about a month left, how much improvement is possible?

[ilove]

i'm hovering in the 165-168 range with approx. one month left, and I have about 13 practice tests left.  I started with a score of 158 on my first ever PT (although it wasn't a "cold" score, I've been studying with several different LSAT books)

My target score is 170+, ideally 171 or above.

I've done about 20 full PTs (most of them timed), and have yet to break 170 (my highest was 168)

frankly, I can't see myself suddenly scoring 3 or 4 points higher.

my LR and RC scores have been stalled since I've been focusing on my arch nemesis LG for about a month and as for LG...welll...

I'm still struggling to finish all 4 games on a consistent basis. (-6 to -7 seems to be the norm, since I end up guessing on 4 or 5 questions).

will I ever be able to break 170 and even beyond?  I'm losing faith in myself and everytime I try to pick myself up from the rubbles and open another PT I hear voices in my head saying "what's the point"?

I need some words of encouragement.  please help!

[MeloMan15]

i'm hovering in the 165-168 range with approx. one month left, and I have about 13 practice tests left.  I started with a score of 158 on my first ever PT (although it wasn't a "cold" score, I've been studying with several different LSAT books)

My target score is 170+, ideally 171 or above.

I've done about 20 full PTs (most of them timed), and have yet to break 170 (my highest was 168)

frankly, I can't see myself suddenly scoring 3 or 4 points higher.

my LR and RC scores have been stalled since I've been focusing on my arch nemesis LG for about a month and as for LG...welll...

I'm still struggling to finish all 4 games on a consistent basis. (-6 to -7 seems to be the norm, since I end up guessing on 4 or 5 questions).

will I ever be able to break 170 and even beyond?  I'm losing faith in myself and everytime I try to pick myself up from the rubbles and open another PT I hear voices in my head saying "what's the point"?

I need some words of encouragement.  please help!

First of all, that's a great starting score of 158 for your very first test!  I think you are in a perfect position to hit the 170 mark for sure.  You're in the 4th quarter right now, one month to go!  It's officially crunch time.  Step it up a notch or three and hit the questions as hard as ever!  Now's the time and you can do it.  Best of luck!

[blueskies6]

That post above me was cute and all, but not necessarily helpful 

Yes, you can definitely hit 170! And here's how: if LG is your worst section, that's a good thing because it's the most 'fixable.'  LGs are like math...they're not subjective.  1 + 1 + 1 + 1 is always going to equal 4, no matter how they phrase it.  You shouldn't be guessing on them. 
You need to figure out why you can't  get to the right answers.  Are you reading the stimulus wrong?  Are you missing deductions?  Are you drawing out the game/rules properly?  Are you drawing up new setups for hypotheticals?  Are there certain types of games you don't understand?  By figuring out what it is you're not getting, you can fix it to get your accuracy up.  And then as you keep doing them, you're timing will improve.  Let me know if you need any more help!

[blairchuckalways]

I'm in the same boat (init. diag 153, now scoring anywhere between 169-177), and I'm actually wondering what else I can do regarding those nasty strict logic logical reasoning questions. I skip over them in practice to allow time to complete all the other questions, but they are just really nasty and I can't figure out how to improve. Should I just focus on skipping them and getting everything else right -- I'm aiming in the 172+ range.

I've read the LR bible twice, made notes, memorized notes, but I just find myself panicking, freezing, and then skipping whenever I even read a line like "All bubbles can pop but no bubbles that aren't made out of soap can be popped by little kids." What to do? Any pointers? Thanks in advance!

[strive05]

Hey idapie,
My advice (may be obvious) but just slow down and break those sentences down.  Circle every key word; "all", "most", "some" once you grasp the variables I've found those ?'s aren't that hard and I bet you'll find the same to be true given how well you do in general.

Good luck, let's go give em a show this October!

[DerekShiHarvard]

My improvement did not come until my last month. Just keep doing those full practice tests under testing conditions. You'll be fine.

[BrianBHarrison]

Definitely attainable.

[BrianBHarrison]

Is it just me or was there a response here after my last one that disappeared?

[ssilver0210]

I'm in the same boat (init. diag 153, now scoring anywhere between 169-177), and I'm actually wondering what else I can do regarding those nasty strict logic logical reasoning questions. I skip over them in practice to allow time to complete all the other questions, but they are just really nasty and I can't figure out how to improve. Should I just focus on skipping them and getting everything else right -- I'm aiming in the 172+ range.

I've read the LR bible twice, made notes, memorized notes, but I just find myself panicking, freezing, and then skipping whenever I even read a line like "All bubbles can pop but no bubbles that aren't made out of soap can be popped by little kids." What to do? Any pointers? Thanks in advance!

You might want to try re-wording the statement, to make it easier to understand. In other words, if you come to the statement about bubbles, re-word it (in your mind) as follows:

If it's a bubble, then it can pop.

If it's a bubble not made out of soap, then little kids can not pop it.

The important thing to realize here is that the second statement does not tell us that if the bubble is made out of soap, then little kids can pop it.  It's possible that all bubbles can pop, but that little kids can not pop any of them, even if they are made out of soap. It's also possible that little kids can pop bubbles that are made out of soap. We do not know either of those statements to be true, however.

ALL WE KNOW, is that although all bubbles can pop, if the bubbles are made out of anything other than soap, then little kids can not pop them. Assume nothing else.

If you come across any of these kinds of questions that are throwing off your score, feel free to post them, or send me a PM, and I'll try and explain the logic behind them.

[DerekShiHarvard]

I'm in the same boat (init. diag 153, now scoring anywhere between 169-177), and I'm actually wondering what else I can do regarding those nasty strict logic logical reasoning questions. I skip over them in practice to allow time to complete all the other questions, but they are just really nasty and I can't figure out how to improve. Should I just focus on skipping them and getting everything else right -- I'm aiming in the 172+ range.

I've read the LR bible twice, made notes, memorized notes, but I just find myself panicking, freezing, and then skipping whenever I even read a line like "All bubbles can pop but no bubbles that aren't made out of soap can be popped by little kids." What to do? Any pointers? Thanks in advance!

You might want to try re-wording the statement, to make it easier to understand. In other words, if you come to the statement about bubbles, re-word it (in your mind) as follows:

If it's a bubble, then it can pop.

If it's a bubble not made out of soap, then little kids can not pop it.

The important thing to realize here is that the second statement does not tell us that if the bubble is made out of soap, then little kids can pop it.  It's possible that all bubbles can pop, but that little kids can not pop any of them, even if they are made out of soap. It's also possible that little kids can pop bubbles that are made out of soap. We do not know either of those statements to be true, however.

ALL WE KNOW, is that although all bubbles can pop, if the bubbles are made out of anything other than soap, then little kids can not pop them. Assume nothing else.

If you come across any of these kinds of questions that are throwing off your score, feel free to post them, or send me a PM, and I'll try and explain the logic behind them.

Kind of.