LSAT Trainer Schedule Forum

[MovingUnits]

Hey All,

Posted here before. I can't afford a lot of books or a prep program right now.

I just have a simple question: If I use The LSAT Trainer along with this study schedule:http://www.thelsattrainer.com/assets/12 ... --2017.pdf

What kind of score can I expect? I get it's kind of an impossible question, but If I only exposed myself to the newest material and followed his guide to a T, can I expect a 160+?

Diagnostic was about a 153 or so on June 07'

Aiming to take in December.

I've been around the 7Sage forums which says almost as a cult that you must fool proof all games 1-35.... I get it will help. However, time wouldn't be better spent mastering the newer 52-71 material (up until PT 80, actually)?

It seems to me at some point that spending months going through older tests is a real opportunity cost. The test is most likely going to be more like PT70 then PT41. I understand old LG games repeat and all that, but I think if you can master the fundamentals of the tests from 52- present you should at least have a decent shot? Does the LSAC really expect us to just to buy every game? When there are 300 LSATS are we will still going to be recommended to go through them all? Again, I get if you have all the time and money in the world it makes sense; but, unfortunately, that's not my case.

tl;dr

Mike Kim LSAT Trainer + Study Guide PT 52-71 (+72-80) sufficient to score in the 160s?

[tanes25]

I don't think 7Sage is very cult like with their fool proof approach at all. Just like anything else, if it doesn't fit you then move on to something else. If you don't have a serious issue with LG then why would you stress fool proofing 1-35? Also, I think the point in not starting on the most recent tests is to make sure that you do have the fundamentals down. You would be surprised by how quickly you burn PT because you don't know what you're doing. Even when you do know sometimes it takes a minute for you to get into your groove. Why burn the most recent PT trying to figure out what's "right," or what fits for you? Once they're gone, they're gone. Also, what do you mean by "new material"? Nothing on the test is new. Everything repeats, especially the games. No one can tell you a projected score. You can buy every LSAT material ever released and still never hit 160+. It's not about taking 1000 tests. It's really about what you take from each test. If you only need 30 tests to hit 160+ then so be it. BR is where you'll see your most gains, so don't skimp on it or you'll see yourself blowing test after test without much gain. Your potential really just depends on how dedicated and disciplined you are. Look at where you are with your diagnostic. If you didn't do so well with LG, then yeah, I recommend fool proofing. It's the only way you're going to improve. LG is the "easiest" section of the test so why risk losing those points? You should be fool proofing while working on another section of the test so you're not wasting time by doing it. LR is huge so you need to figure out which question types are troublesome for you and go from there. You are familiar with 7Sage so you should be familiar with the analytics page. This is another reason why it is suggested that you do not start with the most recent tests. As you take PT you should input your results in the analytics page. The analytics will tell you which question types you're struggling with and which question types you should be focusing on but you need to take about 10 or so PT before you have an accurate reading. Once you get your results then it's time to return to the curriculum and hone in on your issues. Then take another PT, rinse and repeat. If you start in the 50s you're not leaving many tests, huh? You want to eventually test when you've "mastered" as much of the test as possible to see your potential game day score. If you blow through all of the most recent tests just trying to master the fundamentals you've put yourself at a disadvantage.

[twiix]

The most recent LG's on PT's 75+ have all have striking resemblances to the older style games like PT1-35; that's why everyone harps on you fool proofing them. The problem is, on PT's 52-75(roughly), all of the LG's are easily diagrammed. That doesn't hold true for the newer tests, so practice those easy cookie cutter LG's all you want, and you will still be bent over when the real thing comes around since you didn't practice the "newer" (read:old) style.

You aren't supposed to forego learning the other sections of the test either. You should be drilling question types in tandem with fool-proofing. Once you get through drilling and fool proofing then you should jump into PT's.

[MovingUnits]

I don't think 7Sage is very cult like with their fool proof approach at all. Just like anything else, if it doesn't fit you then move on to something else. If you don't have a serious issue with LG then why would you stress fool proofing 1-35? Also, I think the point in not starting on the most recent tests is to make sure that you do have the fundamentals down. You would be surprised by how quickly you burn PT because you don't know what you're doing. Even when you do know sometimes it takes a minute for you to get into your groove. Why burn the most recent PT trying to figure out what's "right," or what fits for you? Once they're gone, they're gone. Also, what do you mean by "new material"? Nothing on the test is new. Everything repeats, especially the games. No one can tell you a projected score. You can buy every LSAT material ever released and still never hit 160+. It's not about taking 1000 tests. It's really about what you take from each test. If you only need 30 tests to hit 160+ then so be it. BR is where you'll see your most gains, so don't skimp on it or you'll see yourself blowing test after test without much gain. Your potential really just depends on how dedicated and disciplined you are. Look at where you are with your diagnostic. If you didn't do so well with LG, then yeah, I recommend fool proofing. It's the only way you're going to improve. LG is the "easiest" section of the test so why risk losing those points? You should be fool proofing while working on another section of the test so you're not wasting time by doing it. LR is huge so you need to figure out which question types are troublesome for you and go from there. You are familiar with 7Sage so you should be familiar with the analytics page. This is another reason why it is suggested that you do not start with the most recent tests. As you take PT you should input your results in the analytics page. The analytics will tell you which question types you're struggling with and which question types you should be focusing on but you need to take about 10 or so PT before you have an accurate reading. Once you get your results then it's time to return to the curriculum and hone in on your issues. Then take another PT, rinse and repeat. If you start in the 50s you're not leaving many tests, huh? You want to eventually test when you've "mastered" as much of the test as possible to see your potential game day score. If you blow through all of the most recent tests just trying to master the fundamentals you've put yourself at a disadvantage.

Thanks, my question was:

"Hey All,

Posted here before. I can't afford a lot of books or a prep program right now.

I just have a simple question: If I use The LSAT Trainer along with this study schedule:http://www.thelsattrainer.com/assets/12 ... --2017.pdf

What kind of score can I expect? I get it's kind of an impossible question, but If I only exposed myself to the newest material and followed his guide to a T, can I expect a 160+?

Diagnostic was about a 153 or so on June 07'"

30 tests seem like a good amount to me. (But that's what I'm asking) Like I said, at one point are we just going to phase out the old tests? Mike Kim's Trainer is well-regarded. Why not just follow his study guide, too? And if so, what results can I expect? Will only doing work from PT52-80 be leaving me woefully prepared? Will I be just fine? I honestly think 30 PTs of work should be plenty. I think 7Sage's approach to doing near 36-80 is just too much. There's certainly got to be some diminishing returns.

Anyways, thanks for the info.

[MovingUnits]

The most recent LG's on PT's 75+ have all have striking resemblances to the older style games like PT1-35; that's why everyone harps on you fool proofing them. The problem is, on PT's 52-75(roughly), all of the LG's are easily diagrammed. That doesn't hold true for the newer tests, so practice those easy cookie cutter LG's all you want, and you will still be bent over when the real thing comes around since you didn't practice the "newer" (read:old) style.

You aren't supposed to forego learning the other sections of the test either. You should be drilling question types in tandem with fool-proofing. Once you get through drilling and fool proofing then you should jump into PT's.

Makes sense! Thank you.

I'm just still wondering, if I were to use Mike Kim's Trainer + guide would I be prepared? Is so, how much? Enough to get a 160? Or would I be so out of practice after 30 tests that I'd end up with like a 151?

However, your point does make sense about being fucked if the "older" tests are similar to the newer tests.....

[CottonHarvest]

That is plenty of material, and some good material, to go from 153-160. However, there is no reason that your goal should be 160+. You should be shooting much higher.

[twiix]

The most recent LG's on PT's 75+ have all have striking resemblances to the older style games like PT1-35; that's why everyone harps on you fool proofing them. The problem is, on PT's 52-75(roughly), all of the LG's are easily diagrammed. That doesn't hold true for the newer tests, so practice those easy cookie cutter LG's all you want, and you will still be bent over when the real thing comes around since you didn't practice the "newer" (read:old) style.

You aren't supposed to forego learning the other sections of the test either. You should be drilling question types in tandem with fool-proofing. Once you get through drilling and fool proofing then you should jump into PT's.

Makes sense! Thank you.

I'm just still wondering, if I were to use Mike Kim's Trainer + guide would I be prepared? Is so, how much? Enough to get a 160? Or would I be so out of practice after 30 tests that I'd end up with like a 151?

However, your point does make sense about being fucked if the "older" tests are similar to the newer tests.....

With the trainer, some practice tests, and maybe the manhattan LR book, and 7sage's free logic game explanations, you have the tools necessary to obtain a 170+ fairly reasonably, if you put in the time and effort.

As for new tests being similar to old tests, that only holds true for LG. LR and RC are definitely most similar to 50+

[MovingUnits]

That is plenty of material, and some good material, to go from 153-160. However, there is no reason that your goal should be 160+. You should be shooting much higher.

Thanks, not my goal. Just a benchmark I used since it's generally an acceptable score.

[MovingUnits]

The most recent LG's on PT's 75+ have all have striking resemblances to the older style games like PT1-35; that's why everyone harps on you fool proofing them. The problem is, on PT's 52-75(roughly), all of the LG's are easily diagrammed. That doesn't hold true for the newer tests, so practice those easy cookie cutter LG's all you want, and you will still be bent over when the real thing comes around since you didn't practice the "newer" (read:old) style.

You aren't supposed to forego learning the other sections of the test either. You should be drilling question types in tandem with fool-proofing. Once you get through drilling and fool proofing then you should jump into PT's.

Makes sense! Thank you.

I'm just still wondering, if I were to use Mike Kim's Trainer + guide would I be prepared? Is so, how much? Enough to get a 160? Or would I be so out of practice after 30 tests that I'd end up with like a 151?

However, your point does make sense about being fucked if the "older" tests are similar to the newer tests.....

With the trainer, some practice tests, and maybe the manhattan LR book, and 7sage's free logic game explanations, you have the tools necessary to obtain a 170+ fairly reasonably, if you put in the time and effort.

As for new tests being similar to old tests, that only holds true for LG. LR and RC are definitely most similar to 50+

Thanks. I was just wondering about the study guide and the PTs it has you use 52-71 (plus I can get to 80) that's all I'm interested in. Not using other materials.

[Slippin' Jimmy]

The most recent LG's on PT's 75+ have all have striking resemblances to the older style games like PT1-35; that's why everyone harps on you fool proofing them. The problem is, on PT's 52-75(roughly), all of the LG's are easily diagrammed. That doesn't hold true for the newer tests, so practice those easy cookie cutter LG's all you want, and you will still be bent over when the real thing comes around since you didn't practice the "newer" (read:old) style.

You aren't supposed to forego learning the other sections of the test either. You should be drilling question types in tandem with fool-proofing. Once you get through drilling and fool proofing then you should jump into PT's.

Makes sense! Thank you.

I'm just still wondering, if I were to use Mike Kim's Trainer + guide would I be prepared? Is so, how much? Enough to get a 160? Or would I be so out of practice after 30 tests that I'd end up with like a 151?

However, your point does make sense about being fucked if the "older" tests are similar to the newer tests.....

I used a Trainer schedule and it was a good start, and it got me from 153 to 167. However if you really want to be in the 170s you'll need to do a lot more, you start to get diminishing returns on hours worked once you get higher up the scale. I personally have done just about every game from PT 29-Present plus probably about a quarter of the ones pre PT 29. I'd actually suggest you follow one of the retired LSAT Trainer schedules since they use older PTs for drilling which leaves you more newer ones for timed sections and full PTs. If you email Mike Kim he will send you one of these retired schedules pretty quickly.