real The Official December 2016 Waiters Group - Patience is a Virtue Forum

[Barack O'Drama]

I am using that guide by the person that got a 180. I finished my first books that was a good intro to the lLSAT and allowed me to improve by a good amount. Anyway, I have power score bibles and workbooks next. I am staggering my schedule at LR/LG/LR/LG/RC m-f and practice test Sunday. I am not sure if I have to put more time into RC so I put more emphasis on LR and lg. Do you guys think this is adequate?

Yeah, that looks good. I think it is really advantageous to have a study schedule that you are following. Even if it is not strict, a good framework keeps you honest, and helps you to organized if you forget/don't have time for a day's plan.

Do logic games until you go -0 (timed)
For LR, drilling will help you start to see patterns and will become better with time. Hard to rush LR I found out. So the results might not be quantitive right away, but don't despair; they shall come with time.
For RC, if you think you need some extra prep work there, just start with familiarizing yourself with the section, and do sections untimed at first. I started to try to look at RC timed, and it was not doing much for me. To see the nuances and structure, untimed practice is your friend. I think time naturally comes with being efficient, and that will come with untimed practice.

And make sure not to start Pt'ing too early. I don't think you get much out of them until you're at a point where you know all the sections well, and have gone through most of your prep material. I recommend just drilling (both mixed and single question types) while going through your prep material. Perhaps after every book you may want to take one to gauge where you're at, but doing them too soon will result in exhausting the finite LSATs out there.

[muscleboundlaw]

I am using that guide by the person that got a 180. I finished my first books that was a good intro to the lLSAT and allowed me to improve by a good amount. Anyway, I have power score bibles and workbooks next. I am staggering my schedule at LR/LG/LR/LG/RC m-f and practice test Sunday. I am not sure if I have to put more time into RC so I put more emphasis on LR and lg. Do you guys think this is adequate?

Yeah, that looks good. I think it is really advantageous to have a study schedule that you are following. Even if it is not strict, a good framework keeps you honest, and helps you to organized if you forget/don't have time for a day's plan.

Do logic games until you go -0 (timed)
For LR, drilling will help you start to see patterns and will become better with time. Hard to rush LR I found out. So the results might not be quantitive right away, but don't despair; they shall come with time.
For RC, if you think you need some extra prep work there, just start with familiarizing yourself with the section, and do sections untimed at first. I started to try to look at RC timed, and it was not doing much for me. To see the nuances and structure, untimed practice is your friend. I think time naturally comes with being efficient, and that will come with untimed practice.

And make sure not to start Pt'ing too early. I don't think you get much out of them until you're at a point where you know all the sections well, and have gone through most of your prep material. I recommend just drilling (both mixed and single question types) while going through your prep material. Perhaps after every book you may want to take one to gauge where you're at, but doing them too soon will result in exhausting the finite LSATs out there.

That's a good point. I was thinking about that myself. It seems like you can either a. Choose to take tests right away and then recycle then later on or b. Get as acclimated as possible before diving in.

I am going to use the 16 week LSAT trainer beginning in August and he has around 16 practice tests on his schedule. Until then, I can actually get away with doing one per week while doing powerscore.

What are you using to study?

[scalawag]

Checking in

I have two questions

1. How long does it take to go -1 or -2 with Logic Games under timed conditions?

2. I'm currently getting 20-21 LR questions right a section. Is this sufficient for a 170?

The reason I'm asking is I'm trying to gauge what to study. I'm about -6 for logic games under timed conditions and I'm getting about 20-21 right for RC under time constraints. The last thing I'll do is drill RC right before I take practice tests daily.

[muscleboundlaw]

Checking in

I have two questions

1. How long does it take to go -1 or -2 with Logic Games under timed conditions?

2. I'm currently getting 20-21 LR questions right a section. Is this sufficient for a 170?

The reason I'm asking is I'm trying to gauge what to study. I'm about -6 for logic games under timed conditions and I'm getting about 20-21 right for RC under time constraints. The last thing I'll do is drill RC right before I take practice tests daily.

Hey Scal.

It looks like you are in the 163-166 range at the moment so good job. Here is a pretty good scoring guide.

https://www.powerscore.com/lsat/help/scale.cfm

IT really depends on the test but it looks like a 170 can be obtained by getting up to 12 or so wrong. You can average that out to about -3 per section.

Also, what do you mean how long? How much work do you have to put in how long? That's all relative. If you are already at -6 (me too by the way!) then you are well on your way. It depends on what kind of mistakes you are making. I have noticed that my mistakes are always silly and include me missing a step during LG. I take heart that it can be corrected with focus, and that's really one of my goals in studying for the LSAT. I feel like the concepts are beginning to make sense, but I have to combine speed, focus, and understanding. Right now I have understanding. Next is speed and then focus.

[Barack O'Drama]

Checking in

I have two questions

1. How long does it take to go -1 or -2 with Logic Games under timed conditions?

2. I'm currently getting 20-21 LR questions right a section. Is this sufficient for a 170?

The reason I'm asking is I'm trying to gauge what to study. I'm about -6 for logic games under timed conditions and I'm getting about 20-21 right for RC under time constraints. The last thing I'll do is drill RC right before I take practice tests daily.

Hey Scalawag!

I think everyone is different, so there is never one answer for how long it will take you. I've been studying for going on 1.5 months and still miss between 4-5 on logic games timed. I am definitely seeing a lot of improvement, but I would say it is probably going to be another month or so before I am down to -1.

Is it sufficient for a 170s? No. But it is not a bad start either. If you want to get a 170s, you will need to be missing only 1 or 2 per section. It is possibly to miss those many and get a 170s, assuming you get every other question right, but don't take those odds.

I'd say study logic games and get them down to -0. Very doable.

Then go through some sort of prep book and really learn LR. It is half the test, so you really want to nail it. There are always going to be one or two questions that might throw you off, but you should be able to get that score down to only missing 1-2 if you want a 170s score.

Drill LR questions after every chapter/lesson, and incorporate some mixed reviews or entire timed sections.

LR has been a long and slow road for improvement. But once you learn it, you seem to really get consistent.

[muscleboundlaw]

LR has been a long and slow road for improvement. But once you learn it, you seem to really get consistent.

Powerscore had a great point when it came to LR and understanding it. Knowledge of LR isn't a step by step process. When you finally get it you read questions like they are a waterfall rather than a sequence of events. In other words, things just flow as you read them and the concepts, structure, logic etc start to come together as you read it.

[Barack O'Drama]

I am using that guide by the person that got a 180. I finished my first books that was a good intro to the lLSAT and allowed me to improve by a good amount. Anyway, I have power score bibles and workbooks next. I am staggering my schedule at LR/LG/LR/LG/RC m-f and practice test Sunday. I am not sure if I have to put more time into RC so I put more emphasis on LR and lg. Do you guys think this is adequate?

Yeah, that looks good. I think it is really advantageous to have a study schedule that you are following. Even if it is not strict, a good framework keeps you honest, and helps you to organized if you forget/don't have time for a day's plan.

Do logic games until you go -0 (timed)
For LR, drilling will help you start to see patterns and will become better with time. Hard to rush LR I found out. So the results might not be quantitive right away, but don't despair; they shall come with time.
For RC, if you think you need some extra prep work there, just start with familiarizing yourself with the section, and do sections untimed at first. I started to try to look at RC timed, and it was not doing much for me. To see the nuances and structure, untimed practice is your friend. I think time naturally comes with being efficient, and that will come with untimed practice.

And make sure not to start Pt'ing too early. I don't think you get much out of them until you're at a point where you know all the sections well, and have gone through most of your prep material. I recommend just drilling (both mixed and single question types) while going through your prep material. Perhaps after every book you may want to take one to gauge where you're at, but doing them too soon will result in exhausting the finite LSATs out there.

That's a good point. I was thinking about that myself. It seems like you can either a. Choose to take tests right away and then recycle then later on or b. Get as acclimated as possible before diving in.

I am going to use the 16 week LSAT trainer beginning in August and he has around 16 practice tests on his schedule. Until then, I can actually get away with doing one per week while doing powerscore.

What are you using to study?

Sounds like a good plan man. I'm a big believer in Mike Kim's philosophy that during 40+ prep tests and starting them before you are ready is not the best way to prepare. The LSAT is the same 100 questions over and over. Just make sure you are prepared and have a plan on how to deal with everyone. One of the best ways to do so is to re-do questions and really understand them. Especially in the earlier stages where you aren't going to get much from a practice test. So good choice.

I am using:

The LSAT Trainer w/ 12 week Study Schedule (PT 52-71, but as Mike suggests, I am adjusting it a bit)
7Sage starter course
Manhattan LSAT Trilogy
Cambridge Packets (1-38)
PT 39-77 for PTs and additional section review.

So I'm going to go through the 7Sage course while reading The Trainer. And do a round of drilling. Maybe 25-50 questions of mixed difficulty from Cambridge for every question type.

Wednesday and/or Saturdays is when I have been doing my timed sections. I try to go a timed LG and 2x LR timed. Then I BR and watch video explanations.

Once I'm done with The Trainer and 7Sage (aiming for September) I am going to read through the Manhattan LSAT books. I might even re-read The LSAT Trainer again at this time. I have heard several recommendations to do that, lol. While I'm doing this part of my prep, I am going to be doing a second round of drilling and slowly include full timed PTS. So I'm hoping to have 2 months or so where I can practice test and BR with little to no new curriculum to learn.

I honestly think most people will be good with The LSAT Trainer and following the study schedules. I have talked to a lot of people and those who didn't think the Trainer was sufficient as a sole study tool didn't follow the study schedule or do the drills! It is really meant to be done slowly over the course of a couple months, at least. So definitely take it slow and don't overload on prep materials. I bought everything under the sun and sort of regretted it. I spent most of June looking for a silver bullet; a book, program, or study schedule that would lead me to the 170-promise land. I really found out that the only way there is to make sure you honestly understand all the question types. I had a bad habit of telling myself "Yeah, I get it, sort of. Now on to the next chapter..." Also to make sure you are drilling and instilling what you're learning.

[Barack O'Drama]

LR has been a long and slow road for improvement. But once you learn it, you seem to really get consistent.

Powerscore had a great point when it came to LR and understanding it. Knowledge of LR isn't a step by step process. When you finally get it you read questions like they are a waterfall rather than a sequence of events. In other words, things just flow as you read them and the concepts, structure, logic etc start to come together as you read it.

Yeah!! I actually have the Powerscore Trilogy. First thing I read through last month. Admittedly I rushed through the bibles and Trainer to get on to PTs, because I felt like that was what everyone else was doing. Then, last week, I decided to take the December LSAT and start my prep over the right way. So I literally just started from page one.

The PowerScore gave me a good base. I don't regret going through their Logic Games Bible or their Logical Reasoning Bible. Their RC book is another story. I want my damn money back, PowerScore.

[muscleboundlaw]

LR has been a long and slow road for improvement. But once you learn it, you seem to really get consistent.

Powerscore had a great point when it came to LR and understanding it. Knowledge of LR isn't a step by step process. When you finally get it you read questions like they are a waterfall rather than a sequence of events. In other words, things just flow as you read them and the concepts, structure, logic etc start to come together as you read it.

Yeah!! I actually have the Powerscore Trilogy. First thing I read through last month. Admittedly I rushed through the bibles and Trainer to get on to PTs, because I felt like that was what everyone else was doing. Then, last week, I decided to take the December LSAT and start my prep over the right way. So I literally just started from page one.

The PowerScore gave me a good base. I don't regret going through their Logic Games Bible or their Logical Reasoning Bible. Their RC book is another story. I want my damn money back, PowerScore.

Oh, no, hahaha their RC is that bad? I read that too. I read many people who use PS to get a good base and then move to the LSAT trainer. From what I understand, LSAT trainer attacks questions from a completely different perspective than any other trainer right?

What I have done is subscribed to the economist for the RC section. Out of college, in the days of reading daily, I breezed through the RC section. I just tried it for the first time last week and man was I deflated. Hit me right in the ass that I have a lot of work to do there. It's silly, but I need to read dense passages and understand them. I think using the economist will help. It's averaging to around the same score as LG and LR (73 percent), but that's not good enough. I feel like RC should be a gimme section. I expect -2 at worst and I am trending at -6 to -7.

Man, I am glad I signed up for this forum. Love your study plan by the way. It looks like you are grounded in your approach and intend on really understanding the details of the exam. If I may ask, what schools are you shooting for?

[muscleboundlaw]

Just got confirmation from Baylor AND UT that they accept the highest scores only. Now I have to consider September.

[Deardevil]

Checking in I have two questions

1. How long does it take to go -1 or -2 with Logic Games under timed conditions?

2. I'm currently getting 20-21 LR questions right a section. Is this sufficient for a 170?

The reason I'm asking is I'm trying to gauge what to study. I'm about -6 for logic games under timed conditions and I'm getting about 20-21 right for RC under time constraints. The last thing I'll do is drill RC right before I take practice tests daily.

Varies. One week for me, longer or even shorter time for others. Extremely learnable, so no need to sweat.
Good start on both LR and RC; I wish I could get down to -4... But it seems like you're averaging -12 at best on those alone,
which would only get you a 170 or 169, given that you get a perfect score on the games section.
Your best bet for a 170, since that's what I'm gunning for as well, is get LG to -0 and LR/RC to -3 or -4. Lower than that? Even better!

On another note, The LSAT Trainer is such a fun read; glad I picked it up.

[Barack O'Drama]

LR has been a long and slow road for improvement. But once you learn it, you seem to really get consistent.

Powerscore had a great point when it came to LR and understanding it. Knowledge of LR isn't a step by step process. When you finally get it you read questions like they are a waterfall rather than a sequence of events. In other words, things just flow as you read them and the concepts, structure, logic etc start to come together as you read it.

Yeah!! I actually have the Powerscore Trilogy. First thing I read through last month. Admittedly I rushed through the bibles and Trainer to get on to PTs, because I felt like that was what everyone else was doing. Then, last week, I decided to take the December LSAT and start my prep over the right way. So I literally just started from page one.

The PowerScore gave me a good base. I don't regret going through their Logic Games Bible or their Logical Reasoning Bible. Their RC book is another story. I want my damn money back, PowerScore.

Oh, no, hahaha their RC is that bad? I read that too. I read many people who use PS to get a good base and then move to the LSAT trainer. From what I understand, LSAT trainer attacks questions from a completely different perspective than any other trainer right?

What I have done is subscribed to the economist for the RC section. Out of college, in the days of reading daily, I breezed through the RC section. I just tried it for the first time last week and man was I deflated. Hit me right in the ass that I have a lot of work to do there. It's silly, but I need to read dense passages and understand them. I think using the economist will help. It's averaging to around the same score as LG and LR (73 percent), but that's not good enough. I feel like RC should be a gimme section. I expect -2 at worst and I am trending at -6 to -7.

Man, I am glad I signed up for this forum. Love your study plan by the way. It looks like you are grounded in your approach and intend on really understanding the details of the exam. If I may ask, what schools are you shooting for?

Yeah, I think it is common for a lot of people to do Powerscore --> Manhattan/LSAT Trainer. However, recently I think a lot more people are realizing how good the Trainer is, and suggesting to start off with that. I think it is best, too. The reason is because the Trainer gives you a comprehensive look at the LSAT, so I think it makes more sense to do that first, and then address weaknesses with the PS/ MLSAT books to fill in any holes.

And as far as RC, I am right with you there. Missing 6-7, sometimes 8 per section. My advice for that is to do a lot of untimed passages. You will start to see that the answers are all in the text, and a lot of the questions are the same passage to passage. The key to RC is blocking inferences. Stick with the facts, they try to trick you into assuming and inferring things about which you've read. That, IMHO, is what makes what is seemingly an easy section hard.

And yeah! I love TLS. Signed up Freshman year and kind of thought it was a bunch of negative know-it-alls, but a lot of the advice is correct. Although sometimes we don't get the answers we want to hear.

Thank you! It took me a long time to realize a few important things regarding the LSAT. I think the biggest lesson was as I said, there is no "silver bullet." No magic study books or plans. Before I made my plan, I started to go through all the threads, messaged high scorers and gurus like JY Ping and Mike Kim.
And I came to a few realizations that all top scorers and gurus seemed to tell me over and over. So that really influenced my plan quite a bit.

I'm really aiming for Harvard, Columbia, NYU, or Cornell. I don't think my softs are good enough for Yale
I got the GPA at or above almost every 75%-tile, so I just need a kick ass on the LSAT.

[twiix]

Checking in

I have two questions

1. How long does it take to go -1 or -2 with Logic Games under timed conditions?

2. I'm currently getting 20-21 LR questions right a section. Is this sufficient for a 170?

The reason I'm asking is I'm trying to gauge what to study. I'm about -6 for logic games under timed conditions and I'm getting about 20-21 right for RC under time constraints. The last thing I'll do is drill RC right before I take practice tests daily.

Hey Scalawag!

I think everyone is different, so there is never one answer for how long it will take you. I've been studying for going on 1.5 months and still miss between 4-5 on logic games timed. I am definitely seeing a lot of improvement, but I would say it is probably going to be another month or so before I am down to -1.

Is it sufficient for a 170s? No. But it is not a bad start either. If you want to get a 170s, you will need to be missing only 1 or 2 per section. It is possibly to miss those many and get a 170s, assuming you get every other question right, but don't take those odds.

I'd say study logic games and get them down to -0. Very doable.

Then go through some sort of prep book and really learn LR. It is half the test, so you really want to nail it. There are always going to be one or two questions that might throw you off, but you should be able to get that score down to only missing 1-2 if you want a 170s score.

Drill LR questions after every chapter/lesson, and incorporate some mixed reviews or entire timed sections.

LR has been a long and slow road for improvement. But once you learn it, you seem to really get consistent.

Emphasizing on LR being half the test, I chose to study that section first. SInce it accounts for the most amount of raw points, I deemed it most important. RC is definitely going to be the hardest for me, but if I can get half the test where I need to be (-2 per section in LR), I think I will be in a very good position to wrap up LG's and RC.

I also really like your study plan. I have the same content you do, but I've always been wondering how to tie in 7sage. Doing it in tandem with the trainer seems like a good idea. I wanted to do the 12/16 week course and condense the living hell out of it to maybe 8 weeks? And then PT, PT, PT. Thanks for the good ideas

[FedReserved]

How are the scholarships different (if they are) from taking the lsat in December as opposed to September.

Definitely looking for full-ride. Already debt-financed a BS + PharmD

[Barack O'Drama]

Checking in

I have two questions

1. How long does it take to go -1 or -2 with Logic Games under timed conditions?

2. I'm currently getting 20-21 LR questions right a section. Is this sufficient for a 170?

The reason I'm asking is I'm trying to gauge what to study. I'm about -6 for logic games under timed conditions and I'm getting about 20-21 right for RC under time constraints. The last thing I'll do is drill RC right before I take practice tests daily.

Hey Scalawag!

I think everyone is different, so there is never one answer for how long it will take you. I've been studying for going on 1.5 months and still miss between 4-5 on logic games timed. I am definitely seeing a lot of improvement, but I would say it is probably going to be another month or so before I am down to -1.

Is it sufficient for a 170s? No. But it is not a bad start either. If you want to get a 170s, you will need to be missing only 1 or 2 per section. It is possibly to miss those many and get a 170s, assuming you get every other question right, but don't take those odds.

I'd say study logic games and get them down to -0. Very doable.

Then go through some sort of prep book and really learn LR. It is half the test, so you really want to nail it. There are always going to be one or two questions that might throw you off, but you should be able to get that score down to only missing 1-2 if you want a 170s score.

Drill LR questions after every chapter/lesson, and incorporate some mixed reviews or entire timed sections.

LR has been a long and slow road for improvement. But once you learn it, you seem to really get consistent.

Emphasizing on LR being half the test, I chose to study that section first. SInce it accounts for the most amount of raw points, I deemed it most important. RC is definitely going to be the hardest for me, but if I can get half the test where I need to be (-2 per section in LR), I think I will be in a very good position to wrap up LG's and RC.

I also really like your study plan. I have the same content you do, but I've always been wondering how to tie in 7sage. Doing it in tandem with the trainer seems like a good idea. I wanted to do the 12/16 week course and condense the living hell out of it to maybe 8 weeks? And then PT, PT, PT. Thanks for the good ideas

I don't think there is anything wrong with hitting the LR first, or in tandem with LG...

I actually began doing both, but focused more heavily on LG for a few reasons. One reason is that minimal practice will keep you consistently at your score. Thus, it is easier to maintain doing really well on LG and really get into LR, which tends to be a longer, more involved road to get down to -0.
Starting out I took like 2 weeks to go through the PS Logic Games Bible and drilled a ton of games. I'm still going like -5 or so, but it has been a lot easier to keep getting better at LGs as In start LR in earnest. IDK if that makes sense, but do whatever works for you, lol. That is the best LSAT advice.

Thanks! It took a long time to find something that was working for me. I finally began to see immediate and tangible results with The Trainer and 7Sage, so I have no doubt they played a big role.

The LSAT Trainer is meant to be adjusted according to Mike Kim. So don't think of those guides to be followed religiously, and feel free to adjust to your needs as you you plan on doing. I am finding that a lot of the lessons and drills take way shorter than planned in the schedule, and a few take longer. I guess it depends on your needs. I am certainly going to pay special attention to LR and RC.

I am basically doing The LSAT Trainer and 7Sage in tandem, too. I think that's a great way to do it being that they go so well together. The only proviso being to make sure you have enough time to do both. Probably need at least 20-25 hours a week to do both earnestly.

[Barack O'Drama]

How are the scholarships different (if they are) from taking the lsat in December as opposed to September.

Definitely looking for full-ride. Already debt-financed a BS + PharmD

Well, I think there are a few ways to look at it.

1) There are certainly more advantages to applying early if you are looking for $$$. There is only so much, and I am sure that the first applications will have a better chance of getting that money.

2) If you wait to take and score higher, then you will certainly increase you chances of $$$ as well. I think if you can score 3-5 points higher in December, it is unquestionably worth taking in December.

The third option is probably waiting to apply until next cycle. This way you can take the Dec 16, Feb 17, June 17 LSATS and study until you are ready to score really well, AND get your apps in early. I am assuming you don't want to wait, so I guess it depends on where you are PT'ing in September.

If you are consistently scoring near your goal, I say go for it in September. Besides, you can always retake in December if you do poorly.

[scalawag]

How are the scholarships different (if they are) from taking the lsat in December as opposed to September.

Definitely looking for full-ride. Already debt-financed a BS + PharmD

From what my prelaw advisor told me they give scholarships away before they run out so you would be better off in September or waiting a year.

Thanks to everyone for the responses they were very helpful.

[Giro423]

I plan about 2h per day but in reality it works out to about 1h... Depends on amount of HW from my undergrad. It's not easy juggling full-time job, full time undergrad, and LSAT prep. But I knew it'll be that way and that's why I gave myself enough time to slowly go through with it without time pressure.

I'm impressed that you're able to commit that much time daily with a full-time job and school. That's awesome.

Out of curiosity, are you concerned about working through all the material early on in your prep period? Let's say you had access to all 77 released PrepTests. If you completed them under timed conditions, it would take you 180 hours to answer every available LSAT question out there. Presumably you're not doing them all timed and so it will take you a lot longer than that, but are you eventually planning on repeating a lot of questions or are you using non-LSAC questions? What would be your ideal materials to have available (short of LSAC magically releasing a bunch of new LSATs)?

I'm asking because I'm curious what people who study for longer than about 6 months use to extend their materials.

And by the way, thanks for checking out the Magoosh blog. You're right that it's a new development so we're still amassing content, but the good thing is that we're really responsive to students' requests while in our infancy. So if there's anything you or anyone else would like to see, let me know.

Take care,

Travis
Magoosh LSAT Expert

I'm not sure if this helps or not, but I will finish out at about 8 months by the time I hit September, and I have avoided running out of material by using prep material from a variety of companies, coupled with practice tests. This has kept me plenty busy. Of course, past a certain point the prep material (such as powerscore or manhattan), ceases to become all that useful compared to timed testing. But nonetheless having some fresh perspectives and strategies to tap into periodically has helped keep my testing dynamic.

[Walliums]

And as far as RC, I am right with you there. Missing 6-7, sometimes 8 per section. My advice for that is to do a lot of untimed passages. You will start to see that the answers are all in the text, and a lot of the questions are the same passage to passage. The key to RC is blocking inferences. Stick with the facts, they try to trick you into assuming and inferring things about which you've read. That, IMHO, is what makes what is seemingly an easy section hard.

This is really good to hear. When I did my diagnostic, RC was my worst section. I was really surprised, just because of my background and my history on other standardized tests, I've always nailed reading comprehension (either perfect or close-to perfect scores). But, on my diagnostic, RC was my last section, I was brain-tired, and just below through the passages and answered all the questions with 8+ minutes left. Then I stopped because I was ready to be done.

Reviewing that section afterwards, though, I was a bit nervous because I didn't know how in the hell I was going to correct RC. Then I realized that many of the questions I missed were due to me blowing through the passages and not really reading them. Oi. So I'm probably going to take this advice and start doing RC passages untimed...

[Walliums]

Now I'm curious - what cycle are you all planning on applying for? I'm looking to apply for fall 2018, so as Barack mentioned, that gives me the flexibility to take Dec, Feb, or Jun (or one of those and a retake, if necessary).

[Barack O'Drama]

And as far as RC, I am right with you there. Missing 6-7, sometimes 8 per section. My advice for that is to do a lot of untimed passages. You will start to see that the answers are all in the text, and a lot of the questions are the same passage to passage. The key to RC is blocking inferences. Stick with the facts, they try to trick you into assuming and inferring things about which you've read. That, IMHO, is what makes what is seemingly an easy section hard.

This is really good to hear. When I did my diagnostic, RC was my worst section. I was really surprised, just because of my background and my history on other standardized tests, I've always nailed reading comprehension (either perfect or close-to perfect scores). But, on my diagnostic, RC was my last section, I was brain-tired, and just below through the passages and answered all the questions with 8+ minutes left. Then I stopped because I was ready to be done.

Reviewing that section afterwards, though, I was a bit nervous because I didn't know how in the hell I was going to correct RC. Then I realized that many of the questions I missed were due to me blowing through the passages and not really reading them. Oi. So I'm probably going to take this advice and start doing RC passages untimed...

Exactly! You really just re-train your brain to read efficiently. You will start to remember the passages more, and be able to answer the questions quicker. It all comes, but untimed first is the best way I can think to do it. I've already noticed from doing a few passages that I am seeing that a lot of the questions and answers follow the same trajectory. Once you start to go -0, then start doing timed.

I'm a believer that test takers on here emphasize timed practice too much and too soon. It certainly is important, but the better you are the quicker you will be. It doesn't make sense to start doing it timed if you aren't going -0, because how will adding time in help? It will only hurt your learning at that point. Afterwards when you start doing timed, you may miss a few. But you'll know how to do it and then can adjust accordingly.

[Barack O'Drama]

Now I'm curious - what cycle are you all planning on applying for? I'm looking to apply for fall 2018, so as Barack mentioned, that gives me the flexibility to take Dec, Feb, or Jun (or one of those and a retake, if necessary).

I'm applying this cycle. If I underperform my numbers then I will sit out and apply next year and retake the LSAT.

I'm thinking if I can manage a 168-172 I should be golden to get into my target schools. But if I don't do that well in December then I will just sit out regardless probably.

[Deardevil]

I'm going for this cycle as well. Class of 2020 just has a better ring to it.

So I better make it lol.

[scalawag]

I've got a question:

Should I work through the numerical distribution section of the Logic Games Bible in Chapter 9 (Advanced Techniques) before drilling Grouping Games?

[Barack O'Drama]

I've got a question:

Should I work through the numerical distribution section of the Logic Games Bible in Chapter 9 (Advanced Techniques) before drilling Grouping Games?

Yeah, I certainly think it will help especially with grouping games!