Manhattan vs. Powerscore? Forum

[MovingUnits]

This has been discussed in the past, however, there are new versions of each book, so I'm wondering which is better and why?

I don't want to read through both because of monetary and timing issues.

I also plan on using The LSAT Trainer and 7Sage, but would also like to add Manhattan or Powerscore because they seem to be the books almost every high scorer seems to suggest. At least the ones I've spoken to. I'm sure there are exceptions. But I'm just interested in the experiences people have had with Manhattan and Powerscore (Or The LSAT Trainer if applicable)

Are there any advantages to each? Things to avoid? General thoughts?


TYIA

[saf18hornet]

Trainer > Fox > Manhattan > Powerscore

[MovingUnits]

Trainer > Fox > Manhattan > Powerscore

Thanks -- not really interested in Fox, though.

Could you expand a little on why you rate those books in that order though? So far I've really enjoyed the Trainer and Manhattan, but the Powerscore books I've skimmed seemed to be a simpler read. If that makes sense. I know it's probably going to come down to what works best for me, but I'm thinking of investing in a full series of either PS or MLSAT. I've been borrowing friends/using PDFs I found online of older versions.

[freekick]

I did both PS and Manhattan for all 3 sections. Manhattan worked much better for me because It gets to the heart of the matter in a quicker and clearer way than PS. PS oversimplifies things all the way and doesn't provide a nuanced understanding. That's why, as a beginner, you found PS 'simpler' to read because it is catering largely to a basic level. Manhattan gradually gets to the more subtle aspects of each section. Also, I supplemented my study with an extensive use of the MLSAT forum which has a variety of explanations for every LR/RC question. 7 Sage is gold for LG explanations after you pick up the method from Manhattan LG.

[MovingUnits]

I did both PS and Manhattan for all 3 sections. Manhattan worked much better for me because It gets to the heart of the matter in a quicker and clearer way than PS. PS oversimplifies things all the way and doesn't provide a nuanced understanding. That's why, as a beginner, you found PS 'simpler' to read because it is catering largely to a basic level. Manhattan gradually gets to the more subtle aspects of each section. Also, I supplemented my study with an extensive use of the MLSAT forum which has a variety of explanations for every LR/RC question. 7 Sage is gold for LG explanations after you pick up the method from Manhattan LG.

Awesome -- thank you so much, freekick! That actually makes perfect sense. Looks like I will be opting for Manhattan and 7Sage combo.

[Experiment626]

I can say I would avoid the PS reading for sure. I'm currently just starting a restudy with the trainer building off what I got from a local prep class. PS's reading method did not work for me. I agree they seem to break things down way too much. I ended up ditching a lot of their methods in LR and LG too. I think LG may be worth it if you're really weak in that and you're not seeing great improvement with what you already have.

If I were to start over on a budget without a prep course I would do 7 sage and trainer. I might end up doing 7 sage too for RC/LR ideas.

[MovingUnits]

Looks like I'm going to commit my budget to MLSAT guides, 7Sage Ultimate + and The Trainer. I also inherited the Cambridge Packets/tests on PDF so I'm not sure how useful they'll be. They are from PTs 1-38? Are those still worth doing?

I would think focusing on 40 + or 50+ would be a good idea seeing as the test has changed a bit over the years? That would give me over 40 tests or so. I figured 20 for drilling sections and 20 or so fo full-length tests. I can always change that number depending on my progress. Aiming for a 174. Wouldn't retake a 170, though.

Thoughts?

Also, how should I utilize the packets? Do I drill them all as I go through the books?

Is The Trainer overkill?

[freekick]

The PT 1-38 pdf packets are extremely useful. Use them to drill the hell out of each question type. Don't dismiss them as outdated. If after drilling you feel you have it figured, you can skip to pt 55 and take it from there to 80 or whatever the last pt is. But start with the Cambridge packets for sure and adjust according to your mileage.

[Rupert Pupkin]

I did both PS and Manhattan for all 3 sections. Manhattan worked much better for me because It gets to the heart of the matter in a quicker and clearer way than PS. PS oversimplifies things all the way and doesn't provide a nuanced understanding. That's why, as a beginner, you found PS 'simpler' to read because it is catering largely to a basic level. Manhattan gradually gets to the more subtle aspects of each section. Also, I supplemented my study with an extensive use of the MLSAT forum which has a variety of explanations for every LR/RC question. 7 Sage is gold for LG explanations after you pick up the method from Manhattan LG.

Well said. I experienced the same thing and totally agree. In addition, as a re-taker or once you have gone through a set of books the trainer is awesome as well. I can see the Trainer being confusing for someone opening a LSAT book for the first time, but I found it extremely helpful in conjunction with the MH Series.

[Platopus]

.