got a lot of the main idea-type questions correct (yay!). But then the questions that tested my understanding of the specific scientific process or whatever was being discussed would kill me because I didn't really know how it worked in the passage; I just skimmed over it hoping that the general-idea approach would help. Some people reading this may think "well, duh, you dingus. You should have then simply refer back to the passage to understand whatever that specific question is asking." This just took to much time for me personally. I found it much easier to read a bit more slowly upfront so that I understood it the first time I saw it. Then I usually didn't need to even look at the passage for those types of questions.
Sorry this is so long-winded!
Your last question: I think going back over old questions like that is great! Personally, when I look at questions from PTs 1-40, I can't really remember exactly what the right answer is most of the time. Sometimes I'll remember everything about a really notorious question that stumped me, but that's okay, in my opinion. What does that mean? Probably that I spent a ton of time learning a lot of what there is to learn about that question. Have you ever gone through a question after you missed it and thought "okay, now I'm done and I 'get it' now"? I think that thought process is always misguided. Honestly, there are very few questions that I've gone through and completely exhausted all explanations, methods for attacking it, secondary interpretations of the stimulus, secondary interpretation of certain answer choices, etc. And that means I don't TRULY understand that question. If I don't truly understand a majority of the questions for LR, have I reached my highest potential? I don't think so.
So don't worry about going over certain questions and remembering certain things. Thats fine. If you remember the correct answer choice, then oh well, at least you're "massaging" your brain into the correct way of approaching the question, and maybe attempt to explain why every other answer choice isn't correct to yourself, or to a friend. Try to articulate what the author of that question was attempting to do, what they were attempting to test you on. All of these things are steps to take it to the next level, considerations that lead to a deeper understanding of questions. It's a long and annoying road. But you know it's worth it
.
And, of course, remember that I'm still learning a lot about the test, so obviously do what you think is best. But I truly believe in what I've said, if that means anything, haha. Good luck!
PS let me know what your plans are for the test. I'm almost certain I'm going to postpone until December :/. If you end up postponing, maybe we could do some studying together. Talking about questions out loud with another person has been so helpful to me in the past.