Breaking the 170 Plateau Forum

[RamTitan]

Who has broken through the 170 plateau, and how many tests did it take for you to get there? Other than taking practice tests and BRing them, did you do anything noteworthy/out of the ordinary guidance? I've been stuck in the 166-171 range for the past 25 practice tests I've taken. I've started redoing lower-scored practice tests and I think I am getting something out of this exercise, but it has not yet translated to a higher score.

[tsujimoto74]

Where are you losing points? Is there a particular section you miss most of your questions in, or a particular question type? You've gotta figure out where the problem is before you can fix it.

[RamTitan]

Where are you losing points? Is there a particular section you miss most of your questions in, or a particular question type? You've gotta figure out where the problem is before you can fix it.

I typically miss 10-12 questions; 6-8 in LR, 2-5 in RC, 0-3 in AR. I was having a lot of struggles with RC, but I've been doing a better job with that section because I started writing 3-5 word summaries next to each paragraph. I really have no excuse to miss any problems in logic games, but it happens.

However, LR is different. There is usually 2-3 problems per section that I can't solve during the test, and have to choose between two answer choices. And then I typically get a couple of questions wrong that I didn't think I had any issues with during the test (which are the scariest ones to miss). However, it's not really a specific type of problem, but rather where it appears in the test. For example, I usually miss a problem somewhere between #s 5 and 10, 1-2 will be incorrect between 11 and 20, and then 1-2 will be wrong in 21-25.

[jflaw]

I got my average score around 174 after doing around 60 practice tests and reading all of the bibles + LSAT trainer. But TBH my study regimen was a little extreme. But yeah if you do enough practice tests your average will go up, you just get used to the questions.

[RamTitan]

I got my average score around 174 after doing around 60 practice tests and reading all of the bibles + LSAT trainer. But TBH my study regimen was a little extreme. But yeah if you do enough practice tests your average will go up, you just get used to the questions.

Sounds like I need to keep cranking them out; I'll be doing around 3 a week for the next two months, so hopefully I get there.

[GreenEggs]

I think RC is really the only upper limit for most people. AR is definitely learnable, and LR will come with more practice and better strategy at attacking questions. RC is just a hard nut to crack.

[fliptrip]

I think RC is really the only upper limit for most people. AR is definitely learnable, and LR will come with more practice and better strategy at attacking questions. RC is just a hard nut to crack.

This is 100% right. To get your score higher, the first place you attack is games (AR), which for many people comes faster than your second target, arguments (LR). To get a 170+ you've got to be in the -4 or fewer range on LR. I believe that there's only so much you can do to get better at RC, but improving at arguments will help. 170 is basically -12, so if you go -0 on games, and -4 on arguments, you can miss as many as 8 on RC and still get there.

The one thing that distinguishes someone who's getting fewer than 4 wrong in arguments and those who aren't is having a comprehensive strategy. If I asked you to outline each of the types of arguments questions, what stems they are associated with, and what strategy you use in attacking them, could you do it?

[RamTitan]

I think RC is really the only upper limit for most people. AR is definitely learnable, and LR will come with more practice and better strategy at attacking questions. RC is just a hard nut to crack.

This is 100% right. To get your score higher, the first place you attack is games (AR), which for many people comes faster than your second target, arguments (LR). To get a 170+ you've got to be in the -4 or fewer range on LR. I believe that there's only so much you can do to get better at RC, but improving at arguments will help. 170 is basically -12, so if you go -0 on games, and -4 on arguments, you can miss as many as 8 on RC and still get there.

The one thing that distinguishes someone who's getting fewer than 4 wrong in arguments and those who aren't is having a comprehensive strategy. If I asked you to outline each of the types of arguments questions, what stems they are associated with, and what strategy you use in attacking them, could you do it?

Wow, I definitely could not. They way I've been doing it is reading the stimulus first, searching for faulty reasoning and the conclusion, and then prephrasing an answer after reading the stem; this is how I approach pretty much every question.

[fliptrip]

I think RC is really the only upper limit for most people. AR is definitely learnable, and LR will come with more practice and better strategy at attacking questions. RC is just a hard nut to crack.

This is 100% right. To get your score higher, the first place you attack is games (AR), which for many people comes faster than your second target, arguments (LR). To get a 170+ you've got to be in the -4 or fewer range on LR. I believe that there's only so much you can do to get better at RC, but improving at arguments will help. 170 is basically -12, so if you go -0 on games, and -4 on arguments, you can miss as many as 8 on RC and still get there.

The one thing that distinguishes someone who's getting fewer than 4 wrong in arguments and those who aren't is having a comprehensive strategy. If I asked you to outline each of the types of arguments questions, what stems they are associated with, and what strategy you use in attacking them, could you do it?

Wow, I definitely could not. They way I've been doing it is reading the stimulus first, searching for faulty reasoning and the conclusion, and then prephrasing an answer after reading the stem; this is how I approach pretty much every question.

So, then, just based on this, I'd say you have a lot of room to improve with arguments. Do you ever struggle to know why questions you get correct are correct?

[tsujimoto74]

I think RC is really the only upper limit for most people. AR is definitely learnable, and LR will come with more practice and better strategy at attacking questions. RC is just a hard nut to crack.

This is 100% right. To get your score higher, the first place you attack is games (AR), which for many people comes faster than your second target, arguments (LR). To get a 170+ you've got to be in the -4 or fewer range on LR. I believe that there's only so much you can do to get better at RC, but improving at arguments will help. 170 is basically -12, so if you go -0 on games, and -4 on arguments, you can miss as many as 8 on RC and still get there.

The one thing that distinguishes someone who's getting fewer than 4 wrong in arguments and those who aren't is having a comprehensive strategy. If I asked you to outline each of the types of arguments questions, what stems they are associated with, and what strategy you use in attacking them, could you do it?

Wow, I definitely could not. They way I've been doing it is reading the stimulus first, searching for faulty reasoning and the conclusion, and then prephrasing an answer after reading the stem; this is how I approach pretty much every question.

Not every prompt in LR has a conclusion. My approach with those questions was always quickly breaking apart the prompt. eg: What is the premise/are the premises? Is there a conclusion/what is the conclusion? Etc. I recall a couple questions that actually mapped out better if I treated them like logic games.

[Lexaholik]

Your RC and LG seem pretty good. Your LR is the big weak spot but the good news is there's a lot of room for improvement.

Like the other posters in this thread have said, you need to know forwards and backwards how LR questions work. Do lots of drills on your specific weaknesses instead of taking more practice tests. Don't be worried if you don't see immediate results--these things take time. At your scoring level, if you cut your -8 to -4 in LR, you should be consistently making 170+ practice scores.

[The LSAT Trainer]

Sorry to quote myself, but I've just been emailing w/ another student about a post I made several years back that I believe is relevant to this discussion -- figured some of you might find it useful for me to repost here --

http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 6&t=192589

[RamTitan]

I think RC is really the only upper limit for most people. AR is definitely learnable, and LR will come with more practice and better strategy at attacking questions. RC is just a hard nut to crack.

This is 100% right. To get your score higher, the first place you attack is games (AR), which for many people comes faster than your second target, arguments (LR). To get a 170+ you've got to be in the -4 or fewer range on LR. I believe that there's only so much you can do to get better at RC, but improving at arguments will help. 170 is basically -12, so if you go -0 on games, and -4 on arguments, you can miss as many as 8 on RC and still get there.

The one thing that distinguishes someone who's getting fewer than 4 wrong in arguments and those who aren't is having a comprehensive strategy. If I asked you to outline each of the types of arguments questions, what stems they are associated with, and what strategy you use in attacking them, could you do it?

Wow, I definitely could not. They way I've been doing it is reading the stimulus first, searching for faulty reasoning and the conclusion, and then prephrasing an answer after reading the stem; this is how I approach pretty much every question.

So, then, just based on this, I'd say you have a lot of room to improve with arguments. Do you ever struggle to know why questions you get correct are correct?

Not really, though usually every BR there is 1-2 questions I can't understand how the right answer is right. Also, something I've noticed is that I tend to have problems with roles in an argument and questions that have answer choices that use abstract language.

[RamTitan]

I think RC is really the only upper limit for most people. AR is definitely learnable, and LR will come with more practice and better strategy at attacking questions. RC is just a hard nut to crack.

This is 100% right. To get your score higher, the first place you attack is games (AR), which for many people comes faster than your second target, arguments (LR). To get a 170+ you've got to be in the -4 or fewer range on LR. I believe that there's only so much you can do to get better at RC, but improving at arguments will help. 170 is basically -12, so if you go -0 on games, and -4 on arguments, you can miss as many as 8 on RC and still get there.

The one thing that distinguishes someone who's getting fewer than 4 wrong in arguments and those who aren't is having a comprehensive strategy. If I asked you to outline each of the types of arguments questions, what stems they are associated with, and what strategy you use in attacking them, could you do it?

Wow, I definitely could not. They way I've been doing it is reading the stimulus first, searching for faulty reasoning and the conclusion, and then prephrasing an answer after reading the stem; this is how I approach pretty much every question.

Not every prompt in LR has a conclusion. My approach with those questions was always quickly breaking apart the prompt. eg: What is the premise/are the premises? Is there a conclusion/what is the conclusion? Etc. I recall a couple questions that actually mapped out better if I treated them like logic games.

Oh, I am definitely aware of these kinds of problems (which is why I search for a conclusion; if there is none, then I know a specific type of stem will follow).

[RamTitan]

Your RC and LG seem pretty good. Your LR is the big weak spot but the good news is there's a lot of room for improvement.

Like the other posters in this thread have said, you need to know forwards and backwards how LR questions work. Do lots of drills on your specific weaknesses instead of taking more practice tests. Don't be worried if you don't see immediate results--these things take time. At your scoring level, if you cut your -8 to -4 in LR, you should be consistently making 170+ practice scores.

Something interesting to note is that when I drill a section on its own, I can get 0-2 wrong in LR on a consistent basis. However, in testing situations this is not always the case. But I don't think it's an endurance problem; often, my best sections are the last ones, and I rarely feel mentally tired after taking an exam.

[RamTitan]

Sorry to quote myself, but I've just been emailing w/ another student about a post I made several years back that I believe is relevant to this discussion -- figured some of you might find it useful for me to repost here --

http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 6&t=192589

That was an awesome post that should be stickied in this forum

[fliptrip]

I think RC is really the only upper limit for most people. AR is definitely learnable, and LR will come with more practice and better strategy at attacking questions. RC is just a hard nut to crack.

This is 100% right. To get your score higher, the first place you attack is games (AR), which for many people comes faster than your second target, arguments (LR). To get a 170+ you've got to be in the -4 or fewer range on LR. I believe that there's only so much you can do to get better at RC, but improving at arguments will help. 170 is basically -12, so if you go -0 on games, and -4 on arguments, you can miss as many as 8 on RC and still get there.

The one thing that distinguishes someone who's getting fewer than 4 wrong in arguments and those who aren't is having a comprehensive strategy. If I asked you to outline each of the types of arguments questions, what stems they are associated with, and what strategy you use in attacking them, could you do it?

Wow, I definitely could not. They way I've been doing it is reading the stimulus first, searching for faulty reasoning and the conclusion, and then prephrasing an answer after reading the stem; this is how I approach pretty much every question.

Not every prompt in LR has a conclusion. My approach with those questions was always quickly breaking apart the prompt. eg: What is the premise/are the premises? Is there a conclusion/what is the conclusion? Etc. I recall a couple questions that actually mapped out better if I treated them like logic games.

Oh, I am definitely aware of these kinds of problems (which is why I search for a conclusion; if there is none, then I know a specific type of stem will follow).

But this is where knowing the arguments section comes in. You don't have to hunt for a conclusion in every type of question you get. For instance, in inference/must be true questions, you don't need a conclusion, you just need to find a statement that can be supported exclusively with the information in the passage. This is a major contrast to any assumption question, where you have to know the conclusion in order to properly solve the problem.

In any event, knowing how to find a conclusion when you have to is super critical. Most role questions involve being able to distinguish between a conclusion and not a conclusion (which could be evidence, context, an opposing position to refute, etc.).

[RamTitan]

I think RC is really the only upper limit for most people. AR is definitely learnable, and LR will come with more practice and better strategy at attacking questions. RC is just a hard nut to crack.

This is 100% right. To get your score higher, the first place you attack is games (AR), which for many people comes faster than your second target, arguments (LR). To get a 170+ you've got to be in the -4 or fewer range on LR. I believe that there's only so much you can do to get better at RC, but improving at arguments will help. 170 is basically -12, so if you go -0 on games, and -4 on arguments, you can miss as many as 8 on RC and still get there.

The one thing that distinguishes someone who's getting fewer than 4 wrong in arguments and those who aren't is having a comprehensive strategy. If I asked you to outline each of the types of arguments questions, what stems they are associated with, and what strategy you use in attacking them, could you do it?

Wow, I definitely could not. They way I've been doing it is reading the stimulus first, searching for faulty reasoning and the conclusion, and then prephrasing an answer after reading the stem; this is how I approach pretty much every question.

Not every prompt in LR has a conclusion. My approach with those questions was always quickly breaking apart the prompt. eg: What is the premise/are the premises? Is there a conclusion/what is the conclusion? Etc. I recall a couple questions that actually mapped out better if I treated them like logic games.

Oh, I am definitely aware of these kinds of problems (which is why I search for a conclusion; if there is none, then I know a specific type of stem will follow).

But this is where knowing the arguments section comes in. You don't have to hunt for a conclusion in every type of question you get. For instance, in inference/must be true questions, you don't need a conclusion, you just need to find a statement that can be supported exclusively with the information in the passage. This is a major contrast to any assumption question, where you have to know the conclusion in order to properly solve the problem.

In any event, knowing how to find a conclusion when you have to is super critical. Most role questions involve being able to distinguish between a conclusion and not a conclusion (which could be evidence, context, an opposing position to refute, etc.).

So are you a stem-first guy? I always read stimulus first, per the advice of the PowerScore bible.

[fliptrip]

So are you a stem-first guy? I always read stimulus first, per the advice of the PowerScore bible.

Before I answer, let's make sure we are talking about the same stuff. Here's a sample arg question:

(I) All of Flip's friends are nice. Theo is Flip's friend.

(II) The statements above most strongly support which one of the following?

a)
b)
c)
d)
e)

In my world, I call (I) the argument and (II) the stem. I'd read (II) first to know what I'm looking for in (I) before I start reading. Reading (I) first slows you down, I think.

[Lexaholik]

Your RC and LG seem pretty good. Your LR is the big weak spot but the good news is there's a lot of room for improvement.

Like the other posters in this thread have said, you need to know forwards and backwards how LR questions work. Do lots of drills on your specific weaknesses instead of taking more practice tests. Don't be worried if you don't see immediate results--these things take time. At your scoring level, if you cut your -8 to -4 in LR, you should be consistently making 170+ practice scores.

Something interesting to note is that when I drill a section on its own, I can get 0-2 wrong in LR on a consistent basis. However, in testing situations this is not always the case. But I don't think it's an endurance problem; often, my best sections are the last ones, and I rarely feel mentally tired after taking an exam.

Interesting. Is the problem carelessness or misreading? Is it nerves? If you're seeing a performance gap between LR drills and full PTs, it's probably an issue with your examsmanship skills.

[RamTitan]

So are you a stem-first guy? I always read stimulus first, per the advice of the PowerScore bible.

Before I answer, let's make sure we are talking about the same stuff. Here's a sample arg question:

(I) All of Flip's friends are nice. Theo is Flip's friend.

(II) The statements above most strongly support which one of the following?

a)
b)
c)
d)
e)

In my world, I call (I) the argument and (II) the stem. I'd read (II) first to know what I'm looking for in (I) before I start reading. Reading (I) first slows you down, I think.

Ah, I read I first; when I first started prepping I read II first, but the PowerScore bible advocates for reading I first because it allows you to catch faulty reasoning before even reaching II. I was scoring 154 at that time, and from just that switch I jumped up 5 points, so I always took it as a solid approach. Also, I am an incredibly fast reader and almost always finish with at least 5-8 minutes left on the section. But maybe it's time for me to switch back.

[RamTitan]

Your RC and LG seem pretty good. Your LR is the big weak spot but the good news is there's a lot of room for improvement.

Like the other posters in this thread have said, you need to know forwards and backwards how LR questions work. Do lots of drills on your specific weaknesses instead of taking more practice tests. Don't be worried if you don't see immediate results--these things take time. At your scoring level, if you cut your -8 to -4 in LR, you should be consistently making 170+ practice scores.

Something interesting to note is that when I drill a section on its own, I can get 0-2 wrong in LR on a consistent basis. However, in testing situations this is not always the case. But I don't think it's an endurance problem; often, my best sections are the last ones, and I rarely feel mentally tired after taking an exam.

Interesting. Is the problem carelessness or misreading? Is it nerves? If you're seeing a performance gap between LR drills and full PTs, it's probably an issue with your examsmanship skills.

I believe it is, which is why I've started doing 3 practice tests a week so I become more familiar with taking a test instead of amping it up in my mind.

Edit - On a different note, I can get RC problems I missed correct the next day without even rereading the passage. So I don't know what that's about.

[fliptrip]

Unlike another poster here, I think you finishing with that much time is a huge sign that you are going too fast. You don't get a prize for finishing faster and it's not like Super Mario Brothers where you can convert those 8 surplus minutes into extra points. I'd slow down and make sure I'm reading every single word.

Flip says do it one way, Killoran and his minions say do it another. He can't change my mind, I can't change his. Good news is you get to choose the strategy that works best for you.

[somethingElse]

I am firmly in the reading the stem (II according to fliptrip's diagram) first camp, PROVIDED you have a consistent strategy for each and every question type. The reason I say that is because if you do have a consistent strategy lined up for each type, once you read the stem (II), you immediately enter into the mindset that is required for that question type. And it's having this sort of focused mindset that will make you a better and more consistent test-taker.

By that I mean, that let's say you read the stem and it says "Identify the main conclusion of the argument above." You immediately know what you are looking for and you can avoid certain things that you aren't looking for regarding that question's argument/stimulus (I on fliptrip's diagram). For a main conclusion question, you don't need to find any sorts of flaws with the argument whatsoever; all you need to do is find out what the main point of it is. Thus you can avoid being tripped up regarding aspects of the argument that you would be wasting your time trying to analyze.

Reading the stem first allows you to focus your efforts and make less stupid mistakes, and also helps to prevent over-analysis and over-thinking. When you already know what you're looking for before you even read the argument, you go into the process of reading the argument with a clear goal in mind. Conversely, if you read the argument first, you are looking for all sorts of things, many of which could very well be there to trip you up and/or cause you to waste time.

Also - when I say consistent strategies for each question type I mean 1) Knowing how to read the argument/what to ignore; 2) Knowing which part(s) of the argument to focus on; 3) Knowing if and to what degree to prephrase an answer (for certain question types it is more prudent to do so than others, and to different degrees); and 4) Knowing what the common types of incorrect answer choices are. One last thing which ought to apply to every question type's strategy - you should be actively eliminating each of the four incorrect choices based on a concrete reason. This takes time, but if you make the transition over to reading the stem first you should still have enough time once you get your strategies down.

[ayylmao]

I got my average score around 174 after doing around 60 practice tests and reading all of the bibles + LSAT trainer. But TBH my study regimen was a little extreme. But yeah if you do enough practice tests your average will go up, you just get used to the questions.

Sounds like I need to keep cranking them out; I'll be doing around 3 a week for the next two months, so hopefully I get there.

I think it's more important to thoroughly review every question, game, passage, and answer choice on each test while taking fewer tests than not doing any of that stuff while taking more. If you have nothing else to do besides the LSAT then feel free to do 3 per week if you can avoid getting burned out. But otherwise, I just don't see how you'll have the time necessary to dissect 101 questions, plus stimuli, games, and passages.