Top Law Schools

Hi, so I've been blind reviewing for a while now and completely understand what it is. In the past, when I take a PT, what I have done is printed off two copies and taken the PT under timed conditions with a random 5th section. Afterwards I would do the PT on the second copy untimed without having the answers from my first timed attempt in front of me since that can sometimes mess with me psychologically in various ways.

However, I've started to wonder if it would be better to BR by passage/game for RC and LG and by section for LR rather than doing the whole PT untimed as BR and not looking at the answers until I've answered all of the questions. The reason is that I've found that by the time I'm done with all 4 sections, I don't necessarily remember my exact thought process as I was going through my BR.

Basically my BR process would involve doing each passage untimed and looking at the answers just for that passage afterwards. This way I can see which questions I got wrong and look at explanations on the Powerscore/Manhattan forums while everything is still fresh in my head. I also think it will save me time because if I do my BR from start to finish, then when I finally look at the answers and see which ones I got wrong, I pretty much have to spend time re-reading each passage that I have wrong questions in.

The same idea would apply to LR by section and LG by games, though I feel like for me this is most important with RC since it is the section I struggle most with.

I'm interested to hear what you guys do and which method of BR you think is more effective/time efficient.

.

Platopus wrote:The method you are proposing is essentially what I did. I would take the test, grade it, and then review each section individually. I didn't print out a fresh copy, but I would review each section by going through each and every question, eliminating incorrect answers and providing support for my correct answer either by noting the line in the passage, redrawing a diagram, or bracketing the conclusion and outlining the argument. I would spend close to 15-20 minutes on questions I got wrong to make sure I not only understood the correct answer, but to evaluate my thought process on that particular question, and my feelings about the section as a whole. The only thing I did different was check each answer after each question. I wanted to make sure that I knew 100% why I chose each answer for each question, and I found it easier to remember my thought process if I immediately checked my answer after reviewing the question. Personally, I think true "blind-review" is terribly inefficient.

Thanks, that's pretty much what I was thinking as well, especially with the idea that true BR is inefficient.