4 Month Plateau - What New Strategies Can I Incorporate? Forum

[RamTitan]

Hi everyone! So, I'm studying for the June 2016 LSAT, and I've been scoring in the same range for almost four months now. I am looking for some new strategies/ways to study to incorporate into my training as I want to get a perfect score. I've read that this is a good thing to do when you are plateauing, and that it is best to treat the LSAT like training for a marathon or weight lifting.

I started in June of 2015, and have been studying on average 8 hours a week. My diagnostic was 146, and the highest score I've gotten is 171 (twice). The last 5 scores I've gotten are: 171, 166, 167, 170, and 167. I typically get 88-90 problems correct. I usually miss 1-2 on logic games, but I know I am capable of getting -0 as I do it in practice and have done it on a few tests. My LR is all over the place; sometimes it'll be -2 or 3 and other times -6. RC is also volatile, though I've been reading a lot of tips lately to help with that section, so I hope that changes! I typically score -4 or 5, but have missed as few 2 on a few occasions.

I work full-time, so I've structured my study schedule as the following:

Monday: One section of LR, BR and analyze problems I get wrong as well as ones that I had difficulty with
Tuesday One section of RC, BR and analyze passages I had difficulty with (any of them where I miss 2 or more)
Wednesday: One section of AR, BR and analyze games I missed any problems with. I'll typically redo games over and over until I can get every single problem correct.
Thursday: same as Monday
Friday: same as Tuesday
Saturday: take a full diagnostic test, and BR it
Sunday: rest

I figured slow and steady is the best way to prepare for the test. I spent the summer of 2015 with the power bibles and learning the foundations of the test while I was unemployed after graduating from college. Then I started working full-time in September, when I first scored in the 160s using this schedule.

What can I do differently to break my plateau?

I've read that the only way to get over the "170 hump" is to do more problems, but I've also read when you plateau that it's time to change how you've been studying. The question is I don't know how or what to change.

I'd love your insight

[somethingElse]

Here are a few various ideas which I think could help you:

1) What are you doing as far as your intangibles are concerned? By that I mean, do you eat healthy, exercise regularly, meditate, etc? Leading up to the December test I did the following every day:

a) Read some of a very dense book (denser than anything you'll read on the LSAT) - this will help with LR and RC (make sure you are adequately comprehending your book)

b) Meditate 30 minutes a day - this helps with all three sections and is probably the most important item on this list, it also helps with anxiety/stamina

c) Did a couple sudoku/similar logic type puzzles - helps quite a bit with LG, I became automatic at LG aside from the stupid mistake here and there

d) Either weight lifted or played basketball - helps with motivation/preventing burnout, staying in shape is good for your overall health/mood

e) Ate a superfood smoothie (chia seeds, fruit, kale, protein, greek yog, flax, etc) and generally ate healthy - same as d

2) When you are doing a timed section or PT, do you cross out every single wrong answer choice? And if so, do you give a legitimate reason for why the AC is either right or wrong? I'm talking about every single problem on every single PT you take. Be very liberal with circling questions for BR. You should be able to cross off an answer choice and give a reason like (for LR) "The argument doesn't talk about sunflowers, it only talks about chrysanthemums, so this answer choice is not relevant to the conclusion and only boosts a premise". Obviously I just spat out that example but your reason should be about that detailed for every answer choice. You shouldn't just say "that answer choice is irrelevant." Go further than that. Do this for RC, LR, and LG. Understand the shit out of every single question you do, to the point where you could just about give your own write up on Manhattan's forums or something.

[RamTitan]

Here are a few various ideas which I think could help you:

1) What are you doing as far as your intangibles are concerned? By that I mean, do you eat healthy, exercise regularly, meditate, etc? Leading up to the December test I did the following every day:

a) Read some of a very dense book (denser than anything you'll read on the LSAT) - this will help with LR and RC (make sure you are adequately comprehending your book)

b) Meditate 30 minutes a day - this helps with all three sections and is probably the most important item on this list, it also helps with anxiety/stamina

c) Did a couple sudoku/similar logic type puzzles - helps quite a bit with LG, I became automatic at LG aside from the stupid mistake here and there

d) Either weight lifted or played basketball - helps with motivation/preventing burnout, staying in shape is good for your overall health/mood

e) Ate a superfood smoothie (chia seeds, fruit, kale, protein, greek yog, flax, etc) and generally ate healthy - same as d

2) When you are doing a timed section or PT, do you cross out every single wrong answer choice? And if so, do you give a legitimate reason for why the AC is either right or wrong? I'm talking about every single problem on every single PT you take. Be very liberal with circling questions for BR. You should be able to cross off an answer choice and give a reason like (for LR) "The argument doesn't talk about sunflowers, it only talks about chrysanthemums, so this answer choice is not relevant to the conclusion and only boosts a premise". Obviously I just spat out that example but your reason should be about that detailed for every answer choice. You shouldn't just say "that answer choice is irrelevant." Go further than that. Do this for RC, LR, and LG. Understand the shit out of every single question you do, to the point where you could just about give your own write up on Manhattan's forums or something.

1. I think I'm pretty good in this area. I'm into bodybuilding, so I workout 6 days a week and eat a high-protein diet. However, I do like to drink beer one night a week, typically after taking a practice test. I've been thinking of giving that up, but I know it'd be hard.

2. I do not cross out every single wrong answer choice. I do it in my head, but not on paper. I couldn't imagine doing that during a timed test. I think this is going to be something I have to start doing though.

I also read to not read the stimulus first but instead read the question. This completely contradicts PowerScore's method, so I'm not sure if I should make the switch.

[somethingElse]

Well the physical act of crossing out the answer choice is less important than having a concrete reason for eliminating each one. You of course don't write out the reason on a timed section (during untimed drilling I would though, this could also help your LR mainly meaning I wouldn't do that for LG and rarely for RC) And it is definitely possible to do this (the concrete reason for each AC without writing anything out) and still finish each section with plenty of time to go. For RC it'll also depend on how much you annotate the passage (I did literally none, but everyone's strategy will probably vary a bit there).

I always read the question first as well, and the stimulus second for LR. I think its the way to go - it puts you into a specific mindset for each question type. And you should have a strategy/unique mindset for every question type. E.g. let's say its a Necessary Assumption question. From there you would read the stimulus specifically looking for first the conclusion and its premises, putting it into premise -> conclusion form in you mind, looking for equivocations between a premise and the conclusion, noting the flaw with the reasoning. Then try to prephrase what the argument is necessarily assuming and look to the ACs. You would then look for ACs that are too strong/wide reaching to be necessary, ACs that actually hurt the argument, or ACs that don't relate to the reasoning/argument. Finally you have the negation test to really check if its necessary. So all of that would be the mindset you go into for a NA question, and you then would have similar frames of mind for each question type.

[RamTitan]

Well the physical act of crossing out the answer choice is less important than having a concrete reason for eliminating each one. You of course don't write out the reason on a timed section (during untimed drilling I would though, this could also help your LR mainly meaning I wouldn't do that for LG and rarely for RC) And it is definitely possible to do this (the concrete reason for each AC without writing anything out) and still finish each section with plenty of time to go. For RC it'll also depend on how much you annotate the passage (I did literally none, but everyone's strategy will probably vary a bit there).

I always read the question first as well, and the stimulus second for LR. I think its the way to go - it puts you into a specific mindset for each question type. And you should have a strategy/unique mindset for every question type. E.g. let's say its a Necessary Assumption question. From there you would read the stimulus specifically looking for first the conclusion and its premises, putting it into premise -> conclusion form in you mind, looking for equivocations between a premise and the conclusion, noting the flaw with the reasoning. Then try to prephrase what the argument is necessarily assuming and look to the ACs. You would then look for ACs that are too strong/wide reaching to be necessary, ACs that actually hurt the argument, or ACs that don't relate to the reasoning/argument. Finally you have the negation test to really check if its necessary. So all of that would be the mindset you go into for a NA question, and you then would have similar frames of mind for each question type.

Interesting.....looks like I have some changes to make.

Lately I've been getting LR questions wrong that I thought I had gotten right. I'm assuming this strategy will help combat that?

[somethingElse]

Yeah it basically helps with the following:

1) being more consistent and making less stupid mistakes (since you're actively eliminating each AC and justifying the correct one)

2) recognizing patterns among wrong ACs as well as common tricks they try to pull

3) improving overall LR proficiency since you're analyzing the shit out of each question

It'll also help big time with the other sections of course, too.

[RamTitan]

somethingelse55, I started incorporating your strategy this past week, and I feel that it's going to be a boon in my LR studying. I went through problems I had not been able to figure out on my own, and discovered that by using your method I was able to answer most of them correctly.

I took a test today, and scored a 170, which is just shy of my highest score. I misbubbeled though for the first time, which shows that mistakes can happen to anyone. It pays to be diligent...

I plan on seeing a tutor for the first time this week. Should be an experience; I'll post later on how it goes.