« on: November 07, 2009, 10:53:57 PM »
I hope that Kaplan, for your sake, has improved their curriculum and educational standards. Last I heard and know, unless they did some major revamp of their materials recently, they still do not even differentiate between sufficient assumption/justify the conclusion questions and necessary assumption questions, but instead they lump them both together and tell students to negate for all of them. Correct me if I am wrong/if they changed that.
Anyway, I hope you have a good experience, some Kaplan instructors are pretty good, I know a few of those rare ones.
You learn more from the questions you got wrong than from the questions you got right. For the ones you got wrong, look at the CR and figure why LSAC thinks the CR is the CR. Learning how LSAC thinks differently than you thought is the best way to learn.
It actually offers more of an explanation as to the origin of the Native Americans than does anything else I've ever read.
Honestly, if I had to study that much to get a 180, or whatever score I wanted, I'd just move on to another field. I don't do the whole studying for tests thing (and yeah, I know, in law school I'll have to, but I actually find law really interesting so I won't mind reading tons of case law). In fact, between my September test and this one, I didn't study at all, all I did was take a couple of games sections to make sure I was still sharp and hope for the best.
Was it June 2007? Even I scored a 165 on that one, despite being a 170 test-taker. Disregard it: I challenge you to find one person that likes that test.
unfortunately no!!... i haven't even taken that one yet. it was september 2006. record-low for both LR sections.