Nice diagnostic, now what? Forum

[mysonx3]

I just finished taking the June 2007 test as a diagnostic, and I scored a 169. I'm quite proud of that as a diagnostic, but I want to get at least into the mid-170s, and I'm looking for feedback on how to do so. My scores by section were:

LG: 18/23
LR1: 24/25
LR2: 25/25
RC: 24/27

Some observations by section:

LG - Obviously not great at these yet. I blind guessed on a small handful, but I didn't have the foresight to mark which those were so I could see if getting lucky on those guesses inflated my score. This is where I anticipated the biggest weakness would be, so no surprise here.

LR - Finished both sections almost exactly at the five-minute warning and went back to check ones I had marked. I see my mistake on the one I missed, looking over it again. Obviously, with my goals, I can't afford to just ignore LR from here on out, but it seems it shouldn't require too much attention. I anticipated this would be my biggest strength.

RC - Two of my misses were on the comparative reading section, so I'll give extra attention to that. I also struggled with pacing - the first passage felt like it took forever and then I felt rushed on subsequent passages, ended up finishing with a couple of minutes to spare.


Some other potentially relevant information:

- I didn't take this test fully "cold" - I have watched a handful of videos on how to do well on the LSAT, including one on LG diagramming, and have done a small handful of unofficial practice logic games. Nonetheless, this was my first exposure to full test sections, and my first exposure to LR/RC outside of a few question breakdowns in some videos I watched.

- I'm thinking of making March my first attempt. I have a semester left of undergrad, during which I'll be able to study some but not a whole lot. Then I'd have about 2.5 months of intensive studying before the March exam.


Any/all advice is welcome, especially any tips on learning to do logic games. Thank you all in advance!

[NoLongerALurker]

Tbh no reason you can’t reasonably expect to score 175-180 in March. LG is easily the most learnable section, so just take some books (I used powerscore but that was years ago) until you consistently get 100% in LG. Then take the exam and hope it’s a 180 day rather than a 175 day. If you fudge it up and score under 173 or so, just retake (depending on your GPA). You’re sitting pretty.

[mysonx3]

Tbh no reason you can’t reasonably expect to score 175-180 in March. LG is easily the most learnable section, so just take some books (I used powerscore but that was years ago) until you consistently get 100% in LG. Then take the exam and hope it’s a 180 day rather than a 175 day. If you fudge it up and score under 173 or so, just retake (depending on your GPA). You’re sitting pretty.

Thank you for your reply! It looks like, on this particular test, getting 100% on LG would've given me a 175. I'm a perfectionist, so I'll be shooting for 180, but the "realistic" target is to score in the upper-mid 170s.

Based on your experience with PowerScore, would you recommend getting all three of their LG books (LGB, Workbook, and Game Type Trainer)?

Do you have any tips on putting the "finishing touches" on LR/RC? I know RC is typically seen as the hardest to improve, but I don't want to leave any stone unturned.

[NoLongerALurker]

On PS: I took the exam in like 2012, and just used their logic games bible. I remember at the time that some other prep companies were starting to get good traction (Manhattan or something blue..?) that seemed better at the time, and I honestly don't know what the prevailing wisdom is these days. I can tell you that you certainly don't need like a course or an instructor, and that Princeton Review sucks. That's all I know for sure about materials. I'd recommend doing it without time constraints until you are consistently at or near 100% and then doing it timed. Obviously make sure you pace yourself so you don't use up all the games that are out there.

I read the Powerscore on LC just for the sake of making sure I was thinking about it right. Not so much "drilling" or "learning" as just sort of gut checking/sanity checking. If you take a full prep test on the regular basis, and timed with respect to LC and RC immediately (no "untimed period" like with LG), that alone will make sure you're practiced enough to ace those.

RC is pointless to study once you are getting scores like you are. You know how to read and synthesize better than the vast majority of people -- I would caution against "prepping" for that section in a way that would just end up being counter-intuitive or otherwise put a spoke in your wheel there.

[mysonx3]

Thank you again for replying. I will research/look for other input as to the best book/book-combo to select for LG.

As for LR and RC, are you essentially saying that taking practice tests (which I should/will be doing anyway) is going to be sufficient practice for those, and that I don't need to do anything else?

Again, thank you for taking the time to reply.

[HopefulSplitter0000]

Thank you again for replying. I will research/look for other input as to the best book/book-combo to select for LG.

As for LR and RC, are you essentially saying that taking practice tests (which I should/will be doing anyway) is going to be sufficient practice for those, and that I don't need to do anything else?

1. Let me save you the time. The Logic Games Bible, by PowerScore, is the best book for learning logic games. Once you have learned how to diagram properly, then there will be nothing left besides practicing with real exam questions.

2. Under normal circumstances, I would recommend you buy the Logical Reasoning and Reading Comprehension Bibles by PowerScore, which break down question types and strategies for both logical reasoning and reading comprehension. However, I think the other responses are assuming, based on your diagnostic, that you already understand both of these sections and therefore do not need to learn the basics.

If you believe you did not get lucky, and that your score accurately reflects your mastery of these sections, then taking practice tests will be fine. However, if you believe you struggled with either section, buying the corresponding PowerScore Bible could be beneficial.

[NoLongerALurker]

Full agreement with above. Probably not the worst idea to leaf through the RC or LR powerscore books if you’re so inclined, but don’t do it with a view to adopting any techniques they recommend but rather just to help frame the kinds of questions you’ll see. But would consider that an optional step.

Glad to hear PS LGB is still the gold standard.

(Context for OP — my diagnostic was around the same as yours, and within the timeframe you’re contemplating I was routinely hitting 178-180 on PTs. Ended up only scoring 177 on actual test day but was enough to HYS it up.)

[mysonx3]

Thank you both for the advice.

enz2103, Would you recommend getting just the Bible itself, or are the Type Training and Workbook books worth it? Do you have experience with those? Or is my best bet to buy the LGB and practice tests and just use those?

I don't think my scores on LR/RC were lucky/flukish. In fact, I actually felt like I could've done better on RC if I had paced myself better, which I think I'll get better at as I do more practice tests. But obviously, I will pay attention to how I do on subsequent practice tests and if my scores in those areas don't stay consistently high I'll know I have work to do.

NoLongerALurker, thank you for sharing your experience. It's very encouraging to hear other people with similar diagnostics managing to achieve those high scores and land H/Y/S. I'm trying not to mentally put my full admissions picture together yet, to focus on actually getting the numbers before I start thinking about what they'll get me (don't want to put the cart before the horse), but it's nonetheless nice to hear success stories.

I think I'm going to just buy the LGB now and see if I think the other resources are necessary.


And, just a minor "update", I worked through the four logic games that were on the test again without a time constraint and feel like I'm already starting to learn how to better make inferences and the different techniques for answering LG questions.

Again, thanks to the two of you for responding!

[miskellyjohnson]

Had similar diagnostic scores to you, ended up getting 179 on the exam.
Plan on flying through the LG bible in like 2 days. Most of it is not helpful at this level, but there are a few things that might help.

Honestly, LG is mostly practice. Take a few days and fly through the LG bible. Then spend your next few weeks focused ONLY on LG. What I did was download all the past LSAT exams as a PDF. Chose 10 of them, like #40-#50, start with no time limit and just try to answer the questions right without worrying about time. Check videos online / forums if you get stuck. You should be slow in the beginning, but its just about understanding the inferences and methods. Then repeat the LG sections that you already did. Repeating once you have already seen sounds like it would not be useful, but it is actually useful to repeat as it helps you get your pacing and diagramming faster. After a few weeks, you will be fast and should be getting them all right (give or take a fluke every once in a while) . And after a while it will feel like every new LG you start, you have "already seen."

Then its just about maintenance. I did 1 full test each Saturday/Sunday, and then during the week did two sections, mixing it up randomly. You will randomly miss a LR or RC question, and review it to see why, but at this level its hard to know if there is actual improvement or its just luck. I would skip the RC and LR bibles altogether, unless you find yourself consistently having issues with a given passage type or question type. A tip on comparative reading: read the first passage, then answer any questions only about the first passage. Then read the second passage, and answer any questions that are only about the second passage. Then answer questions about both passages together.

[HopefulSplitter0000]

Thank you both for the advice.

enz2103, Would you recommend getting just the Bible itself, or are the Type Training and Workbook books worth it? Do you have experience with those? Or is my best bet to buy the LGB and practice tests and just use those?

I don't think my scores on LR/RC were lucky/flukish. In fact, I actually felt like I could've done better on RC if I had paced myself better, which I think I'll get better at as I do more practice tests. But obviously, I will pay attention to how I do on subsequent practice tests and if my scores in those areas don't stay consistently high I'll know I have work to do.

1. I do not recommend the LG Workbook. I bought all three workbooks (LR/LG/RC), but I found that they had little use for me. That said, some people believe they are beneficial, especially if they still struggle with diagramming after reading the bible. I would say if price is no concern, you can buy them and see for yourself. If price is a concern, then buy the bible first and only buy the workbook if you are still struggling.

2. If your scores were not the result of luck, then congratulations! You do not need to buy the other bibles.

Also, to round out this thread, I did not take a diagnostic. After bombing an LSAT with minimal preparation (I read the LG Bible only) and cancelling my score, I read the other bibles and beat practice tests to death. I ended up with a 177 on test day, but unlike other posters here, I have not applied to law school yet.

[mysonx3]

Had similar diagnostic scores to you, ended up getting 179 on the exam.
Plan on flying through the LG bible in like 2 days. Most of it is not helpful at this level, but there are a few things that might help.

Honestly, LG is mostly practice. Take a few days and fly through the LG bible. Then spend your next few weeks focused ONLY on LG. What I did was download all the past LSAT exams as a PDF. Chose 10 of them, like #40-#50, start with no time limit and just try to answer the questions right without worrying about time. Check videos online / forums if you get stuck. You should be slow in the beginning, but its just about understanding the inferences and methods. Then repeat the LG sections that you already did. Repeating once you have already seen sounds like it would not be useful, but it is actually useful to repeat as it helps you get your pacing and diagramming faster. After a few weeks, you will be fast and should be getting them all right (give or take a fluke every once in a while) . And after a while it will feel like every new LG you start, you have "already seen."

Then its just about maintenance. I did 1 full test each Saturday/Sunday, and then during the week did two sections, mixing it up randomly. You will randomly miss a LR or RC question, and review it to see why, but at this level its hard to know if there is actual improvement or its just luck. I would skip the RC and LR bibles altogether, unless you find yourself consistently having issues with a given passage type or question type. A tip on comparative reading: read the first passage, then answer any questions only about the first passage. Then read the second passage, and answer any questions that are only about the second passage. Then answer questions about both passages together.

Thank you for the advice, and for the motivational anecdote. Hope I can fare as well as you on the exam! I will plan on taking the approach you outlined. I especially appreciate the advice on the comparative reading. I'll try that out next time I do a PT.

Thank you both for the advice.

enz2103, Would you recommend getting just the Bible itself, or are the Type Training and Workbook books worth it? Do you have experience with those? Or is my best bet to buy the LGB and practice tests and just use those?

I don't think my scores on LR/RC were lucky/flukish. In fact, I actually felt like I could've done better on RC if I had paced myself better, which I think I'll get better at as I do more practice tests. But obviously, I will pay attention to how I do on subsequent practice tests and if my scores in those areas don't stay consistently high I'll know I have work to do.

1. I do not recommend the LG Workbook. I bought all three workbooks (LR/LG/RC), but I found that they had little use for me. That said, some people believe they are beneficial, especially if they still struggle with diagramming after reading the bible. I would say if price is no concern, you can buy them and see for yourself. If price is a concern, then buy the bible first and only buy the workbook if you are still struggling.

2. If your scores were not the result of luck, then congratulations! You do not need to buy the other bibles.

Also, to round out this thread, I did not take a diagnostic. After bombing an LSAT with minimal preparation (I read the LG Bible only) and cancelling my score, I read the other bibles and beat practice tests to death. I ended up with a 177 on test day, but unlike other posters here, I have not applied to law school yet.

Good to know about the Workbook. I actually ended up finding a cheap used copy of it from the same place I bought the LGB, so we'll see if I find any use for them. If not, I'm not out much money at all.

My LGB should be arriving in the next few days, and I'm getting very excited!

[mysonx3]

Update: took another practice test today (PT #66 - June 2012), and scored a 168. A little bummed at the drop, but whatever. The more I thought about it, the more I thought my original score was probably a bit flukish. Even though I'm good at LR, I'm not good enough (yet) to get -0/-1 consistently. And I blind-guessed on a TON of LG questions on the first one, so my 18/23 was probably flukishly high. Here were my splits from today's test:

LR1: 22/25
RC: 25/27
LG: 15/23
RC2 (Experimental): 25/29
LR2: 25/26

I will do more analysis and start reviewing this test tomorrow, but for now I'm wiped. My first five-section PT really tested my stamina. I would blame this for my score decrease, but as you can see, the 5th section was actually my strongest.

[kevin_lomax]

Thanks for sharing. I'm interested in hearing how you approach improving LG. My practice tests are in a similar situation - relatively high scores (160s) although I'm bombing LG. I just got the PowerScore LG Bible and about 200 pages into that.

[mysonx3]

Thanks for sharing. I'm interested in hearing how you approach improving LG. My practice tests are in a similar situation - relatively high scores (160s) although I'm bombing LG. I just got the PowerScore LG Bible and about 200 pages into that.

Best of luck to you, then. I've done the LG bible in its entirety, and I'm to the point where I can consistently get -1/-2 on LG if it's untimed, so I mostly need to get faster. I think the first step will be adding a timer to my individual games to see if there's a certain type that is a major slow-down for me, or if I just need to speed up in general.

[Sum_Guy]

Interesting, I could've made almost this exact original post at the end of August. But I decided I wanted to apply this year, so I've been prepping for yesterday's test.

I didn't take a clean diagnostic up front -- for Khan academy's diagnostic I gave myself all the time I needed on LG and got a 173.

On my first test under real conditions, I got a 172 (-6 on LG, -3 on the rest). I was lucky on the LG, though, only getting through 2.5 games, and getting 3 or 4 right out of like 8 or 9 blind guesses.

My approach since then has to been to:

- use the Khan trainer for a while whenever I had a spare minute (which allowed me to see a lot of LG/RC questions and get more comfortable and confident with them, if not measurably better)

- work through tons of logic games and watch the 7Sage videos. I did some "foolproofing" according to his method, but not a ton. So many different variations I want to see in a short time.

- eventually I broke down and bought the $170 7sage course, because one of the ordering videos he said "the contrapositive on this should be like second nature if you've followed the curriculum" or something like that, and I had had to go slowly and methodically through it. I knew my problem was speed (could go -0 on LG every time given unlimited time), so wanted a more structured underpinning to get better.
- course was good, and I did all his LG exercises plus his conditional logic exercises he referenced in the early LG exercises.

I've spent a _ton_ of time on logic games over the last two months. I'm definitely much better and much faster at it now, but i can still get hung up and screw it up. My PTs have been as high as 180 and as low as 170, although it's rare I can get ideal test conditions because I'm nontraditional with a full time career -- doing a PT on a plane or a train really sucks.

Yesterday's exam _feels_ like a 175, but could be a near-180 or could be a 170. We will see. I think I would probably need another couple months to get down to a regular -0/-2 on the LG (still just a hair too slow most of the time), and from there could probably squeeze out another couple points on LR/RC on average if I completely blew up my current (seat-of-my-pants) approach and replaced it with structured highlighting etc. But that would take a ton more time and practice, and that's not gonna happen.

So all that said, if you want to reach your potential, I'd pencil in 300 hours of LG and 75 hours of practice tests (including time for review of the non-LG sections, but with time for review of LG going in my LG time estimate).

[mysonx3]

Well, I have a month left in my undergrad degree (my school has weird semesters) but I've reached the point where I can coast to the finish line without any negative impact on my GPA (which I will post at some point, but I'm too superstitious to do so before my grades are officially in the books), so I'm switching to full-on LSAT mode as soon as the holiday is over. Decided to spring for 7Sage just so more of my LSAT time can be spent actually studying rather than preparing questions for use. It's going to be logic games, logic games, logic games for me, with most of my studying for the other sections coming from taking practice tests and reviewing them. I am seeing that I'm not very good at "most strongly supported" statements in LR though, so I will probably carve out some time for that in the early going, and maybe for some RC sections to get the hang of the timing. 180 here we come!

[mysonx3]

I promise not to spam this thread with daily updates or anything like that, but thought this was worth posting about:

I got my first -0 on a timed LG section yesterday! I only took the LG section (PT1), so no full score to report, but I was surprised I was able to get one so early on. Definitely a confidence-booster, even if it was most likely an outlier at this stage.

My scores by section so far (chronological by section):
LR: -1, -0, -3, -1 (Avg: -1.25)
LG: -5, -8, -0 (Avg: -4.33)
RC: -3, -2, -4 (Avg: -3.00)

[mysonx3]

Update:

I've made great strides on Logic Games over the last week or so, with four of my last five individual sections being -0. The other one (besides the full PT), however, was a -6 horror show. Definitely still room for improvement, particularly on single-layer sequencing games, which take me way longer than they should (thus robbing time from other games).

Now for the results of the full practice test I took today (PT 69). It was my third full practice test, but the last two were months ago, and I only really started studying a week and a half ago.

On the timed run (regular timed conditions, though I didn't use an experimental section):
LR1: 25/25
LG: 20/23
RC: 27/27
LR2: 24/25
Score: 177

On blind review:
LR1: 25/25
LG: 23/23
RC: 26/27 (Changed an answer that I shouldn't have...)
LR2: 24/25 (to be honest, wasn't very thorough with the review on this one, so maybe I should've caught my mistake)
Score: 180


Needless to say, I am absolutely thrilled with how today's PT went. Back on the LG grind tomorrow!

[mysonx3]

Have taken three PTs since I last posted here: 179, 174, 176. Got perfect LG scores on all three.

It's been a while since I've missed on LG (other than one game where I made the stupidest mistake and read "most" as "least"), but I think I've gone backwards a bit on LR (been mostly consistent on RC, but the 174 test I had a -6 on it, which is my worst). Do you guys have any advice on how to improve LR when you're already at a pretty high level on it? There doesn't seem to be any major trends in which types I'm getting wrong (for a while I struggled with Must Be True and Most Strongly Supported, but I seem to have gotten the hang of those now). Should I just make sure that whenever I miss one, I do a whole bunch from the same type? Or is there something bigger picture I should be doing?

Ditto for RC - are there any strategies you recommend for getting from good to great on RC? Should I read the questions first, or the passage?