167-170 Forum

[Shredzeppelin240]

Hello,

My last two tests have both been 167 with LR missing between 8-10 and RC missing 2-3 and LG missing 4 each time. I'm guessing most people will tell me to get games to zero. It's odd because every time I drill LG I get -0 or occasionally -1 but on the last two tests I got 167 some weird game has popped up (virus game and a weird ordering game that according to 7sage couldn't really have any diagramming) that has given me trouble. I've been going through the late 70's prep tests and heard the games in the 80's are more straightforward. If I do get games down to -0 I'm not 100% that would get me to 170 but I'd like to think that on March 30th I've at least gotten myself within range if the LG section doesn't have any rare types. How did you guys get to high 160's to 170's?

Thank you!

[KunAgnis]

I mean yeah, most people would tell you to minimize games to 0. But apart from that, I also worked on the short paragraph questions (forget the name of that section at the moment) and got that down to like missing 3-4 overall from those sections. I personally thought reducing errors/missed questions from the Reading section was the hardest, since the passages felt pretty long and dense. And that's coming from an avid classics reader (though I obviously don't read classical novels under time pressure and then answer standardized questions).

As far as the prep goes - you shouldn't limit yourself to 70s or 80s or what have you. I literally took every released exam and I think you should too, given that these scores have a huge impact down the line. It's worth the effort.

[Shredzeppelin240]

is missing 8-10 on LR enough to keep me out of the 170's for most tests? or would getting down to -0 on LG immediately push me there.

[Tommiahipp]

I just scored 170 on the January LSAT but will also be retaking this March to hopefully score a few more points!

That said

is missing 8-10 on LR enough to keep me out of the 170's for most tests? or would getting down to -0 on LG immediately push me there.

170 is -9 to -11. You can bet on -10. Considering that, getting 8-10 LR wrong will make it tough to get you into the 170s. If you say you are getting -0s on LG except for when an odd virus game or the like comes up, I would not worry about LG much beyond staying fresh with it between now and test day. Odds are very low that a virus-ish game will come up. I would tell you to focus on LR, considering that seems to be the most room for improvement.

I started to consistently score between 171-174 when I started really figuring out LR. Review strengthen and weaken like hell, as in know the 4 different ways to do either. For instance, if the question says A is usually B therefore A causes B, to strengthen you could choose an answer that shows 1. Another instance of A then B, 2. Instance of B without an A, 3. Ruling out a 3rd variable 4. Rule out that A and B are correlated by chance. Getting the fundamentals of questions down, like this, will give you tons more time on harder questions. If you're getting 8-10 wrong you are making some "dumb" mistakes. Feeling less rushed will help you cut down on those.

In short, probably focus on LR.

Cheers and good luck.

[KunAgnis]

is missing 8-10 on LR enough to keep me out of the 170's for most tests? or would getting down to -0 on LG immediately push me there.

To get to 170 generally you want to miss around 10 or 11 questions (I might be off) - that's based on the curves that I remember. So say you get -0 on LG and -8 on LR and -2 on RC. That gets you 170. So yes, it could.

[LimitlessSAT]

To give yourself a good chance of scoring 170+ on a significant majority of tests, you should aim for 4-6 wrong on LR and 0-1 wrong on LG.