breadcrumbs

Doing Lots of Questions Doesn’t Make You Better at the LSAT – This Does

by

Manhattan Prep LSAT Blog - Doings Lots of Questions Doesn't Make You Better at the LSAT - This Does by Matt Shinners

Learning science has come a long way in recent years, and we’ve been learning with it. We incorporate the latest discoveries in learning science into our LSAT course to maximize the efficiency and effectiveness of your prep. Want to see? Try the first session of any of our upcoming courses for free.

Let’s Say You Wanted to Learn Physics

Stop laughing—it’s a hypothetical.

One way to go about learning it is to get a whole bunch of physics tests, taking them one at a time. You’d grade your first one, probably receiving a very low score. Then, you’d take another. And another. And another.

How many of you out there think that your scores would go up?

If you’re raising your hand…well, first off, I’m not there to see. But second, you’re most likely wrong.

It seems silly to think that simply doing physics problems, without knowledge on how to do them or a process for getting better on what you’re getting wrong, will make you better at physics problems. There’s a body of knowledge necessary for reaching a correct answer, and once you get that body of knowledge down, you can practice on a relatively small number of questions to ingrain your process.

Now, Think about How You Picture LSAT Prep

How close is it to the process of simply answering more questions described above?

Most people study for the LSAT poorly. “More questions!” seems to be the rallying cry most often heard.

While it’s certainly important to get practice on questions, it’s in no way necessary to do hundreds of questions to learn this material. The number of concepts tested on the exam are limited. And you’re smart—I don’t think anyone out there needs to get practice on hundreds of questions testing a similar concept to understand and apply that concept.

However, this advice is predicated on one very important step—forming takeaways from each question that you get wrong.

Most people head into the LSAT with strengths and weaknesses. Each question you get wrong is an opportunity to stamp out one of the weaknesses. But you need to do two things:

  • Identify triggers for recognizing when the concept you don’t understand is showing up in a question.
  • Define a clear process for what you’re going to do to handle that concept the next time you see it.

Bonus points if you phrase these as If/Then statements (conditional logic practice), as these implementation intentions will set triggers for applying certain strategies.

That is, after all, the hard part of the LSAT—deciding which strategy applies in a certain case.

If you sign up for one of our courses, you’ll get a Strategy Log and Review Sheet guiding you through this process. However, the short version is that you want to write out at least one If/Then statement for each question you get wrong that will guide you through a strategy the next time something similar is going to be tested.

I’ll end with some good and bad examples, along with why I’m categorizing them as such:

Bad

  • If I see a hard question, then I’ll try harder.
    • What does it even mean to try harder? How will you recognize it’s a hard question?
  • If I see complex language, then I’ll read carefully.
    • This has a better trigger, but what does “read more carefully” mean, and why aren’t you always reading carefully?
  • If I don’t know what’s wrong with an argument, then I’ll go to the answers.
    • The trigger isn’t specific enough—at what point do you make this decision? Right away? That seems extreme—it usually takes a bit of thinking to figure out the flaw of an argument. Also, the action doesn’t give you guidance—what will you use to guide you through the answers?

Good

  • If I’m attempting a Strengthen question, then I will check to see if the conclusion is causal and use the relevant strategies for strengthening causal arguments (same Cause, same Effect; no Cause, no Effect; eliminate an alternative Cause).
    • Yes, this is longer. But you know exactly when it applies (Strengthen questions), and what strategy you’re going to implement.
  • If I see two sentences with conditional keywords (if/only/unless/whenever/etc…), I will use formal notation to diagram out all conditional statements.
    • Again, there’s a specific trigger that gets you to carry out a specific strategy. It can apply across many questions while still giving you the next step.
  • If I don’t know what my diagram should look like after 5-10 seconds in a Logic Game, I will start by figuring out if I’m putting things into Order (and use a Number Line), 2 Groups (and use a Logic Chain), or more than 2 Groups (and use a Grouping Board).
    • This one gives you time to think, but sets a specific cut-off. After that, it defines the first step in your process. This would probably have follow-up If/Thens attached, such as, “If I know my diagram is incomplete in a Logic Game, I will attempt the Conditional questions first to see if I can figure out how to complete it.”

Good strategy rules will give you specific triggers that require very little “in the moment” judgment, and specific strategies to implement that you’ve already practiced. And this is what studying should be—figuring out what your strategies are, and when they apply. ?

Don’t forget that you can attend the first session of any of our online or in-person LSAT courses absolutely free. We’re not kidding! Check out our upcoming courses here.

Matt Shinners Manhattan Prep LSAT InstructorMatt Shinners is a Manhattan Prep instructor and jdMission Senior Consultant based in New York City. After receiving a degree in Biochemistry from Boston College, Matt scored a 180 on his LSAT and enrolled in Harvard Law School. There’s nothing that makes him happier than seeing his students receive the scores they want to get into the schools of their choice. Check out Matt’s upcoming LSAT courses here!