Tips for Appropriately Spotting Weaknesses Forum

[New_Spice180]

Hey all,

I hope everyone's studying is going well thus far! My question today is geared towards those who were particularly successful with the LSAT (170+ scorers) and are self studiers. What are some accurate and reliable ways of making sure that I'm spotting my weaknesses during drilling/PTing? How did you go about pinpointing your weaknesses and eradicating them? The reason I ask is that even though I'm not yet to the point where I'm taking whole timed tests yet I want to make sure that as I'm drilling, taking timed sections, and reviewing, I'm effectively using every opportunity to assess what is tripping me up and why (particularly on logical reasoning).

Thanks!

[proctor_right_in_the]

Hi. I hope I can offer some advice, although I've never quite breached that coveted 170+ on an actual test, I did improve from a 157 on my first test to a 167, and I was almost entirely "self taught." I did go to a couple "free LSAT tutorials" that my undergrad offered, but those were basically a joke, IMO. (Your mileage my vary. For me, these were a huge waste of time.) The only thing, and I mean the ONLY thing that helped, was taking a practice test under normal, self-administered timed conditions, and looking over my answers a day later. I realized where I needed help (logic games, I was missing half the questions, or worse) and where I didn't (reading comprehension, which I was nearly flawless at.)

tl:dr; you've gotta take a timed test to even know where you're at, and to understand where you need help. Self-teaching is entirely possible, it worked better for me than any "program" I tried, but there's still a very structured, time-consuming process to it.

Again, with my measly 167, I'm probably on the lower end of some of these TSLers.... but I can go to bat for "self teaching." I believe in it, and I might have some pointers for you, if you're interested in hearing what worked for me.

[Clearly]

I improved 26 points self-studying, hope I qualify. Honestly, you'll just get a feel for it as you practice. If you'd like keep a spreadsheet of each question you get wrong as you drill and things will start to emerge. Try to take note when you're uncomfortable with questions, and when you get them wrong. Most of my students come to me and say they are the worst at parallel reasoning, because it feels worse. Then when I crunch the numbers, they got 85% of them right, and only 50 on assumptions or something else. If you're practicing enough you'll start to know where you're bad in no time. Then when you introduce time, you'll learn where you're slow too, occasionally you'll realize you suck and are slow lol

[New_Spice180]

Hi. I hope I can offer some advice, although I've never quite breached that coveted 170+ on an actual test, I did improve from a 157 on my first test to a 167, and I was almost entirely "self taught." I did go to a couple "free LSAT tutorials" that my undergrad offered, but those were basically a joke, IMO. (Your mileage my vary. For me, these were a huge waste of time.) The only thing, and I mean the ONLY thing that helped, was taking a practice test under normal, self-administered timed conditions, and looking over my answers a day later. I realized where I needed help (logic games, I was missing half the questions, or worse) and where I didn't (reading comprehension, which I was nearly flawless at.)

tl:dr; you've gotta take a timed test to even know where you're at, and to understand where you need help. Self-teaching is entirely possible, it worked better for me than any "program" I tried, but there's still a very structured, time-consuming process to it.

Again, with my measly 167, I'm probably on the lower end of some of these TSLers.... but I can go to bat for "self teaching." I believe in it, and I might have some pointers for you, if you're interested in hearing what worked for me.

What helped you grasp the concept of necessary vs sufficient assumptions? Especially the harder ones? I guess this is the only question type I really am trying to iron out that as my most obvious weakness.

[proctor_right_in_the]

What helped you grasp the concept of necessary vs sufficient assumptions? Especially the harder ones? I guess this is the only question type I really am trying to iron out that as my most obvious weakness.

Hmm. To be honest, I never really broke things done into rigid "types" as I improved my understanding. I assume you're talking about the LR section, here? This is a section that I improved quite a bit, and I know some people break EVERY type of question down to a "type." Instead of doing that, I simply went back to every question that I got wrong, and REALLY investigated it. Why did I approach it wrong? What unnecessary detail did I get hung up on? Did I overlook the correct answer because it seemed too obvious?

In almost every circumstance, I was making one of these mistakes, and it was fairly correctable. And, at least for me, this was limited to the LR sections. LG is more bonkers, and I do think a more calculated approach can be helpful if you're struggling there. But, (and this is just one woman's experience) taking a DEEP look at each wrong answer is the most helpful thing you can do.

[New_Spice180]

What helped you grasp the concept of necessary vs sufficient assumptions? Especially the harder ones? I guess this is the only question type I really am trying to iron out that as my most obvious weakness.

Hmm. To be honest, I never really broke things done into rigid "types" as I improved my understanding. I assume you're talking about the LR section, here? This is a section that I improved quite a bit, and I know some people break EVERY type of question down to a "type." Instead of doing that, I simply went back to every question that I got wrong, and REALLY investigated it. Why did I approach it wrong? What unnecessary detail did I get hung up on? Did I overlook the correct answer because it seemed too obvious?

In almost every circumstance, I was making one of these mistakes, and it was fairly correctable. And, at least for me, this was limited to the LR sections. LG is more bonkers, and I do think a more calculated approach can be helpful if you're struggling there. But, (and this is just one woman's experience) taking a DEEP look at each wrong answer is the most helpful thing you can do.

Thanks! I do try to evaluate each question argument core and premises so that I can, I'm just striving for that -0 on LR and I know assumption questions are my biggest weakness. I was given some advice that maybe it's best to step away from the question type for now( considering I've been drilling it for a couple weeks) and look to mastering another type like strengthen/weaken, which demand a similar approach.

[Clearly]

What helped you grasp the concept of necessary vs sufficient assumptions? Especially the harder ones? I guess this is the only question type I really am trying to iron out that as my most obvious weakness.

Hmm. To be honest, I never really broke things done into rigid "types" as I improved my understanding. I assume you're talking about the LR section, here? This is a section that I improved quite a bit, and I know some people break EVERY type of question down to a "type." Instead of doing that, I simply went back to every question that I got wrong, and REALLY investigated it. Why did I approach it wrong? What unnecessary detail did I get hung up on? Did I overlook the correct answer because it seemed too obvious?

In almost every circumstance, I was making one of these mistakes, and it was fairly correctable. And, at least for me, this was limited to the LR sections. LG is more bonkers, and I do think a more calculated approach can be helpful if you're struggling there. But, (and this is just one woman's experience) taking a DEEP look at each wrong answer is the most helpful thing you can do.

Thanks! I do try to evaluate each question argument core and premises so that I can, I'm just striving for that -0 on LR and I know assumption questions are my biggest weakness. I was given some advice that maybe it's best to step away from the question type for now( considering I've been drilling it for a couple weeks) and look to mastering another type like strengthen/weaken, which demand a similar approach.

You should have done strengthen weaken first anyway.

[abcdefg1234567]

Have you tried 7sage's analytics? It's a great tool to help keep track of everything and narrow your weaknesses to question types.

Also, you may already know this, but a good technique for tricky assumption questions is to negate the answer you're debating is the CR and see if it weakens the argument (which is easier to do).

[Blueprint Mithun]

Hey all,

I hope everyone's studying is going well thus far! My question today is geared towards those who were particularly successful with the LSAT (170+ scorers) and are self studiers. What are some accurate and reliable ways of making sure that I'm spotting my weaknesses during drilling/PTing? How did you go about pinpointing your weaknesses and eradicating them? The reason I ask is that even though I'm not yet to the point where I'm taking whole timed tests yet I want to make sure that as I'm drilling, taking timed sections, and reviewing, I'm effectively using every opportunity to assess what is tripping me up and why (particularly on logical reasoning).

Thanks!

Hey! My advice is to keep a detailed log of the questions you're missing, including marking down which q.type they fall under. You may start to notice patterns if you do this consistently. It's also a good idea to mark down any question that you struggled with or took a long time with, even if you got it right. Wherever there's obvious room for improvement, that's where your weaknesses are.