The NoodleyOne's Foolproof Guide to a 179 for Retakers Forum

[NoodleyOne]

oh boy u couldnt wait for the official scores could you lol. Anyways, always a good post Noodley!Btw, hows tutoring going?

People asked... it'll be hilarious if I end up with a 170 or something though. Tutoring is going to wait until i finish my apps.

[Mr. Frodo]

tag

[CyanIdes Of March]

Favorited in case I need it.

[relevantfactor]

oh boy u couldnt wait for the official scores could you lol. Anyways, always a good post Noodley!Btw, hows tutoring going?

People asked... it'll be hilarious if I end up with a 170 or something though. Tutoring is going to wait until i finish my apps.

I really hope it doesn't happen because you are one of those people who I think actually deserved a 180. But if that does happen all you have to do is change the topic name to Noodley's Foolproof guide to a 180 on Pts lol.

Did you do well on that zoning game? I got lost on that crap, I knew we would have some tough game but oh well idk.
Why are you waiting until your app's done? Wasn't Kaplan or whatever all into you? Do some private tutoring man, totally worth it.

[NoodleyOne]

Just focused on my ps right now... kind of shifting my focus a bit and taking a break from lsat.

And I'm 98% sure i went -0 on games. Zones was odd but i didn't find it difficult. The whole test actually seemed really easy to me so here's hoping. I was accurate about my feelings in June, so here is hoping I am right again.

[relevantfactor]

Just focused on my ps right now... kind of shifting my focus a bit and taking a break from lsat.

And I'm 98% sure i went -0 on games. Zones was odd but i didn't find it difficult. The whole test actually seemed really easy to me so here's hoping. I was accurate about my feelings in June, so here is hoping I am right again.

True..
Well good luck Noodley. Let me know when you post your ps for review, I'll take a look at it.

[Ex Cearulo]

Noodley, just have to chime in to say thanks! Truly appreciate it!

[Nova]

Awesome contribution, Noodley.

Im forwarding this to all the 0Ls I know IRL

[carboncopyx]

How helpful/to what extent did you use the Cambridge LG and LR by type? The prices for three volumes each is pretty substantial...

Mucho gracias for the post, btw! Will definitely refer to it as I study for December.

[TomThompson]

Looks interesting. Definitely noticed your impressive PT scores so this could be useful if I need to retake.

Average of my last PT's was about 167 (66-168, 65-166). Came out of the test feeling quite confident- I had to guess on 2 of zones but only due to starting it with 5 minutes to go- but when I got on TLS and people were panicking my confidence dropped significantly. It's quite possible I missed an inference and bombed it, so I'm going to keep studying until I get my score. If its below 170 I plan to rewrite in December.

[NoodleyOne]

How helpful/to what extent did you use the Cambridge LG and LR by type? The prices for three volumes each is pretty substantial...

Mucho gracias for the post, btw! Will definitely refer to it as I study for December.

I didn't use it as much for games since i didn't need much drilling there, but it is crucial for LR. I drilled extensively.

[carboncopyx]

I didn't use it as much for games since i didn't need much drilling there, but it is crucial for LR. I drilled extensively.

That makes sense. Just ordered the two volumes for LR!

[vegso]

Hey NoodleyOne, I like this guide, but here's the thing for me: I bought the MLSAT books a while ago and for a short time tried to implement their strategies ... but I think the initial dip I experienced in scores scared me away from doing so. As someone who currently uses the PowerScore strategies for LG, and really just intuition and a few barebones strategies (e.g. the negation test for necessary assumption questions) do you think I have time to start using MLSAT's strategies and truly internalize them such that they are intuitive on test day - or do you think I should take a course between now and December to help me do so? I did a few chapters in the LR strategy guide, but it seriously seems to take me SO long to do even a chapter, and then drilling, getting it down, etc... I just don't know if I have enough time, and I don't think I'm a very good self teacher. But if I take a course, it seems like I won't have enough time to eliminate weaknesses.

The key to Manhattan is their focus on looking at argument structure. Looking at the argument core is the most effective way to "get" the test. Powerscore's family is in my opinion unintuitive and unnecessary while being of little practical use. Basically, if you don't have the time, you have to make the time. There are no shortcuts.

I know you can't really answer this, but I'm just worried whether I'll have time to reverse the 6 months or so of habits I've built on (e.g. reading the stimulus first) and incorporate MLSAT's method. I really don't know if I can :/ but I also don't know if just using intuition to answer choices will and has proved fruitful in say, eliminating weaknesses.

You can totally do it. I used to be one of those stimulus-first-fools. Took me about 2 weeks to change that habit (drill baby drill). And oh my god, does it make a huge difference.

Reading the stim first and focusing on the core of the argument/picking it apart dont have to be mutually exclusive you know. I mixed up stim first and not stim first a lot and barely noticed a difference in my ability to answer the questions. However when reading the stim first I noticed I shaved off about 3 minutes, at least, on my average time because reading with a purpose can be really useful.

[CyanIdes Of March]

How helpful/to what extent did you use the Cambridge LG and LR by type? The prices for three volumes each is pretty substantial...

Mucho gracias for the post, btw! Will definitely refer to it as I study for December.

I didn't use it as much for games since i didn't need much drilling there, but it is crucial for LR. I drilled extensively.

Think I'd get any use drilling by type if I'm already scoring -1 to -3? A lot of my mistakes seem to boil down to dumb mistakes, but it'd be nice to make the -2/-3 less common and the -0/-1 more common.

[davidco11]

Thanks for taking the time to put this together. I will put it into action!

[AngryZeus]

THIS IS HUBRIS!

Alt of mrizza has been banned. Main account has been warned.

[NoodleyOne]

Too many gods on this forum. And yeah, it is a bit. Still confident I knocked it out of the park though.

[Theopliske8711]

Can you vouch for the Manhattan RC? I have heard bad things about the Bible RC and was wondering what stands out in the Manhattan that makes it worth the 26 bucks.

[NoodleyOne]

Can't speak on psb for rc but mrc does a good job on focusing you on structure with strategies for each of the question types.

[North]

Noodles, this is beautiful and exactly what I was hoping for.

I have a question about drilling LR. What did the process look like for you? Did you burn through questions or take your time with them? Is it quantity, quality, or some combination of the two that maximizes the proficiency and efficiency one builds through extensive drilling? I've been struggling with finding the appropriate balance for a while.

Found this from you a while back:

One thing I recommend, for LR and RC, is a very time consuming approach to drilling.

Note: This isn't all drilling, but a good sized chunk (maybe 1/3rd of your drilling using this method).

For LR: In a notebook, write down why you're eliminating each answer. Out of scope, term shifts, etc. If you're down to two answers, don't look for the right one, look for the wrong one. Break each word apart, and be precise. This will get you thinking of answer choices in that manner, which will translate well to drilling.

For RC: RC is tough to improve, but it's not impossible. You have to train yourself to read critically. For each answer, make a note of where in the passage you get your justification. Why did you choose D? Lines 8-10, of course! If you can't find justification in the passage, then why are you choosing the answer? It takes awhile, but it can be worth it. Another little addendum though... some RC sections are tricky, so you may think there is justification when there isn't. It's not foolproof, but it certainly will help.

Still your recommendation? Any elaboration?

[PeanutsNJam]

is this proofed against those of us that arent fools!?

The LSAT is strong with this one.

[NoodleyOne]

Noodles, this is beautiful and exactly what I was hoping for.

I have a question about drilling LR. What did the process look like for you? Did you burn through questions or take your time with them? Is it quantity, quality, or some combination of the two that maximizes the proficiency and efficiency one builds through extensive drilling? I've been struggling with finding the appropriate balance for a while.

Found this from you a while back:

One thing I recommend, for LR and RC, is a very time consuming approach to drilling.

Note: This isn't all drilling, but a good sized chunk (maybe 1/3rd of your drilling using this method).

For LR: In a notebook, write down why you're eliminating each answer. Out of scope, term shifts, etc. If you're down to two answers, don't look for the right one, look for the wrong one. Break each word apart, and be precise. This will get you thinking of answer choices in that manner, which will translate well to drilling.

For RC: RC is tough to improve, but it's not impossible. You have to train yourself to read critically. For each answer, make a note of where in the passage you get your justification. Why did you choose D? Lines 8-10, of course! If you can't find justification in the passage, then why are you choosing the answer? It takes awhile, but it can be worth it. Another little addendum though... some RC sections are tricky, so you may think there is justification when there isn't. It's not foolproof, but it certainly will help.

Still your recommendation? Any elaboration?

Largely yes, especially if you're in the -3 to -5 per section LR scoring. If you're -0/-4 and timing issues make up most of the time, focus a bit more on that.

There isn't any ironclad rule to how to drill. It's all going to depend on your need. North, if I recall one of your main issues is timing. Familiarity will increase that, so I would still recommend some drilling using that method, but you probably want to get to the point where you can blaze through the easy ones. Honestly, the 15 in 15 rule is solid, but I would bet that the top scorers do it even faster. The easy questions you should be blowing out of the water. Parallel and Formal/Conditional Logic is always going to slow you down, but the more time you have for the tricky ones, the better off you'll be. I would save the in depth drilling, the notebook method for lack of better term, for difficult sets, and practice for speed (no more than 1 per minute) for difficulty 1 questions.

[espressocream]

You da best.

You helped me so much, thanks again.

[A.Taarabt7]

is it worth buying manhattan LG as well? i just got the rc and lr manhattan, both very good good guides. the reason i am a little heisitant is because i already have powerscore lg, outside lsat lg, and another book of LG's.

[NoodleyOne]

is it worth buying manhattan LG as well? i just got the rc and lr manhattan, both very good good guides. the reason i am a little heisitant is because i already have powerscore lg, outside lsat lg, and another book of LG's.

Personally i didn't use it but i have it. If you still have problems with lg another perspective may help.