Taking the LSAT a 3rd time?

[davepak]

I'm sure this question has been asked before, but is it worth the time and risk to take the LSAT a third time? I know most universities take your highest LSAT score, but where I live (Canada) a number of the universities still monitor how many times you have taken the test and some still average the LSAT scores.

This is where I currently stand:

1st try: 155/63rd Percentile (December 2011)
2nd try: 162/85th Percentile (June 2013)

I already score at or above the median LSAT score at most of the universities through my June score, but my admission chances can improve greatly if I score higher (like 165 or higher). The main problem I am noticing though with retaking is that the questions I get wrong on practice LSAT's are not consistent to one particular section. For example, one PT I can bomb LG, but the next one right after I can ace LG but then bomb LR or RC. For the June 2013 LSAT I thought RC was going to be my worst section, but it turned out to be my best section based on my score report. Advice?

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Hey davepak, congrats on achieving such a good score on your second test administration.

I'd suggest that you consider whether you can score a 168+, I don't think taking the test again and shooting for a 165 will significantly improve your chances, given your previous scores. If you think there's a good shot of reaching that 168+ mark, go for it. Also, I wouldn't be too concerned about the multiple scores. The number of applicants has significantly dropped within the past few years (though I'm not sure if this is also the case in Canada), and as this has happened, more schools have gone looking even harder for qualified candidates.

Finally, you have the time. There's no loss in applying with an October LSAT score. You'll still have the time to get your applications in during the early stages of the admissions process.

Hope that helps!

[lsatodyssey]

Hi,

I am in a unique situation as well. I took the LSAT for the first time with an average score range of 161-167 and scored a 164. At the time, I felt that I was almost at a breakthrough and decided to retake.

I improved dramatically on LR and RC but was still shaky on the games. Going into the second test, I finally started doing better and games and was scoring 19-23 right per section, which put me towards my goal of 168+. Going into the second test my average range was 168-172, with a 174 PT two days before. I had an experimental games section which I aced and then bombed out on the real games section which was my final section. I had kind of "checked out" mentally after the first games section and it was hard for me to jump back into it after thinking I was done with games forever. I performed well enough on the other sections that I repeated the score 164 (although I was on pace for a 172 with an average games performance).

I have registered for the October test and I guess I have a few pointed questions.

1. I have spent the majority of my time studying the games (I purchased the Manhattan LSAT book and have recently completed it). What do you recommend is the best way to improve technique wise? Ex. Taking a game and replaying it after a few days/ grouping of games by type. My weakest ones are mismatch ordering, 3D grouping, and conditional grouping.

2. How do I make the LSAT feel "real" during my practice exams? The second time I took it I started the first section and it was hard for me to get into it right away although I recovered and did well in that reading section.

3. Although I am strong at RC and LR, I want to strive for near perfect accuracy. I have recently started to try and explain to myself why every answer choice is wrong in addition to finding the right answer choice. Is this recommended/ what else do you suggest I can do to try to create a strategy for consistent high performance in these two sections? I remember that the second time I took it, I could explain to myself how each LR answer was correct, in a similar manner to the explanations on the forums.

4. For the end stages, I am planning to do a PT per day every two days and one day off doing sections from three weeks out. Is this a strong strategy?

I guess the point generally is that I have been doing this for one year now and feel that I really know how the test works. The only thing that can stymie me is messing up/ getting bogged down in a games. I am trying to get as near perfect as possible on the other two sections to give myself a "buffer zone" for games performance.

I am confident that I can get a 168+. I just want to close the door on this and give it my best shot.

Thanks in advance

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

1. I have spent the majority of my time studying the games (I purchased the Manhattan LSAT book and have recently completed it). What do you recommend is the best way to improve technique wise? Ex. Taking a game and replaying it after a few days/ grouping of games by type. My weakest ones are mismatch ordering, 3D grouping, and conditional grouping.

The approaches you outline are all good. Reworking games over and over, helps you see connections between games that may initially seem very different. Sorting games on your own into game types helps you see more quickly the common structures the various game types share. You should also try working through the same game with different strategies: front end (heavy setup and possibly frames) and back end (limited setup and plug and chug through the questions).

2. How do I make the LSAT feel "real" during my practice exams? The second time I took it I started the first section and it was hard for me to get into it right away although I recovered and did well in that reading section.

This is probably different for everyone, but it's a motivational point. You have to really want it! You might also try warming up before you take an LSAT either in practice or for the real thing. Personally, I do 2 LG games, the 1st 10 questions from an LR section, and 1 RC passage as my warm up and I try to finish this warmup about an hour before I start my test. Another thing you could do to help mimic the feel of an official LSAT is to take proctored tests. It's different when you start the timer on your own at home vs when someone else is telling you that you have to start now. If you do end up taking PTs at home, have the clock start you, don't start the clock yourself--meaning, set a time that your practice test will start and when the clock hits that start time, you have to begin.

3. Although I am strong at RC and LR, I want to strive for near perfect accuracy. I have recently started to try and explain to myself why every answer choice is wrong in addition to finding the right answer choice. Is this recommended/ what else do you suggest I can do to try to create a strategy for consistent high performance in these two sections? I remember that the second time I took it, I could explain to myself how each LR answer was correct, in a similar manner to the explanations on the forums.

Establish patterns to the argument forms in LR and identify which patterns are most frequently used in which question types. Also, make a list of the most common ways in which incorrect answers are made for each LR question type.

In RC, take the time in your practice to write down the line number(s) that proves every single correct answer. Try to categorize the incorrectness of the wrong ones. You should also try to see whether the passage presents 1 position (argument), 2 positions (counterargument), 3+ positions (synthesis), or doesn't advocate a position (descriptive).

4. For the end stages, I am planning to do a PT per day every two days and one day off doing sections from three weeks out. Is this a strong strategy?

I might slow it down to no more than 3 practice tests per week. That's pretty close to what you have, but I would probably take two days off in between practice tests. Use the time to find something you could have done better and spend some time working on correcting it before you take another practice test.

It sounds like you're well on your way to getting your score!! Good luck.

[lsatodyssey]

Thanks so much for such a great post!!!

I really appreciate it!

In re: 1. I really like the idea of practicing doing front end and then back end, and seeing how it feels when I have to chug through a game. Another problem that I have with games is that when I get through the first game quickly (and accurately) I get a boost, similar to the "time bank effect" you describe in the Manhattan LG Guide. However, when I take longer than normal on the first game ex. 9 mins I feel the pressure more for the rest of the section and it has a negative effect on the outcome. Do you have any other suggestions about how to get over this problem?

Re: 2: the warmup that you describe, should these be games/ questions that I have done already or new material? I had heard that it was better to a game/ passage that you had already done before as a confidence booster but wasnt sure if this was the right approach.

Re: 3: categorizing the incorrectness of an RC answer: could you provide an example of this? Would it be, for ex. a main point question in which an answer focuses on just one section and exaggerates its effect.

Also, could you clarify what you mean by "patterns to the argument forms"? Is this like when a question says "some people say X.." the argument will proceed to refute this?

Other than that I am on the same page and will put everything that you recommend into practice!

Thanks again

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

No problem, happy to help.

1. First, try not let it happen in the first place. Warm up before the test and be ready to hit the ground running. Second, if it does, keep in mind that not all games are made equal and that's true of the first game as well. There are times when the first game does take longer, you have to trust them that there's another easier game out there waiting for you.

2. For warmup, simply work through games and questions you've seen before.

3. Many answer choices are wrong for highly repetitive patterns. Scope, Degree, and Interpretation. Sometimes an answer says the exact opposite of what the passage states--that's a pattern of incorrectness. Sometimes an answer takes an idea too far--that's another pattern of incorrectness. And so on.

For patterns of argument forms, think of correlation vs causation. Sometimes the evidence establishes a correlation, while the conclusion posits causation. Sometimes the argument identifies a phenomenon, while the conclusion provides an explanation of how or why it happened. Sometimes the argument links together a chain of conditional reasoning, etc.

Hope that helps!