Preparing for OCTOBER

[lsatbeard]

Thank you for this. I guess my PowerScore instructor doesn't see this stuff, because he advised me against burning through all my practice tests.

Well, I would agree that you don't want to just burn through all the preptests, but I mean that in the sense that you want to take things slowly, work problems off the clock, dissect them, analyze them, etc.  IMHO it's better to do 10 tests 5 times than to do 50 tests, so in that context I would advise against burning through all the tests.  But regarding my earlier comments, I just meant that you shouldn't worry about running out of material because there's a ton of value in recycling it.

He actually meant that I SHOULD burn through more tests, saving some (presumably the later ones) for last, so they're still "new" to me. This directly conflicts with your advice, since that would make seeing the patterns substantially more difficult, if not impossible. He never mentioned these patterns in LG's, so it's very likely that he's unaware of them (or at least bound by PowerScore not to discuss them).

[EarlCat]

He actually meant that I SHOULD burn through more tests, saving some (presumably the later ones) for last, so they're still "new" to me. This directly conflicts with your advice, since that would make seeing the patterns substantially more difficult, if not impossible.

Well, okay.  I disagree with burning through them (i.e. working tons of tests without thorough review), but saving a test or two for the end isn't the worst thing in the world because they can be used to measure your scoring range.  Not the most important thing in the world, but a lot of people like to have an idea where they stand.  Whatevah.  It's doubtful you'll actually go through all 50+ tests anyway, even if you were trying to.  I'd vomit if I tried to do so many.

He never mentioned these patterns in LG's, so it's very likely that he's unaware of them (or at least bound by PowerScore not to discuss them).

If your instructor isn't aware of patterns in LG, I'd get a new instructor.  I'm doubt this is actually the case with a PowerScore instructor unless he really doesn't know their material.

[lsatbeard]

He actually meant that I SHOULD burn through more tests, saving some (presumably the later ones) for last, so they're still "new" to me. This directly conflicts with your advice, since that would make seeing the patterns substantially more difficult, if not impossible.

Well, okay.  I disagree with burning through them (i.e. working tons of tests without thorough review), but saving a test or two for the end isn't the worst thing in the world because they can be used to measure your scoring range.  Not the most important thing in the world, but a lot of people like to have an idea where they stand.  Whatevah.  It's doubtful you'll actually go through all 50+ tests anyway, even if you were trying to.  I'd vomit if I tried to do so many.

He never mentioned these patterns in LG's, so it's very likely that he's unaware of them (or at least bound by PowerScore not to discuss them).

If your instructor isn't aware of patterns in LG, I'd get a new instructor.  I'm doubt this is actually the case with a PowerScore instructor unless he really doesn't know their material.

I didn't mean that I wouldn't thoroughly review them. This is my system: 1) Take tests and mark questions I'm not sure about. I will review these even if I get them right. 2) Review marked questions and questions I missed.

I don't remember him mentioning any patterns in class, especially not regarding the mid-2000's change. I don't think he went beyond what the PowerScore books teach.

[EarlCat]

I didn't mean that I wouldn't thoroughly review them. This is my system: 1) Take tests and mark questions I'm not sure about. I will review these even if I get them right. 2) Review marked questions and questions I missed.

I don't remember him mentioning any patterns in class, especially not regarding the mid-2000's change. I don't think he went beyond what the PowerScore books teach.

That's cool.  I'd also advise doing a lot of work off the clock.  Taking preptests is okay, but taking time to really dig into questions is another.  Like try and get a 180 off the clock.  Take as much time as you want--take a couple days if you need to--but be sure of every single answer before you score it.

The evolution of the test isn't that important.  I was talking about patterns as in how different types of arguments work.

[lsatbeard]

I didn't mean that I wouldn't thoroughly review them. This is my system: 1) Take tests and mark questions I'm not sure about. I will review these even if I get them right. 2) Review marked questions and questions I missed.

I don't remember him mentioning any patterns in class, especially not regarding the mid-2000's change. I don't think he went beyond what the PowerScore books teach.

That's cool.  I'd also advise doing a lot of work off the clock.  Taking preptests is okay, but taking time to really dig into questions is another.  Like try and get a 180 off the clock.  Take as much time as you want--take a couple days if you need to--but be sure of every single answer before you score it.

The evolution of the test isn't that important.  I was talking about patterns as in how different types of arguments work.

Do you think a practice test or two per week would be sufficient? Perhaps taking one timed and one untimed? Timed work is still very important to me, because it lets me "feel" how much "room" I have in which to operate (if that makes sense), so I don't want to abandon it until the week before the test.

Oh, you weren't talking about patterns in Games? I see the patterns in LR arguments and answer choices pretty clearly.

I have almost every published LSAT, so how many times should I take the newer (mid-2000s) ones?

[EarlCat]

Do you think a practice test or two per week would be sufficient? Perhaps taking one timed and one untimed? Timed work is still very important to me, because it lets me "feel" how much "room" I have in which to operate (if that makes sense), so I don't want to abandon it until the week before the test.

Oh, you weren't talking about patterns in Games? I see the patterns in LR arguments and answer choices pretty clearly.

I have almost every published LSAT, so how many times should I take the newer (mid-2000s) ones?

Sorry if you've said this already, but I don't feel like rereading the whole thread.  Are you self studying or in a class?  Or did you already take a class and just working alone from now on?

A practice test or two a week is probably enough.  You want to touch enough material that you're exposed to all the things the test might throw at you, but you don't want to just be doing test after test after test.  This is more about quality than quantity, so really spend some quality time with these.  Write down why the arguments are flawed, why each wrong answer choice is wrong, why the right one is right.  Literally write down a sentence for each of those things.  Forcing yourself to explain it forces you to understand it.   

Same with games.  What type of game is it?  How do you know?  What other game have you seen that is most like it?  How is that game different?  What is this particular question looking for.  What's wrong with the four wrong answers?

Same with RC.  What's the thesis of the passage?  How many points of view are there?  Does the author take a position on the topic?  Who are these "critics"?  And again, what is this particular question looking for.  What's wrong with the four wrong answers?

A lot of courses will give you homework problems organized by type.  I find these quite valuable for finding patterns, which exist within all the sections of the test.  What you begin to discover is that there are only so many things that the test covers, and it does them over and over and over again.  Eventually, for every problem you see you can say, "been there, done that."

[lsatbeard]

Do you think a practice test or two per week would be sufficient? Perhaps taking one timed and one untimed? Timed work is still very important to me, because it lets me "feel" how much "room" I have in which to operate (if that makes sense), so I don't want to abandon it until the week before the test.

Oh, you weren't talking about patterns in Games? I see the patterns in LR arguments and answer choices pretty clearly.

I have almost every published LSAT, so how many times should I take the newer (mid-2000s) ones?

Sorry if you've said this already, but I don't feel like rereading the whole thread.  Are you self studying or in a class?  Or did you already take a class and just working alone from now on?

A practice test or two a week is probably enough.  You want to touch enough material that you're exposed to all the things the test might throw at you, but you don't want to just be doing test after test after test.  This is more about quality than quantity, so really spend some quality time with these.  Write down why the arguments are flawed, why each wrong answer choice is wrong, why the right one is right.  Literally write down a sentence for each of those things.  Forcing yourself to explain it forces you to understand it.   

Same with games.  What type of game is it?  How do you know?  What other game have you seen that is most like it?  How is that game different?  What is this particular question looking for.  What's wrong with the four wrong answers?

Same with RC.  What's the thesis of the passage?  How many points of view are there?  Does the author take a position on the topic?  Who are these "critics"?  And again, what is this particular question looking for.  What's wrong with the four wrong answers?

A lot of courses will give you homework problems organized by type.  I find these quite valuable for finding patterns, which exist within all the sections of the test.  What you begin to discover is that there are only so many things that the test covers, and it does them over and over and over again.  Eventually, for every problem you see you can say, "been there, done that."

I took the PowerScore full-length course, which ended just before the June LSAT. I feel like I have a good understanding of most of the LSAT, but my time on Games is dismal.

Thanks for that advice. It definitely seems like it would let me see the patterns you speak of in Games.

[LSATFun]

I think pretty much everything EarlCat says is spot on.

I would like to emphasize a couple things.  First, I always tell my students to focus on accuracy and understanding the underlying logical concepts first, then second to try to understand how the LSAT tests you on these and how limited the range of things they can throw at you is, and then third to focus on speed.  As far as "burning through preptests" goes, I have found that the problem is when people go through a test, get answers wrong (or right and don't know why), and then don't spend the necessary time to make sure they understand what happened so they end up making the same mistakes over 10 tests.  I agree with EarlCat that going over a test you have already done is not the end of the world in terms of practice, but I would say the one area where I have found it to be a problem is with the couple students I have had who have come to me with literally no recent tests they haven't taken.  In that instance it is hard sometimes where someone is after having done some tutoring since the student can't take a clean test under real conditions.

If you can go through the process of writing out why a wrong answer is wrong and why a right answer is right, it will help you understand the test much better -- even on question you don't think you struggled with.  It would probably be a good idea to do it with some other people studying for the test and compare answers.

[daniellat]

Has anyone gone through the Offical LSAT SuperPrep book (in particular the logic games section) yet?  I went through the Powerscore Logic Games book, was feeling pretty good and thought I gained a good grasp of the concepts, but then I tried the Official LSAT SuperPrep book and think I'm totally screwed now because I wasn't even close to getting the logic games portions completed (or correct).  Is the logic games portion of recent LSATs as difficult as those in the SuperPrep book?  If so, I might as well just give up now...

[EarlCat]

I thought the games in the SuperPrep were kinda strange, and probably not the kind of games you'd see nowadays, but the explanations offered in that book are very very good.