Non-specific drilling to consistently get above 170? Forum

[enigmatrain]

Hi everyone! I started studying for the LSAT about 5 weeks ago, with a cold June 2007 diagnostic of 153. Since then, I completed the PowerScore LR/LG bibles, completed the LSAT Trainer, took PTs 62-69 (obviously not all in a row), and I've completed around 20-30 timed sections of LG from PTs in the 1-40 range. Recently, my scores have plateaued in the high 160s when taking timed 4-section tests, and I'm beginning to get a little frustrated. My breakdown of errors by sections usually looks something like this: -4 LG / -8 LR total / -4 RC.

I document my errors pretty thoroughly, and I noticed a few weeks ago that I tend to miss LR questions of types nec assump/justify/parallel flaw/weaken. So, I've gone through and drilled extensively by question type using problems from tests 29-39, and I noticed that my performance on necessary assumption/justify/parallel questions has improved greatly. (Weaken questions still fuck with me because they tend to be nit-picky.) I no longer miss more than 4 questions per LR section. The thing is, I've stopped improving, and I think the reason for that is related to stamina/attention to detail/potentially even burnout. On the most recent PT I did, there was literally no observable trend in the types of errors I made (I made 8 errors between the sections, and all were of different question types). Moreover, 3 of those 8 errors involved me switching my answer from the correct answer to the trap answer when I reviewed my answer selections with my remaining time. Also, I usually complete the first 10 questions of any given LR section in 4-5 minutes with no errors, and I usually complete LR sections with extra time remaining. So the problem must be my inability to recognize trap answers... Right? Do I fix this just by drilling section after section untimed, or by doing sections of harder LR questions only, or what? I've seen many people suggest writing out "why this is right/why this is wrong" next to every answer choices for questions that gave me trouble, and I've started to do that, but haven't seen much yet in terms of results.

For LG, I accomplished my first-ever -0 section just yesterday; it was timed, but not in the context of a PT. I've never gone below -2 in LG on a PT, and my errors are usually clustered in the fourth game (especially if the fourth game is a time-intensive grouping game). Will I get closer to a consistent -0 just from sheer repetition of games, or do I need to be focusing on some type of specific drilling? I feel like it would be helpful if there were some compendium of games that usually take over 10 minutes to complete, because those are always the games that make me lose confidence + accuracy. I'm not eager to go through PTs looking for difficult games, though, because that will make those sections unusable for me in the future (at least for the next month or two).

For RC... I'm not exactly sure how to explain my score variance (usually -1 to -6 per section). I studied philosophy and comparative literature in college, and scored very well on reading comprehension standardized tests when I was younger, so I'm not at all worried about my general reading ability. This must also be related to trap answers. I'm going to go through the LSAT trainer RC drills again this week to freshen up.

So, in a nutshell, I'm starting to doubt that section-specific (or question type-specific) preparation can help me increase my score further. Has anyone else hit this specific sort of plateau before? What helped you overcome one/any of these problems? If it helps you answer my question, I'm sitting for the LSAT in both December and February, so I have a very solid amount of time left to implement new study techniques/routines.

[maybeman]

I started consistently breaking into the low 170's in the last 2/3 weeks. What helped push me over was PTing every week, rereading RC sections I've done untimed while thinking about structure, and foolproofing games. I don't find question-specific drilling very helpful, but I also just miss hard questions without much of a theme regarding question type. HTH

[enigmatrain]

I started consistently breaking into the low 170's in the last 2/3 weeks. What helped push me over was PTing every week, rereading RC sections I've done untimed while thinking about structure, and foolproofing games. I don't find question-specific drilling very helpful, but I also just miss hard questions without much of a theme regarding question type. HTH

Yeah, I've taken 2 PTs in 3 days, so I'm going to give myself at least another 7 days before PTing again. What do you mean by foolproofing games? Foolproofing = doing a game untimed so you don't get anything wrong, or doing so many games that you don't make errors in LG anymore?

[maybeman]

I started consistently breaking into the low 170's in the last 2/3 weeks. What helped push me over was PTing every week, rereading RC sections I've done untimed while thinking about structure, and foolproofing games. I don't find question-specific drilling very helpful, but I also just miss hard questions without much of a theme regarding question type. HTH

Yeah, I've taken 2 PTs in 3 days, so I'm going to give myself at least another 7 days before PTing again. What do you mean by foolproofing games? Foolproofing = doing a game untimed so you don't get anything wrong, or doing so many games that you don't make errors in LG anymore?

By foolproofing I mean redoing games you've already done under timed conditions until you can make all necessary inferences in a strategic way and answer every question correctly in an optimal amount of time

[enigmatrain]

I started consistently breaking into the low 170's in the last 2/3 weeks. What helped push me over was PTing every week, rereading RC sections I've done untimed while thinking about structure, and foolproofing games. I don't find question-specific drilling very helpful, but I also just miss hard questions without much of a theme regarding question type. HTH

Yeah, I've taken 2 PTs in 3 days, so I'm going to give myself at least another 7 days before PTing again. What do you mean by foolproofing games? Foolproofing = doing a game untimed so you don't get anything wrong, or doing so many games that you don't make errors in LG anymore?

By foolproofing I mean redoing games you've already done under timed conditions until you can make all necessary inferences in a strategic way and answer every question correctly in an optimal amount of time

See, the thing is, I've heard this advice a lot (most notably from 7sage), but I remember inferences very well. Even for games I did 5 weeks ago when first starting the LG bible, my performance is absurd. Like, when I do the powerscore "ReChallenge" sections (they throw the drilling games at you in timed section format), I usually finish with 10 min to spare and -0. Most of my slip-ups happen on the first time only. I think the greatest difficulty with games for me is uncertainty (I sometimes doubt myself when diagramming or making inferences, whereas on the second run I'm pretty confident about the full extent of game states that could exist).

I appreciate you commenting, though 8~)

[Barack O'Drama]

I started consistently breaking into the low 170's in the last 2/3 weeks. What helped push me over was PTing every week, rereading RC sections I've done untimed while thinking about structure, and foolproofing games. I don't find question-specific drilling very helpful, but I also just miss hard questions without much of a theme regarding question type. HTH

Yeah, I've taken 2 PTs in 3 days, so I'm going to give myself at least another 7 days before PTing again. What do you mean by foolproofing games? Foolproofing = doing a game untimed so you don't get anything wrong, or doing so many games that you don't make errors in LG anymore?

By foolproofing I mean redoing games you've already done under timed conditions until you can make all necessary inferences in a strategic way and answer every question correctly in an optimal amount of time

See, the thing is, I've heard this advice a lot (most notably from 7sage), but I remember inferences very well. Even for games I did 5 weeks ago when first starting the LG bible, my performance is absurd. Like, when I do the powerscore "ReChallenge" sections (they throw the drilling games at you in timed section format), I usually finish with 10 min to spare and -0. Most of my slip-ups happen on the first time only. I think the greatest difficulty with games for me is uncertainty (I sometimes doubt myself when diagramming or making inferences, whereas on the second run I'm pretty confident about the full extent of game states that could exist).

I appreciate you commenting, though 8~)

I think you need to do more games then because if you truly memorize all of the inferences, you will begin to realize that many games recycle the exact same inferences.

After fool proofing many of the LGs from PTs 1-38, I began to swear I had done games I had never seen before from the more recent PTs.

You'll find that if you know how to diagram correctly, know conditionality, and fool proof the games, you will begin to do much better the first time you see new games. The thing is fool proofing only works the way it is meant to if you fool proof a good amount of games. I think JY recommends PTs 1-35.

[galeatus]

So, in a nutshell, I'm starting to doubt that section-specific (or question type-specific) preparation can help me increase my score further. Has anyone else hit this specific sort of plateau before? What helped you overcome one/any of these problems? If it helps you answer my question, I'm sitting for the LSAT in both December and February, so I have a very solid amount of time left to implement new study techniques/routines.

Just cos the mistakes are random does not necessarily mean that type-specific drilling won't help. Random mistakes at a -4 per section range usually means that you are missing something fundamental, and type-specific drilling is the best way to reinforce the fundamental stuff. Also, some of the type-specific drilling will help other types of problems as well.

When you attack an LR question, for assumption family questions, can you:
a) recognise the argument core quickly?
b) able to see the connection between the premises and the conclusion and what the flaw is in that connection?
c) identify how each of the answer choices affect the connection?

If not, for a) you can drill some argument part/identify the conclusion questions. For b) you can drill SA, NA and identify a flaw questions. For c) you can drill strengthen/weaken questions.

Also, do you use any of the books for LR? If not I'd recommend picking one up (Manhattan or Powerscore) before drilling, and strictly apply the methods described in the books to your drilling for better consistency.

[enigmatrain]

I think you need to do more games then because if you truly memorize all of the inferences, you will begin to realize that many games recycle the exact same inferences.

After fool proofing many of the LGs from PTs 1-38, I began to swear I had done games I had never seen before from the more recent PTs.

You'll find that if you know how to diagram correctly, know conditionality, and fool proof the games, you will begin to do much better the first time you see new games. The thing is fool proofing only works the way it is meant to if you fool proof a good amount of games. I think JY recommends PTs 1-35.

Thanks for commenting! I'll definitely be doing more games, I anticipate doing at least 30 more LG sections in the next 6 weeks (I also have the ACE the LSAT Logic Games book, with some made-up questions). I definitely have begun to recognize many of the common games tropes, I can do pretty much any line game with extra time to spare. I've done, uh, pretty close to all of the LG sections from 1-35, but I'll keep chunking them.

Diagramming/figuring out every last inference has definitely been the hard part for me, I think now I've gotten a knack for it though. I just have to get more confident and efficient with it I suppose.

Just cos the mistakes are random does not necessarily mean that type-specific drilling won't help. Random mistakes at a -4 per section range usually means that you are missing something fundamental, and type-specific drilling is the best way to reinforce the fundamental stuff. Also, some of the type-specific drilling will help other types of problems as well.

When you attack an LR question, for assumption family questions, can you:
a) recognise the argument core quickly?
b) able to see the connection between the premises and the conclusion and what the flaw is in that connection?
c) identify how each of the answer choices affect the connection?

If not, for a) you can drill some argument part/identify the conclusion questions. For b) you can drill SA, NA and identify a flaw questions. For c) you can drill strengthen/weaken questions.

Also, do you use any of the books for LR? If not I'd recommend picking one up (Manhattan or Powerscore) before drilling, and strictly apply the methods described in the books to your drilling for better consistency.

a) yep, I studied philosophy in college so it's pretty automatic at this point
b) usually - I've gotten tripped up on one or two conditional or all/some problems lately, but it's usually just a result of stamina deficiency
c) There are never questions for which I can't eliminate 3 answer choices, but on some I have a hard time eliminating the fourth. That's why I'm eager to attack some weaken questions.

Gotcha! I'm thinking about doing some type-specific drilling for weaken and match the reasoning, hopefully that will give me a little bit more confidence on those question types. Do you really think type-specific methods are worth memorizing? I have memorized some of my own, like I know what kind of answer to look for / whether I should prephrase or not based on the question type that I identify... but I find it less useful to try and memorize the types of words that are contained in the right answer for each type of question, for instance. I found the Powerscore LR much less useful than the LG bible, although it was helpful re: exposing me to questions and having me drill different types when I hadn't really seen them dozens/hundreds of times already.

I used the LSAT trainer and the Powerscore LR bible, but that's it; do you think the Manhattan LR book would be worth the $ considering I'm only missing a few LR questions per section? Happy to pick it up, just wasn't sure if I'd confuse myself by adding a third methodology into my brain.

[galeatus]

a) yep, I studied philosophy in college so it's pretty automatic at this point
b) usually - I've gotten tripped up on one or two conditional or all/some problems lately, but it's usually just a result of stamina deficiency
c) There are never questions for which I can't eliminate 3 answer choices, but on some I have a hard time eliminating the fourth. That's why I'm eager to attack some weaken questions.

Gotcha! I'm thinking about doing some type-specific drilling for weaken and match the reasoning, hopefully that will give me a little bit more confidence on those question types. Do you really think type-specific methods are worth memorizing? I have memorized some of my own, like I know what kind of answer to look for / whether I should prephrase or not based on the question type that I identify... but I find it less useful to try and memorize the types of words that are contained in the right answer for each type of question, for instance. I found the Powerscore LR much less useful than the LG bible, although it was helpful re: exposing me to questions and having me drill different types when I hadn't really seen them dozens/hundreds of times already.

I used the LSAT trainer and the Powerscore LR bible, but that's it; do you think the Manhattan LR book would be worth the $ considering I'm only missing a few LR questions per section? Happy to pick it up, just wasn't sure if I'd confuse myself by adding a third methodology into my brain.

For eliminating the fourth (in both LR and RC), beware of any subtle changes in an important noun/definition, or even in adjectives - these things tend to be ignored on a first read.

I learned the methods from the books for some question types that I struggled with (NA, SA, Strengthen, Weaken), but not others - I never read anything on reasoning matching as I never really had a problem with it. But I think it's less about memorizing, and more about applying those methods consistently during drilling to make them your second nature when approaching specific question types in order to be systematic for all questions - it helps a lot with being consistently accurate.

I only used the Manhattan LR book and not the Powerscore LR bible so can't really compare. But the methods in the LSAT trainer are pretty good as well so I don't think the Manhattan book is necessary, plus it has some great insights and tricks that the Manhattan book doesn't.

[enigmatrain]

For eliminating the fourth (in both LR and RC), beware of any subtle changes in an important noun/definition, or even in adjectives - these things tend to be ignored on a first read.

I learned the methods from the books for some question types that I struggled with (NA, SA, Strengthen, Weaken), but not others - I never read anything on reasoning matching as I never really had a problem with it. But I think it's less about memorizing, and more about applying those methods consistently during drilling to make them your second nature when approaching specific question types in order to be systematic for all questions - it helps a lot with being consistently accurate.

I only used the Manhattan LR book and not the Powerscore LR bible so can't really compare. But the methods in the LSAT trainer are pretty good as well so I don't think the Manhattan book is necessary, plus it has some great insights and tricks that the Manhattan book doesn't.

That's very helpful, thank you! I'll do some type-specific LR drilling this week and next and see if my scores bump up at all.

[enigmatrain]

In case anyone is curious, I think I figured out the main source of my LR and RC errors: Not warming up. My worst RC sections in PTs were usually section 1 on the PT, and of the two LR sections per PT, I usually score significantly higher on the second (think -5 and -1). I'm going to need to wake up reeeeeally early to warm up on December 3, haha.