Hey all,
I've been studying for the LSAT for more or less than a year and I've been stuck in this 165 phase for about 7 months now. My initial diagnostic was a 143, but now I'm getting anywhere from about -3/6 on LR sections, -5/7 on RC and -0/2 on LG. I'm a slow reader and I can't seem to get inference questions right on RC. For LR, I'm also missing the inference/MBT questions the most, and some sufficient assumption questions. I've also taken all PTs from 1-71 and probably taken it more than once or twice at this point.
I've only very recently (1 month now) been going back and reviewing/re-solving the questions I got wrong, on a different day (I give it about a week).
Books I've Used:
Powerscore LR
Manhattan LR
Manhattan RC
I also took a Kaplan course before I really started studying for the LSAT.
I'm really not sure what to do at this point... If I keep reviewing the way I'm reviewing now, will my score improve? Or is a 165 my max potential and I'm maxed out now? Any other study tips will also be helpful. ALSO if someone can tell me how they study when they buy their Manhattan LR book and what's the most efficient way to study it/review it.
Thanks in advance!!
LSAT Forum
2 postsPage 1 of 1
-
- ohthatpatrick
-
Thanks Received: 3808
-
Atticus Finch
- Posts: 4661
- Joined: April 01st, 2011
Re: 165 Slump
I'm going to try to give you some suggestions, but I'll be honest --- it sounds like you may have reached diminishing returns in your studying.
If that IS the case, you should still be very proud of the work you put in and progress you made! That is a remarkably impressive climb!
Both RC-Inference and LR-Inference hinge mainly on our ability to "prove" our answer choice using only the ideas provided in the passage/paragraph. And finding the best answer frequently requires that we notice any STRONG or COMPARATIVE wording that we can't justify in the wrong answers.
If you are "feeling" your way to the correct answer, then you'll get duped a lot on tricky questions. You have to prove (or at least support) you answer choice with applicable lines, and you have to find the word or concept in each wrong answer that disqualifies it from being correct.
When you practice RC and LR untimed, your focus is on coming up with specific justifications for why wrong answers are wrong. And you should be able to articulate how you're justifying your correct answer.
In the case of Inf-MBT and Sufficient Assumption, those are heavily dependent on conditional logic, so if you feel like you often ...
- fail to notice conditional language in the stimulus
- fail to symbolize (mentally or physically) those conditionals correctly
- fail to chain conditionals together, when possible
- chain things together that AREN'T supposed to be chained
- fail to apply conditionals to a provided fact that triggers the conditional (or its contrapositive)
... then you need to devote a lot of attention to improving your conditional logic skill set.
=======
Getting better at Games is all about repetition. Do timed games sections / do untimed drills where you try to max out the deductions or frames for a few games / redo games that were tricky and redo games where you know you need to do them faster.
It sounds like the main source of improvement in RC and LR is noticing extreme and comparative language in answer choices, proving your correct answer with specific line references, and becoming more comfortable/accurate with conditional logic.
If that IS the case, you should still be very proud of the work you put in and progress you made! That is a remarkably impressive climb!
Both RC-Inference and LR-Inference hinge mainly on our ability to "prove" our answer choice using only the ideas provided in the passage/paragraph. And finding the best answer frequently requires that we notice any STRONG or COMPARATIVE wording that we can't justify in the wrong answers.
If you are "feeling" your way to the correct answer, then you'll get duped a lot on tricky questions. You have to prove (or at least support) you answer choice with applicable lines, and you have to find the word or concept in each wrong answer that disqualifies it from being correct.
When you practice RC and LR untimed, your focus is on coming up with specific justifications for why wrong answers are wrong. And you should be able to articulate how you're justifying your correct answer.
In the case of Inf-MBT and Sufficient Assumption, those are heavily dependent on conditional logic, so if you feel like you often ...
- fail to notice conditional language in the stimulus
- fail to symbolize (mentally or physically) those conditionals correctly
- fail to chain conditionals together, when possible
- chain things together that AREN'T supposed to be chained
- fail to apply conditionals to a provided fact that triggers the conditional (or its contrapositive)
... then you need to devote a lot of attention to improving your conditional logic skill set.
=======
Getting better at Games is all about repetition. Do timed games sections / do untimed drills where you try to max out the deductions or frames for a few games / redo games that were tricky and redo games where you know you need to do them faster.
It sounds like the main source of improvement in RC and LR is noticing extreme and comparative language in answer choices, proving your correct answer with specific line references, and becoming more comfortable/accurate with conditional logic.
2 posts Page 1 of 1