Seriously need help - timing is destroying my scores and reasoning process. Forum

[JCDante]

Hello TLS, I've been on a relatively long road with the LSAT, but with little payoff to show for it. I first started studying back in June with a cold diagnostic of 142. Surprised at my low score, I immediately ordered tons of prep books. After a month of studying from the LSAT Trainer, I scored a 150.

On one hand, I was happy that I improved, but still very dissatisfied about my overall placement. I then spent about 3 months going over the Powerscore LG and LR books, and the Manhattan LR and RC books.

Still not feeling ready for October, I enrolled in a Blueprint course. I was sick during their cold diagnostic and ended up with a 150. This made me assume that, outside of sickness, I'd be scoring a 160+ (boy was I mistaken). So I trudged on with the rest of the course, mostly getting all the questions right that we reviewed, and had a pretty solid understanding of the games.

But when we started PTing, my scores ranged from 152-155. Additionally, when we started timing our question review in class, I often found it hard to get the correct answer in time.

I feel like, conceptually, the LSAT is not a problem, but under time, it's a radically different challenge for me. It's like the LSAT wants me to run at a sprint, whereas my brain at the moment is only capable of jogging. I encountered a similar roadblock in high school with the SAT, and that pretty much forced me to have to go to community college in order to get into UC Berkeley undergrad.

A few things I've noticed:

-My main problem with LR is that I'm not getting the stimulus down in one read, sometimes even two. As far as problems with various question types go, I don't feel I have enough time to diagram for most sufficient assumption questions. For flaw, it takes awhile for the flaw to "pop out" at me. This is kind of the same situation with necessary assumption questions.
-In logic games, I feel like I don't have enough time to set up my game board. When it comes to the questions, I feel like I'm not attacking the questions in the most efficient manner.
-As far as RC goes, I'm pretty good at reading for structure, but when it comes to needing to know details in relation to how they relate to the overall structure, I don't feel like I have enough time to clarify back in the passage about what the correct answer is.

Needless to say, I'm a bit disgruntled. I've also lowered my expectations as to what score I can get. At first, I was definitely into the TLS mantra of "170+ or bust", but now I'd be happy with scoring in the lower to mid 160s. I have a 3.95+ GPA, so I'd be given a bit more leeway as to where I could attend (going to USC and living with parents or UVA ED).

Any thoughts as to what my next steps should be? I know the backstory sounds excessive, but every topic I looked up that referred to "help I'm stuck in the 150s" just resulted in answers that said "hit the bibles, Manhattan, etc." I've already done that, I know the material, now I just need to know how to properly execute what I know under time.

[joeycxxxx09]

It's imperative that you can read the stimulus in an LR once and know what was said. I would practice just reading the stimulus in 30 seconds, then covering it up and summarizing in your head what was said/writing it out on another piece of paper. Same thing with each RC paragraph. Read, cover up, summarize (include the details) It sounds like you're not reading close enough. Details are the key. Screw the books, start practicing reading quickly and with precision. Then go back to answering questions after you can read with the detail you need without having to look back

[Dcc617]

This may sound trite, but I personally noticed a difference in LR and RC performance when I took the time to read for 30-60 minutes every evening. While I was studying for my test I read Plato's The Laws and The Iliad. I don't mean to suggest that this is a magic bullet in any sense, but it may help a little.

[ltowns1]

I feel your pain. In some ways this sounds like my situation. It may be time for you to consider a tutor as well. Are you blind reviewing your scores?

[shoobyduuby]

Your story sounds exactly like mine, the biggest key is to not get disgruntled. I know deep down it is frustrating to see individuals that have spent less time studying receiving higher scores. My first diagnostic was 143, after I finished reading Kaplan's Advanced 180 LSAT book. Needless to say, I didn't feel like the sharpest crayon in the box after receiving that score. Since then, I have raised my PT scores to an average of 162. My biggest problem is my ADHD. Nothing like reading a paragraph and then thinking afterward "WTF did I just read ?" and then, having to re-read the whole stimulus again. I think you are engaging in either a 1) Passive type of reading, where your eyes just gloss over the page. A rather disengaged approach that a lot of college students use to truffle through mundane material. Or 2) Extrapolating Reading. The type of reading where you are your focus is on comprehending each sentence in relation to another, to the point that you miss the over all viewpoint of the stimulus. It's important to know the details, but do not become bogged down by them. Especially in Reading Comprehension passages.

You want to be ENGAGED when you read. This is reading where you actively participate in what you read and deduce inferences from what is given to you. One of the best way to stay engaged, at least for me, was to make the passages/stimulus in my head entertaining. For instance, I read the question first to give me an idea of how to tackle the stimulus at hand. If it's a Weaken Question, Flaw, Necessary Assumption, or whatever, I read a stimulus and I'll ask questions toward the end like "How the F**K are these two things even related" ? Or, "So what's your point?" I'll become pessimistic in a sense and I'll start questioning the reasoning. This has helped me gain a better understanding of the stimulus for me, and has kept me engaged. For certain questions I'll ask myself okay, "In a structural sense, what did the stimulus just do?" Ex. "Okay, so the author said that his opponent had a lack of evidence and therefore, this proves that the authors position is true."

After you finish reading the stimulus, re-read the question one more time and try and para-phrase/predict what the correct answer will be. On some question types, you won't be able make a prediction. However, you must have an open mind. Try to take a couple Logic Reasoning Sections, place a sticky note on the answer choices, and write out what you think the correct answer is. Then remove the sticky notes, try to answer the question, and see how close you were at your prediction and answer. This has helped me tremendously save time.

Before you move to the answer choices, take a second to conceptualize exactly what happened in the stimulus and predict the answer choice. Here are my top reasons on why I was getting answer choices wrong. 1) I didn't clearly understand what I read in the stimulus. I.E. I forgot certain sentences that were key to the right answer. Slow down. Seriously, it's great if you can read 1,000 WPM. Does nothing if you can't comprehend any of them. 2) I didn't thoroughly read the answer choice. Therefore, I dismissed it and selected the wrong one. Again, slow down. Don't just say in your head, "well they are using a lot of No's and Not's and prefixes like UN's in the answer, and I don't have time to conceptually think about it." These are bad habits that result from anxiety. 3) I didn't fully read the question. Yes, it happens. Know what your getting into, before and after the stimulus. 4) Stuck between two answer choices, and I choose the wrong one. Classic. F-ing Classic. When this happens you need to distinguish the difference between these two answer choices, and see how that relates to the stimulus. This will lead you to the correct answer.

Basically, what I am advocating is that you read proactively and are engaged by asking questions relevant to the question at hand, when you read the stimulus. For logic games, you should aim to set up your diagram in 4 min or less. (with all inferences and templates included, not just your main diagram). Best advice is go to 7sage.com and thoroughly watch their videos on logic games, so that writing everything down becomes intuitive to you. Also, lsathacks.com/explanations has FREE explanations. Use them and cross reference them with different LSAT forums such as on Manhattan Prep's website.

Also, sometimes. You feel the need to diagram everything. Especially on sufficient assumption questions. If you understand the stimulus, you won't even have to. Only use diagramming as a tool when needed, not as a first resort. This comes with understanding the structure of the stimulus.

[ltowns1]

Your story sounds exactly like mine, the biggest key is to not get disgruntled. I know deep down it is frustrating to see individuals that have spent less time studying receiving higher scores. My first diagnostic was 143, after I finished reading Kaplan's Advanced 180 LSAT book. Needless to say, I didn't feel like the sharpest crayon in the box after receiving that score. Since then, I have raised my PT scores to an average of 162. My biggest problem is my ADHD. Nothing like reading a paragraph and then thinking afterward "WTF did I just read ?" and then, having to re-read the whole stimulus again. I think you are engaging in either a 1) Passive type of reading, where your eyes just gloss over the page. A rather disengaged approach that a lot of college students use to truffle through mundane material. Or 2) Extrapolating Reading. The type of reading where you are your focus is on comprehending each sentence in relation to another, to the point that you miss the over all viewpoint of the stimulus. It's important to know the details, but do not become bogged down by them. Especially in Reading Comprehension passages.

You want to be ENGAGED when you read. This is reading where you actively participate in what you read and deduce inferences from what is given to you. One of the best way to stay engaged, at least for me, was to make the passages/stimulus in my head entertaining. For instance, I read the question first to give me an idea of how to tackle the stimulus at hand. If it's a Weaken Question, Flaw, Necessary Assumption, or whatever, I read a stimulus and I'll ask questions toward the end like "How the F**K are these two things even related" ? Or, "So what's your point?" I'll become pessimistic in a sense and I'll start questioning the reasoning. This has helped me gain a better understanding of the stimulus for me, and has kept me engaged. For certain questions I'll ask myself okay, "In a structural sense, what did the stimulus just do?" Ex. "Okay, so the author said that his opponent had a lack of evidence and therefore, this proves that the authors position is true."

After you finish reading the stimulus, re-read the question one more time and try and para-phrase/predict what the correct answer will be. On some question types, you won't be able make a prediction. However, you must have an open mind. Try to take a couple Logic Reasoning Sections, place a sticky note on the answer choices, and write out what you think the correct answer is. Then remove the sticky notes, try to answer the question, and see how close you were at your prediction and answer. This has helped me tremendously save time.

Before you move to the answer choices, take a second to conceptualize exactly what happened in the stimulus and predict the answer choice. Here are my top reasons on why I was getting answer choices wrong. 1) I didn't clearly understand what I read in the stimulus. I.E. I forgot certain sentences that were key to the right answer. Slow down. Seriously, it's great if you can read 1,000 WPM. Does nothing if you can't comprehend any of them. 2) I didn't thoroughly read the answer choice. Therefore, I dismissed it and selected the wrong one. Again, slow down. Don't just say in your head, "well they are using a lot of No's and Not's and prefixes like UN's in the answer, and I don't have time to conceptually think about it." These are bad habits that result from anxiety. 3) I didn't fully read the question. Yes, it happens. Know what your getting into, before and after the stimulus. 4) Stuck between two answer choices, and I choose the wrong one. Classic. F-ing Classic. When this happens you need to distinguish the difference between these two answer choices, and see how that relates to the stimulus. This will lead you to the correct answer.

Basically, what I am advocating is that you read proactively and are engaged by asking questions relevant to the question at hand, when you read the stimulus. For logic games, you should aim to set up your diagram in 4 min or less. (with all inferences and templates included, not just your main diagram). Best advice is go to 7sage.com and thoroughly watch their videos on logic games, so that writing everything down becomes intuitive to you. Also, lsathacks.com/explanations has FREE explanations. Use them and cross reference them with different LSAT forums such as on Manhattan Prep's website.

Also, sometimes. You feel the need to diagram everything. Especially on sufficient assumption questions. If you understand the stimulus, you won't even have to. Only use diagramming as a tool when needed, not as a first resort. This comes with understanding the structure of the stimulus.

What was your specific approach for RC?

[shoobyduuby]

At first I had to alter my approach for Reading Comprehension. I used to read for detail, highlight words that I thought were useful. I did this so that I could cross reference this between questions. However, I still had difficulty retaining the logical structure of the passages. For instance, if a question asked what was the authors attitude towards X? I would scour the passage for those highlighted words. This is not what you want to be doing. What ended up occurring more often then not, was that I was wasting to much time highlighting things that I didn't need to.

My approach now is jot down short hand notes on the side of the paragraphs, so that I understand the main point. I'll also jot down short abbreviations such as "Ex"when the author uses an example. Or an asterisk, when the author mentions an opposing view. This way, I create a quasi road map. I also scan the questions briefly before I read the passage, do give me a sense of what I should highlight so that I can use that as reference point when I attack that specific question. It is what works for me.