The 160s Club! Join all ye 170 hopefuls! Forum

[JJDancer]

So, this is my dilemma. I feel like I've gotten nowhere with the logic games since I started prepping in mid-July.

I'm taking a PowerScore class. I understand how to set up the logic games, and I'm convinced that if I had 20 more minutes (yeah, I know...) to complete the section, I would get them all right (but wouldn't we all?). I either get 3 of the 4 games done with good accuracy, or I get them all done with mediocre accuracy.

I took a practice test today - 169. However, I got ten incorrect on logic games, which is actually worse than my last two practice tests' logic games sections.

I'm incredibly frustrated and unsure what to do. I'm aiming for 171/172. Does anyone have tips for someone who just can't seem to improve on the logic games? Does it really come down to just practicing? I know everyone says "Powerscore Bible," and while I am trying to work my way through it, it's essentially a review of what I've already done in the actual Powerscore class (which apparently isn't really helping).

I might just do something like 8 logic games sections in a row and see if my performance improves from the first to the last one.

I think you should stay away from the 8 sections in a row idea.
Instead pick a couple of LG sections (or problems from pscore homeworks) and divide up 4-10 logic games that fall under straightforward linear, advanced linear, basic grouping, sequencing, advanced grouping and hybrid and do a few of those timed to see if you can get them in 10 minutes or so.
See how you do and then just try to see the patterns and make better initial diagrams (inferences) whatever your issue is. and see if you can improve your time.

[rbhesser]

I think I'm finally ready to say I'm a part of this group. And I have to say, I have found a lot of the stories and advice in this forum to be extremely helpful and confidence-boosting. My diagnostic test was a 156 and since then I have scored 162, 163, 166, 165, and finally today a 168. I am slowly seeing some improvement in my tests.

This has all been with limited studying in between from the LRB... hoping to get through that and on to the LGB although that is my strongest section right now.

I do have a question though... I only have PTs 18-41. Is there a significant difference between the tests in the late 30s and the more recent tests (late 40s, 50s?) Would it be significantly worth it for me to order some of the newer tests?

[Tangerine Gleam]

I think I'm finally ready to say I'm a part of this group. And I have to say, I have found a lot of the stories and advice in this forum to be extremely helpful and confidence-boosting. My diagnostic test was a 156 and since then I have scored 162, 163, 166, 165, and finally today a 168. I am slowly seeing some improvement in my tests.

This has all been with limited studying in between from the LRB... hoping to get through that and on to the LGB although that is my strongest section right now.

I do have a question though... I only have PTs 18-41. Is there a significant difference between the tests in the late 30s and the more recent tests (late 40s, 50s?) Would it be significantly worth it for me to order some of the newer tests?

YES, definitely get some newer tests. 45+ seem generally similar, but if you're going to pick, I'd say get the most recent tests as possible. Try a handful of them, at the least. At the very least, try one very soon -- so that you know what you're more likely to be dealing with next month.

[missvik218]

I think I'm finally ready to say I'm a part of this group. And I have to say, I have found a lot of the stories and advice in this forum to be extremely helpful and confidence-boosting. My diagnostic test was a 156 and since then I have scored 162, 163, 166, 165, and finally today a 168. I am slowly seeing some improvement in my tests.

This has all been with limited studying in between from the LRB... hoping to get through that and on to the LGB although that is my strongest section right now.

I do have a question though... I only have PTs 18-41. Is there a significant difference between the tests in the late 30s and the more recent tests (late 40s, 50s?) Would it be significantly worth it for me to order some of the newer tests?

YES, definitely get some newer tests. 45+ seem generally similar, but if you're going to pick, I'd say get the most recent tests as possible. Try a handful of them, at the least. At the very least, try one very soon -- so that you know what you're more likely to be dealing with next month.

Agreed, there are marked differences in the test beginning in the mid-40s (this is the answer to your question too theplaces, the change comes in the mid-40s), it is absolutely worth getting your hands on a FEW to use for practice before next month. Congratulations on your success!! You definitely belong in this thread.

[theplacesyoullgo]

I'm sure this has been discussed ad nauseam, but since this seems like a friendly thread: the primary differences between the "old" and "new" LSATs are that logic games became easier while RC and LR became harder, correct? That's what my Powerscore instructor indicated, anyway.

[JJDancer]

I'm sure this has been discussed ad nauseam, but since this seems like a friendly thread: the primary differences between the "old" and "new" LSATs are that logic games became easier while RC and LR became harder, correct? That's what my Powerscore instructor indicated, anyway.

Not everyone agrees with this but yes many people do say that.
I haven't taken enough tests post 2002 to be able to comment.

[theplacesyoullgo]

I'm sure this has been discussed ad nauseam, but since this seems like a friendly thread: the primary differences between the "old" and "new" LSATs are that logic games became easier while RC and LR became harder, correct? That's what my Powerscore instructor indicated, anyway.

Not everyone agrees with this but yes many people do say that.
I haven't taken enough tests post 2002 to be able to comment.

I haven't really taken enough tests period to comment either way - but my gut feeling is that the LSAT overall has become more difficult post-2002/in the mid-00s onward (I know the actual scores don't necessarily reflect that). I feel like the supposed increased ease of LG doesn't compensate for the harder LR/RC questions... maybe because I don't find the LG much easier at all (minus the truly bizarre games you don't really see anymore).

I just finished another test (PT 38, Oct. 2002) tonight (with occasional breaks to refresh this thread, I know, I know...) and scored 172 (-6 on LG, everything else as good as it's reasonably going to get). The whole thing seemed easier than the December 2008 test I took earlier today, even the LG. I know, small sample size...

[02082010]

I just finished another test (PT 38, Oct. 2002) tonight (with occasional breaks to refresh this thread, I know, I know...) and scored 172 (-6 on LG, everything else as good as it's reasonably going to get). The whole thing seemed easier than the December 2008 test I took earlier today, even the LG. I know, small sample size...

Two PTs in one day? Is this even helpful? Am I a huge slacker?

[theplacesyoullgo]

I just finished another test (PT 38, Oct. 2002) tonight (with occasional breaks to refresh this thread, I know, I know...) and scored 172 (-6 on LG, everything else as good as it's reasonably going to get). The whole thing seemed easier than the December 2008 test I took earlier today, even the LG. I know, small sample size...

Two PTs in one day? Is this even helpful? Am I a huge slacker?

Honestly? I haven't really been putting my nose to the proverbial grindstone like most here probably have and decided that if I'm going to break 170, I really need to amp it up before classes start again (I'm still in undergrad). We'll see if I actually stick to it, but I'm going to try to do 2 a day for the next week or so. I might not have the time later, and it's not like I'm doing anything else terribly important at the moment.

[rbhesser]

Awesome. Just ordered the latest 4 tests. My plan is to get into a morning routine and have someone proctor those so that it is as close to test day (time-wise) as possible. Then during the week, do two of my other preptests with reviewing and studying in between.

I don't think I could do two tests in a single day, I'd shoot myself! So kudos to all of you who can do that. I just started doing 5 sections without breaks and I am so happy to be done by the end of those...

[lawduder]

I just finished another test (PT 38, Oct. 2002) tonight (with occasional breaks to refresh this thread, I know, I know...) and scored 172 (-6 on LG, everything else as good as it's reasonably going to get). The whole thing seemed easier than the December 2008 test I took earlier today, even the LG. I know, small sample size...

Two PTs in one day? Is this even helpful? Am I a huge slacker?

Honestly? I haven't really been putting my nose to the proverbial grindstone like most here probably have and decided that if I'm going to break 170, I really need to amp it up before classes start again (I'm still in undergrad). We'll see if I actually stick to it, but I'm going to try to do 2 a day for the next week or so. I might not have the time later, and it's not like I'm doing anything else terribly important at the moment.

A thorough review usually takes me 2-2.5 hrs on top of a prep test that takes another 2.5 hours. Personally I'd probably have a meltdown if I looked at LSAT for 10 hours a day.

[missvik218]

A thorough review usually takes me 2-2.5 hrs on top of a prep test that takes another 2.5 hours. Personally I'd probably have a meltdown if I looked at LSAT for 10 hours a day.

Yeah ... I don't think you should feel like a slacker for not taking two PTs a day. If you are able to do this, and review with meaningful gains then by all means, but for the majority of studiers (especially those who have already been putting in significant time) I think this will be overkill and a recipe for potential burnout.

I'm sure this has been discussed ad nauseam, but since this seems like a friendly thread: the primary differences between the "old" and "new" LSATs are that logic games became easier while RC and LR became harder, correct? That's what my Powerscore instructor indicated, anyway.

I would agree that this seems to be the general consensus. I think that RC has gotten increasingly detailed, and LR on the newer tests have more sucker answer choices. Games I think have definitely gotten easier, the newer tests usually have at least one throw away pure sequencing game, which almost none of the older tests I took had.

[Tangerine Gleam]

I just finished another test (PT 38, Oct. 2002) tonight (with occasional breaks to refresh this thread, I know, I know...) and scored 172 (-6 on LG, everything else as good as it's reasonably going to get). The whole thing seemed easier than the December 2008 test I took earlier today, even the LG. I know, small sample size...

Two PTs in one day? Is this even helpful? Am I a huge slacker?

A bit crazy, but it works for some I guess! I did two in a day once, and my second test was my highest ever -- 177. And I took it on an airplane.

Too bad it was from the mid-90's. New tests suck for me.

[insidethetwenty]

Starting back to the LSAT studying tomorrow or Wednesday. I've really slacked since June, but I'll be fine. It's just a matter of shaking off the rust.

[teaadntoast]

Too bad it was from the mid-90's. New tests suck for me.

+1

Life was a lot easier before they jacked up the LR.

[ruleser]

I just finished another test (PT 38, Oct. 2002) tonight (with occasional breaks to refresh this thread, I know, I know...) and scored 172 (-6 on LG, everything else as good as it's reasonably going to get). The whole thing seemed easier than the December 2008 test I took earlier today, even the LG. I know, small sample size...

Two PTs in one day? Is this even helpful? Am I a huge slacker?

A bit crazy, but it works for some I guess! I did two in a day once, and my second test was my highest ever -- 177. And I took it on an airplane.

Too bad it was from the mid-90's. New tests suck for me.

Also find my 2nd PT in a day is usually my best, and the more successively I do them, the more I climb - almost think I should do one pretest on test day - but, prob won't...

[ruleser]

I'm sure this has been discussed ad nauseam, but since this seems like a friendly thread: the primary differences between the "old" and "new" LSATs are that logic games became easier while RC and LR became harder, correct? That's what my Powerscore instructor indicated, anyway.

Yeah but June 08 changed that - LG got a bit harder again, LR didn't seem all that hard, RC average.

[missvik218]

A bit crazy, but it works for some I guess! I did two in a day once, and my second test was my highest ever -- 177. And I took it on an airplane.

Too bad it was from the mid-90's. New tests suck for me.

Also find my 2nd PT in a day is usually my best, and the more successively I do them, the more I climb - almost think I should do one pretest on test day - but, prob won't...

Someone noted earlier, it may have been this thread, that their first section of the test seems to be a bit rusty and it takes them a little while to get warmed up. I often feel this way too, and it seems to fall in line with people doing better on their second test, if they're taking two a day. Ruleser, I think you were joking ... but do you guys think there is any merit to the idea of taking a LR section or doing a few LGs in the am before heading to the test center?! It seems this idea may not be completely ridiculous.

[teaadntoast]

... but do you guys think there is any merit to the idea of taking a LR section or doing a few LGs in the am before heading to the test center?! It seems this idea may not be completely ridiculous.

Yes, yes, a thousand times yes.

I did this the first time around and am convinced that it's what saved me from crashing and burning on my first, bleary-eyed section.

[ruleser]

A bit crazy, but it works for some I guess! I did two in a day once, and my second test was my highest ever -- 177. And I took it on an airplane.

Too bad it was from the mid-90's. New tests suck for me.

Also find my 2nd PT in a day is usually my best, and the more successively I do them, the more I climb - almost think I should do one pretest on test day - but, prob won't...

Someone noted earlier, it may have been this thread, that their first section of the test seems to be a bit rusty and it takes them a little while to get warmed up. I often feel this way too, and it seems to fall in line with people doing better on their second test, if they're taking two a day. Ruleser, I think you were joking ... but do you guys think there is any merit to the idea of taking a LR section or doing a few LGs in the am before heading to the test center?! It seems this idea may not be completely ridiculous.

I wasn't joking. I think it would help to do some warm up. It's just so early in the morning a full test doesn't seem reasonable - to do an LR and LG section before the test I think would help, but waking up 1 1/2 hours earlier to make time for it for me might be a minus, since I'm not a morning person...

[missvik218]

Well, maybe like 1/2 joking. My only reservation about this would be; what if I had a really crappy early morning session?! The last thing I want is to have my confidence shaken immediately before heading to the test center!

[ruleser]

Well, maybe like 1/2 joking. My only reservation about this would be; what if I had a really crappy early morning session?! The last thing I want is to have my confidence shaken immediately before heading to the test center!

Yes, another reason I sort of avoid it. But my experience doing PT's is that even if I jack up the 1st, if I go right back and do a second it's usually my best - happened again just the past week, when I got about 168 on a darn PT, went right back in and got 175

[lawduder]

I find reviewing my most recent PT (looking over the notes I wrote in the actual test margins for both right and wrong answers) helps me get my head into thinking logically. This also helps me avoid taking a section, doing poorly, then freaking out like you guys have mentioned.

[missvik218]

I find reviewing my most recent PT (looking over the notes I wrote in the actual test margins for both right and wrong answers) helps me get my head into thinking logically. This also helps me avoid taking a section, doing poorly, then freaking out like you guys have mentioned.

This sounds good, I plan on taking my final PT the Wednesday before the exam so perhaps I'll just re-review this exam and maybe do a few LGs (I rarely F these up so I'd feel safe).

[forza]

Holy crap. I busted the 170 mark for the first time yesterday in a big way.

PT 23

LG: -2 (22/24)
LR1: -6 (20/26); ew...
LR2: -3 (22/25)
RC: -0 (26/26); first -0 on any section, ever. Sick.

Raw: 90
Scaled: 175

Are you kidding me? Okay, this scale is very forgiving (-16 gives you a 170), but wow. Talk about a morale booster!

Correct me if I'm wrong, but on pretty much any scale, won't a raw score of 90 yield a badass score? At least a 169 or 170?

I'm happy.