You know... that guy that you almost pity.

[Supergirl]

You don't understand the context.  First of all, he indicated that he did NO prepping.  None.  And he didn't know the number of sections there would be (he thought there were 4 sections one of which were experimental).  Also he went to a community college.  Plus we were in South Dakota... not that many geniuses in South Dakota.  There were 14 people in the class and I was scoring in the 170s so statistically speaking I should be the only one who even scored in the 160s+. 

 

[Zam]

Yes idiot, you are supposed to study EVERY section and practice EVERY section like a gazillion times before taking the test if you are serious about law school. 

Anyone have any similar stories of LSAT-takers that you almost pity because they will be lucky if they even get admitted into Cooley?

I think the condescension is really uneccessary.  There are plenty of people who are serious about law school, but who don't need to practice or study every section (some who don't need to practice or study at all).  For all you know this kid could have been scoring in the low 170s and was just trying to beef up his games skills to help his odds at YHS.  I know quite a few people here at Michigan, myself included, who never opened a prep book, took a prep course, or did more than a handful of practice exams. 

To be perfectly blunt, this statement is equally condescending.

[Tetris]

Whatever.  You guys are just stunned by my intelligence.  Send me a postcard from Cooley.  I'll be somewhere in Cambridge, MA 02138. 

And seriously what the hell crawled up everyone's a**.  This is an internet forum.  Who f*ing cares who says what.  Jesus.  Who called the arrogance police? 

[TeresaPinfold]

The ONLY reason I practiced any sections besides the Logic Games was so I could find my actual score on the test. If you really think you need special study to know how to do RC identical to a million standardized tests or trivial logic, you are the one to be pitied.

(Arrogant enough?)

[Tetris]

The ONLY reason I practiced any sections besides the Logic Games was so I could find my actual score on the test. If you really think you need special study to know how to do RC identical to a million standardized tests or trivial logic, you are the one to be pitied.

(Arrogant enough?)

Ummm... I disagree with your premise that the LSAT RC is "identical" to "a million standardized tests."  First of all, the topic matter changes (science, art/culture, law).  Second of all, the question prompts are different. 

Also even if I did concede that your premise is true then I disagree with the assumed premise that "if a test section is similar to test sections in other standardized tests then you do not need to study for it."  That assumption is needed to make the conclusion "thus you should not have to study for the RC section" sound.  And ummm... no.  That's dumb.  Obviously training oneself to recognize elements in the structure and so forth will tend to give one an edge in answering questions quickly and effectively.  Even if all my training made it so I was able to get one more answer right on the test, that one answer will probably be 1 point on the test.  So it's worth it considering all the people applying to law schools.

There's some more flaws with your argument but instead of wasting my time pointing them out to you I will let you try to figure them out.

[TeresaPinfold]

The additional information I offered was not intended to be complete explanations of just why exactly RC and LR are so ridiculously easy, but they do give at least a hint. I guess I'll put it simpler terms for you: RC and LG are easy for smart people, so your belief in necessary study shows you must be dumb.

Not that I necessarily believe that, but the information available certainly defines limits on your intelligence much more conclusively than it does on his. It's at least in doubt whether he may be a smart person who can already get perfect, but it's not in any doubt that you are too dull to do well without huge amounts of study, and, in fact, you seem to be so far away that it doesn't even occur to you that not all are so weak-minded.

[Thistle]

i pity your future classmates.

you sir, are a trollhole.

[Lindbergh]

The ONLY reason I practiced any sections besides the Logic Games was so I could find my actual score on the test. If you really think you need special study to know how to do RC identical to a million standardized tests or trivial logic, you are the one to be pitied.

(Arrogant enough?)

Bottom line: unless you get a 176+, you're dumb not to prep.  Period.

(Unless you don't really care about where you study, or scholarships.)

[Hank Rearden]

You don't understand the context.  First of all, he indicated that he did NO prepping.  None.  And he didn't know the number of sections there would be (he thought there were 4 sections one of which were experimental).  Also he went to a community college.  Plus we were in South Dakota... not that many geniuses in South Dakota.  There were 14 people in the class and I was scoring in the 170s so statistically speaking I should be the only one who even scored in the 160s+. 

 

Tetris obviously doesn't know you, Shanny.   

[Tetris]

The additional information I offered was not intended to be complete explanations of just why exactly RC and LR are so ridiculously easy, but they do give at least a hint. I guess I'll put it simpler terms for you: RC and LG are easy for smart people, so your belief in necessary study shows you must be dumb.

Not that I necessarily believe that, but the information available certainly defines limits on your intelligence much more conclusively than it does on his. It's at least in doubt whether he may be a smart person who can already get perfect, but it's not in any doubt that you are too dull to do well without huge amounts of study, and, in fact, you seem to be so far away that it doesn't even occur to you that not all are so weak-minded.

Your argument SO isn't supported.  Jesus.  What about my argument that even increasing one's score 1 point is worthy enough of an endeavor to pursue (and in all likelihood the 1 point is more like 5 or 10 points with practice)?  If you believe that "intelligent" people must be able to score as high on the LG and RC sections on their first practice test as they will on their real test regardless of the amount of practice they put in then I am going to call you on your B.S.  That is B.S. and you know it.