141 need to jump 24 points, possible? Forum

[MiracleNeeded]

I took the LSAT in 2009 and. Scored a 141. Read the LGB and the two other bibles. The logic games have improved some on my part, I at least understand them a little this time around. The logical reasoning was my best part of the test with just a few wrong answers out of the questions I actually answered.

Reading comp was atrocious. My biggest enemies are...

1. Time
2. Reading comp 27 questions total (4 questions short of completion 18 wrong out of 23 answered)
3. Logic Games 26 questions total (6 questions short 10 wrong out of 17 answered)
4.logical reasoning PART 1 25 total (9 questions short, 5 wrong out of 17 answered)
5. logicAl reasoning PART 2 23 total (8 questions short answered 17 got 3 wrong out of those answered)

I'm confident I can really become accurate on Logical Reasoning. I only read the first chapter of the Bible on Logical Reasoning and was able to score reasonably well on at least one section, and pretty OK on the other. I spent one day on studying this section.


Time is the biggest issue, and I know that wiith enough practice and familiarity, I should become faster.

Reading comp I feel is the one section everyone can improve on fastest. We have all been reading for most of our lives. I am a life long slow reader.

Logic games I feel I have improved on most. The LGB is good I need much more practice, I've only had a week and a half of practice.

Please help me here. Should I just give up? I have a low GPA, so I need at least a 165 to have a solid chance at a Tier 3.

[CO2016YEAH]

If you only spent one day on LR there is presumably some room to move, especially if you are not familiar with formal logic and logical fallacies.

You are missing a lot of questions on all sections. Given the amount you missed on RC, I suspect that if you were familiar with all the LR question types you would be able to complete all of the section in time, but only with practice.

Games, as everyone knows, is the most learnable. There really are only a few types of games that appear over and over again with a somewhat revised format; once in a while there will be a curveball, like the one with people sitting around a table, but if you go through the books and all the practice tests and explanations you should be able to figure it out.

I don't think a 165 is unattainable from where you scored last time, but you have some work to do. The good news is it doesn't sound like you prepped much the first time. If you prepped for 6 months and worked the whole LR and LG bibles through my answer would be different.

Also, people say reading The Economist everyday helps improve RC, so you might want to cram that into your regiment between now and June/Oct.

Lastly, you should probably bank on spending no less than 20 hours a week between now and test day. You can't get good at the LSAT by osmosis; repetition, studying and understanding your errors, and practicing your timing will help.

Good luck!

Edit: I take back what I said about RC, though. 18 of 23 answered is very bad and doesn't really indicate you should be able to do better on LR. I do still think you've got room for improvement, though. Also, taking a course where a trained instructor can explain a methodology to you should help tremendously in this case. All courses are not equal. PM me if you want a suggestion.

[Ded Precedent]

You have plenty of room to improve. Just start doing old PTs untimed to build a foundation, to really understand why a particular answer is right or wrong. Read the bibles and print off 3 copies of every game that exists and drill them.

[Bulls1990]

You can definitely improve!

It does need a lot of time and commitment. I started from the 140's and got all the way up to the high 160's. People on here have even bigger jumps and better success stories. It is entirely possible. Can you take a class in your region? It is a great investment if you research the course and instructor. I took TestMasters in NYC and found it to be very helpful. I also took over 30-40 previous LSATs which I think was the most beneficial way of improvement. The right books and materials are a great investment but make sure to do your homework.

Anything is possible with this test it just needs a lot of practice, time and commitment.

Good luck!

[MiracleNeeded]

If you only spent one day on LR there is presumably some room to move, especially if you are not familiar with formal logic and logical fallacies.

You are missing a lot of questions on all sections. Given the amount you missed on RC, I suspect that if you were familiar with all the LR question types you would be able to complete all of the section in time, but only with practice.

Games, as everyone knows, is the most learnable. There really are only a few types of games that appear over and over again with a somewhat revised format; once in a while there will be a curveball, like the one with people sitting around a table, but if you go through the books and all the practice tests and explanations you should be able to figure it out.

I don't think a 165 is unattainable from where you scored last time, but you have some work to do. The good news is it doesn't sound like you prepped much the first time. If you prepped for 6 months and worked the whole LR and LG bibles through my answer would be different.

Also, people say reading The Economist everyday helps improve RC, so you might want to cram that into your regiment between now and June/Oct.

Lastly, you should probably bank on spending no less than 20 hours a week between now and test day. You can't get good at the LSAT by osmosis; repetition, studying and understanding your errors, and practicing your timing will help.

Good luck!

Edit: I take back what I said about RC, though. 18 of 23 answered is very bad and doesn't really indicate you should be able to do better on LR. I do still think you've got room for improvement, though. Also, taking a course where a trained instructor can explain a methodology to you should help tremendously in this case. All courses are not equal. PM me if you want a suggestion.

Back in 2009 I took a prep course (kaplan) and showed up just a few times. I really farted around there A LOT. I never really grasped what was being taught and just thout that by virtue of taking the course I could magically get the skills needed. I was wrong.

I took the course in the winter, then had a HUGE gap almost a year when I took the actual test and did nothing in between.

I have read that 4 hours a day is what is needed to really learn this stuff, and I have mostly been good with that. Distractions and break down in discipline are becoming more of a problem but I can refocus now that I have an idea of how much work I need. Thanks for your help. And I will be thinking of taking mother prep course. This time I think it will be Powerscore or Manhattan. Even though I hear Manhattan is better, I'm already familiar with the PS system.

[CO2016YEAH]

If you only spent one day on LR there is presumably some room to move, especially if you are not familiar with formal logic and logical fallacies.

You are missing a lot of questions on all sections. Given the amount you missed on RC, I suspect that if you were familiar with all the LR question types you would be able to complete all of the section in time, but only with practice.

Games, as everyone knows, is the most learnable. There really are only a few types of games that appear over and over again with a somewhat revised format; once in a while there will be a curveball, like the one with people sitting around a table, but if you go through the books and all the practice tests and explanations you should be able to figure it out.

I don't think a 165 is unattainable from where you scored last time, but you have some work to do. The good news is it doesn't sound like you prepped much the first time. If you prepped for 6 months and worked the whole LR and LG bibles through my answer would be different.

Also, people say reading The Economist everyday helps improve RC, so you might want to cram that into your regiment between now and June/Oct.

Lastly, you should probably bank on spending no less than 20 hours a week between now and test day. You can't get good at the LSAT by osmosis; repetition, studying and understanding your errors, and practicing your timing will help.

Good luck!

Edit: I take back what I said about RC, though. 18 of 23 answered is very bad and doesn't really indicate you should be able to do better on LR. I do still think you've got room for improvement, though. Also, taking a course where a trained instructor can explain a methodology to you should help tremendously in this case. All courses are not equal. PM me if you want a suggestion.

Back in 2009 I took a prep course (kaplan) and showed up just a few times. I really farted around there A LOT. I never really grasped what was being taught and just thout that by virtue of taking the course I could magically get the skills needed. I was wrong.

I took the course in the winter, then had a HUGE gap almost a year when I took the actual test and did nothing in between.

I have read that 4 hours a day is what is needed to really learn this stuff, and I have mostly been good with that. Distractions and break down in discipline are becoming more of a problem but I can refocus now that I have an idea of how much work I need. Thanks for your help. And I will be thinking of taking mother prep course. This time I think it will be Powerscore or Manhattan. Even though I hear Manhattan is better, I'm already familiar with the PS system.

Cool. It sounds like the Kaplan course was basically useless given the lack of commitment and time between taking your LSAT. I know some people who have taken Kaplan and not improved much even after really working it.

I think Powerscore has a good model. I don't know anything about Manhatten. Blueprint has a format similar to Powerscore and puts a fun spin on their classes, making it easier to stay engaged. They are in a lot of markets now, so you can Google them and see if they are in yours. I took Blueprint and I was very happy with them.

[MiracleNeeded]

How do you feel about speed reading software? I heard about spreeder from another post here. I tried it and I'm struggling with 400 words per minute, but it isn't too bad. If I can get to 800 words by test time I should be able to bang out the passages in under a minute leaving about 8 minutes for the questions.

I also went to the economist and the New Yorker websites to read their articles.

[bp shinners]

How do you feel about speed reading software? I heard about spreeder from another post here. I tried it and I'm struggling with 400 words per minute, but it isn't too bad. If I can get to 800 words by test time I should be able to bang out the passages in under a minute leaving about 8 minutes for the questions.

I also went to the economist and the New Yorker websites to read their articles.

Skip Spreeder. "Slow reading speed" is a crutch/excuse people use. You literally cannot read slow enough to be unable to finish the RC passages (unless you're just learning to read), and slow reading is actually going to help you. Getting through the material more quickly generally leads to less understanding and missing key issues. 400wpm is about double the average reading speed - 200wpm is even more than enough to get through the material.

1 minute for the passage/8 minutes for the questions is a bad ratio. 2-3 minutes is even a little light on the passage. 3-4 is what I would recommend. The questions are utterly predictable, so there's no rush to get through them. You should easily be able to answer them if you spend enough time on the passage, and slowing down to add some tags to the paragraphs will let you quickly find the answers to the questions of which you're unsure. There are also a higher number of questions on LSAT RC than their are on other RC that really require you to understand how the passage as a whole fits together, and you're not going to pick up on that if you're reading it at 800wpm.

So stop trying to read faster, as it's not going to help you on RC. Focus on understanding the passages and picking up on the patterns between the passage and questions.

[MiracleNeeded]

Just checked with Kaplan and I took the course from Aug to Oct 2008 then tested a year later. Also Kaplan sucked big ol' donkey dick. Reading comp power score book is pretty good. It breaks down the passages well and treats it like a longer version of the LR arguments. Doing well on the reading comp or just not as horribly should jump me quite q few points. Thanks for your help guys.

lastly to blue print. Thanks for the help as well. I see the questions are addressed pretty thoroughly in the book. Once I know them I think I can work much faster. I am still looking at stuff like the ace speed reading program since so many people say it not only increases their speed but their comprehension from 65% average to 85%.

[objection_your_honor]

As shinners said, reading the passage in 3-4 minutes is fine (I'm also a "slow reader"). The key isn't speed — it's staying engaged and paying attention to the text on a level you may not be used to.

Tackle one section at a time. You can do it; this forum is filled with people who have gained a lot of points over their initial diagnostic.