Top Law Schools

Ok well, here is the situation. I took my 2nd PT today after taking a diagnostic about a month ago, never having seen a LSAT test before. My diagnostic score was a 141, and I thought that was ugly. I rushed through the test, basically not even reading each stimulus or passage clearly. I nearly guessed on a majority of the sections. The logic games were tough for me and I missed almost all of them.

A month later (today), I took my 2nd PT as part of my course schedule. My strategy, this time, was to slow down and focus on getting the first half of every section accurately correct. Not perfect, but to get a majority of them right. I felt that by rushing, I would probably get many of them wrong. In every section, I managed to get at least half done in 35 mins (this is prob too slow, I know). On average, I got to questions 14 or 15 (around there or so) on LR. On RC, I focused on the first 2 passages very intently and made sure I could get almost all correct (I assumed). On the LG section, I would do the first 2 games to the best of my ability, diagram them as well as I could and try to get all of them right. During the test, I felt fine, a little nervous and pressured, as I wanted to do better. I took my time, somewhat, and by the end, although tired, I thought I might have done slightly better. I was hoping for a small point increase from my diagnostic.

However, it was a disaster. I got a 133. I don't even know how. I looked over my test, got some wrong, but I got many of the easy ones correct. I was shocked and now I'm concerned. I've been studying pretty hard this past month, averaging 18-20 hours weekly. I haven't mastered the basics yet, but I thought I would know enough to increase my score a few points.

I'm concerned because I'm starting to think perhaps I have some mental issue, like ADD/ADHD (during the test, I felt brain fogged), or perhaps I'm not cut out for law school, which would be a hard truth to swallow considering I've always to be a lawyer (not b/c of parents or for the money). Maybe my strategy I used today sucked? Is it normal to dip that low after a diagnostic, or early in your prep?

Don't know bout normal but I got 145 diagnostic. Then like a year later I studied for 2 months and took a diagnostic as part of a course schedule and got 142. Ended with a 170. Don't sweat it too much.

As you are trying new techniques on that second test, a dip is understandable. I dropped by a point or two between my diag and my second PT. What are you doing for prep?

I would take practice tests untimed for now. You need to make sure you understand how to answer a question correctly without time constraints. Once you can do that you can add time.

You should post specifics of what you are doing so someone can help. For example if you aren't doing drills you need to be.

scalawag wrote:You should post specifics of what you are doing so someone can help. For example if you aren't doing drills you need to be.

this

You should drill to find your problem areas.

Mine are spread, but most of my errors come from weaken and flaw questions,
but everything else is pretty decent, particularly necessary assumptions (love the negation test).

I recommend drilling assumptions, strengthen, weaken, and flaws, as those will comprise a chunk of LR.
Drill the rest as well, but the aforementioned would be a good place to start.

Get comfortable with how to attack different kinds of questions before PTs.
And if you still get errors, which is more likely than not, keep doing them until you fully understand.
Unless they're extremely nasty; it's probably best to just go through POE and accept the fact that the AC sucks the least.

Deardevil wrote:most of my errors come from weaken and flaw questions

Dude, I'm not sure if you're using the Mike Kim's The LSAT Trainer but I'd recommend it. He points out how "flaw" questions are the first domino that needs to fall if you're going to get a top score on LR. The reason being the vast majority of questions are built on the foundation of IDing the flaw. So, that's the core skill.

Highly recommend crushing that skill set and, if you do, you'll find improvement on the margins in other question types as well. Good luck.

ponderingmeerkat wrote: Dude, I'm not sure if you're using the Mike Kim's The LSAT Trainer but I'd recommend it. He points out how "flaw" questions are the first domino that needs to fall if you're going to get a top score on LR. The reason being the vast majority of questions are built on the foundation of IDing the flaw. So, that's the core skill.

Highly recommend crushing that skill set and, if you do, you'll find improvement on the margins in other question types as well. Good luck.

Thanks.

I'm aware that a piece =/= the puzzle, apples =/= oranges, and 1 + 1 =/= 3.
The Trainer definitely helped in LR overall, but weaken questions are still my weakness overall, which is why I'm drilling;
it's not that I'm doing poorly, but I'm talking ~45/60, as opposed to ~75/80 in, let's say, inference.
So I'm attempting to fill in those holes, the complete opposite of weaken questions.

But you're right; Mike does mention the relative significance of flaws, so I'll definitely revisit those chapters.

scalawag wrote:I would take practice tests untimed for now. You need to make sure you understand how to answer a question correctly without time constraints. Once you can do that you can add time.

You should post specifics of what you are doing so someone can help. For example if you aren't doing drills you need to be.

For drilling, I'm following my courses curriculum. We go through a lesson and then drill those specific types of questions for homework which is all online. There are usually 15-20 questions for LR and 5-7 LG. The homework is adaptive so it gets harder as you answer correctly. However, it usually takes me a long time to figure out answers which can obliterate my time. How do you guys drill questions?

I hear everyone swear by the LSAT Trainer. I'm convinced. Once my course is over, I'll get started with that and with the power score bibles. I feel like those should help.

TAD wrote:Don't know bout normal but I got 145 diagnostic. Then like a year later I studied for 2 months and took a diagnostic as part of a course schedule and got 142. Ended with a 170. Don't sweat it too much.

Wow that's a huge point increase. What did you do for prep and for long did you prep for? Also, what materials or courses did you use, if you don't mind me asking?

Can you guys share some of your drilling techniques or methods and what has/hasn't worked for you?

.

cm4998 wrote:

TAD wrote:Don't know bout normal but I got 145 diagnostic. Then like a year later I studied for 2 months and took a diagnostic as part of a course schedule and got 142. Ended with a 170. Don't sweat it too much.

Wow that's a huge point increase. What did you do for prep and for long did you prep for? Also, what materials or courses did you use, if you don't mind me asking?

10 months on and off (had work, classes and finals in between so I'd have spurts of 3 weeks or a month of not studying). Took a Princeton review course for 2 months of that and it was pretty useless except I had an instructor that had a way of doing logic games that I liked. By the end of the course I was only at 154 tho. Most of the rest of my studying came from reading one of the old powerscore bibles for lr..id read a section on, for instance flaws, then I'd drill the whole booklet on flaws and do practice tests, focusing mainly on getting perfect on flaw questions on the test even if my overall score on the test wasn't good. I would rinse and repeat for each question type. RC was my worse section and honestly I just drilled individual passages and sections repeatedly and I was expecting at worse 20/28 on RC on the test and was gonna make it up on lr and games. Ended up doing better than 20/28.

Tldr...drill, drill, drill...by wuestion type and by game type

cm4998 wrote:Can you guys share some of your drilling techniques or methods and what has/hasn't worked for you?

So what I do is I drill the Cambridge by type packets. You'll have to buy a book because they are discontinued now (run copies off don't write in it - you'll want to do them again). Powerscore sells question type training books which are good.

Right now I spend an hour drilling logic games and an hour drilling logical reasoning then I review. I also try to devote an hour to curriculum for each section - there's a lot of material to get through.

When you drill it's important to review. Either watch the 7 Sage video for the game you completed or go here for LR explanations https://www.manhattanprep.com/lsat/blog ... lanations/.

The powerscore bibles are a good place to start. The Manhattan Logical Reasoning book is really good after you've completed the bibles and 7 Sage is good too.

The LSAT Trainer is something I haven't worked out of yet but I read that some people use it after they have taken the test, so I will probably work out of it and retake the test.

If I were you I would get a refund for your class if it's not too late and use the money to buy the bibles and question type training. Also buy all of the actual LSATs.

Start with the fundamentals. My first diagnostic score was incredibly dismal and I've already moved myself to consistently scoring 15+ points above my initial score with one month to go before I sit for the LSAT. I know how you feel. I didn't think I could EVER learn it - but I am actually enjoying the LSAT.....! Simply put, it's VERY possible. My recommendation is to start by reading the Manhattan books. They were my savior.

scalawag wrote:

cm4998 wrote:Can you guys share some of your drilling techniques or methods and what has/hasn't worked for you?

So what I do is I drill the Cambridge by type packets. You'll have to buy a book because they are discontinued now (run copies off don't write in it - you'll want to do them again). Powerscore sells question type training books which are good.

Right now I spend an hour drilling logic games and an hour drilling logical reasoning then I review. I also try to devote an hour to curriculum for each section - there's a lot of material to get through.

When you drill it's important to review. Either watch the 7 Sage video for the game you completed or go here for LR explanations https://www.manhattanprep.com/lsat/blog ... lanations/.

The powerscore bibles are a good place to start. The Manhattan Logical Reasoning book is really good after you've completed the bibles and 7 Sage is good too.

The LSAT Trainer is something I haven't worked out of yet but I read that some people use it after they have taken the test, so I will probably work out of it and retake the test.

If I were you I would get a refund for your class if it's not too late and use the money to buy the bibles and question type training. Also buy all of the actual LSATs.

I'm taking a Blueprint class right now which has been kind of helpful. When it's over, I'll probably sign up for 7sage, I really like their test strategies from the videos I have seen. I've heard good things about the Manhattan LR book, which I'll definitely check out after the bibles.

LegallyBlackJD wrote:Start with the fundamentals. My first diagnostic score was incredibly dismal and I've already moved myself to consistently scoring 15+ points above my initial score with one month to go before I sit for the LSAT. I know how you feel. I didn't think I could EVER learn it - but I am actually enjoying the LSAT.....! Simply put, it's VERY possible. My recommendation is to start by reading the Manhattan books. They were my savior.

Thanks for the encouragement! I've been very discouraged after that 2nd score. I see everyone around me scoring in the 150's consistently, which is average and I keep thinking "Damn! I can't even score in the average range!!" lol. But I'll check out the Manhattan books, I've heard great things.

TAD wrote:

cm4998 wrote:

TAD wrote:Don't know bout normal but I got 145 diagnostic. Then like a year later I studied for 2 months and took a diagnostic as part of a course schedule and got 142. Ended with a 170. Don't sweat it too much.

Wow that's a huge point increase. What did you do for prep and for long did you prep for? Also, what materials or courses did you use, if you don't mind me asking?

10 months on and off (had work, classes and finals in between so I'd have spurts of 3 weeks or a month of not studying). Took a Princeton review course for 2 months of that and it was pretty useless except I had an instructor that had a way of doing logic games that I liked. By the end of the course I was only at 154 tho. Most of the rest of my studying came from reading one of the old powerscore bibles for lr..id read a section on, for instance flaws, then I'd drill the whole booklet on flaws and do practice tests, focusing mainly on getting perfect on flaw questions on the test even if my overall score on the test wasn't good. I would rinse and repeat for each question type. RC was my worse section and honestly I just drilled individual passages and sections repeatedly and I was expecting at worse 20/28 on RC on the test and was gonna make it up on lr and games. Ended up doing better than 20/28.

Tldr...drill, drill, drill...by wuestion type and by game type

I think courses can be pretty helpful, although I feel as if I haven't fully reaped the rewards of mine yet lol. I will have to start drilling a lot harder to see if I can get into the average range around 150s. That would be a good starting point to get really serious. Hopefully, I can reach the 170s, that would be a miracle!