Breaking 170

[ppluu]

I have been improving on the LSAT, i miss about 1-3 on LR, 2-4 on RC but 5-6 on logical reasoning. I have gone through the book and it has helped but i seem to struggle on time consuming questions like cannot be true questions. Anyone have study tips to improve on LR so I can break 170!

[ohthatpatrick]

This is a pretty broad question. I'll obviously have to generalize in many ways that may or may not apply to your specific situation. Let me just run down a short list of qualities that any 170+ test taker wants to have when it comes to LR.

1. Be ROCK SOLID when it comes to conditional logic.
Even though conditional logic is probably only deployed on 10-20% of the LR questions on any given test, those questions are frequently the ones that separate the advanced test takers from intermediate ones.

So know conditional language triggers cold; make sure it's brain-dead for you to correctly convert conditional language into the correct IF->THEN order. When you see questions are testing conditional logic, write it out on the page (unless you've demonstrated to yourself time and time again that you don't need to in order to get these questions correct).

2. Dominate the first dozen or so questions (time & accuracy)
We all know that LR gets harder as the section goes on. We must pounce on the earlier, easier questions and move briskly through them, so that we have plenty of time for the dense, time-consuming problems in the latter half of an LR section.

Practice quick-starts on LR by trying to get the first 10 right in 10 minutes ... then the first 12 in 12 minutes ... ultimately, you want to get to where you can do the first 15 in 15 minutes.

Part of picking up speed on these easier questions comes down to trusting your gut when you think you've found the correct answer, and not necessarily reading through every single answer choice. The earlier/easier questions don't have really tempting trap answers, so chances are the answer you THINK is right really IS right.

The other part of picking up speed is this:

3. Develop a keen awareness for LSAT reasoning patterns and question type tendencies.
For instance, on those MBF questions you hate, you should realize that the correct answer usually contradicts a conditional claim in the stimulus or a quantitative claim.

On Necessary Assumption and Inference questions, language such as "can, may, could, might, sometimes, at least, not necessarily, need not" is very loveable. Language such as "most, usually, typically, generally, tends to, primarily, all/none/no/never" or comparative language is frequently wrong.

I could obviously go on and on like this for every question type. If you don't already know the "personality profile" for each question type, you can sharpen your claws by doing so.

When I talk about LSAT reasoning patterns, I mean more general fact patterns that show up in any number of question types:
correlation/causality
necessary/sufficient conflation (bad conditional logic)
part to whole / whole to part
absence of evidence
% vs. numbers
studies/samples/surveys/experiments/specimens
analogies/comparisons
disagreeing with someone else's position

and so on.

Make sure that when you review an LR problem, you don't just think about the specific details of the story it's telling. Think about the abstract fact pattern --- what type of evidence was used? what type of reasoning flaws were committed? how did the correct answer function? (did it bridge together a language shift? did it rule out an alternative interpretation of evidence? did it address the relevance of the evidence?)

4. Learn how to proactively find answers on the questions that lend themselves to predicting an answer.
For some question types, the idea of "Work Wrong to Right" goes out the window for me. I know exactly what I want when I go to the answers, so I'm just scanning the answers looking for what I want, rather than reading each one as I go.

Here are the main question types in which you should know what you want before you ever look at the answers:
Sufficient Assumption
Principle Justify
Identify the Disagreement
Determine the Function
Main Conclusion
Match the Reasoning
Match the Flaw

You may sometimes have strong (and correct) predictions on other question types as well, but I've listed the ones for which you can ALWAYS have a strong and correct prediction.

I'll leave it there. If other people have other ideas that have helped them trim down their LR pacing or errors, please chime in!

[ppluu]

oh i'm so sorry I mean logic games. How can I improve on that i've been missing 5-6 a section. I've done the workbook already. I've been scoring about 167-168 on practice tests, but the logic games are hindering +170

[nbayar1212]

Which practice tests have you been scoring -6 or so on logic games?

[ppluu]

I scored -6 on practice test 66 and 59 but now after much prep ina month im starting to miss about -3 on practice tests such as 63 and 64