<p>i am currently studying for the lsat, and while i have broken 170 a few times, i seem to be constitently scoring 168. i was told to get the books kaplan 180 or princeton's lsat workout, which are supposed to help students break out of the 165-170 range. does anyone have experience with these books? i am worried that taking tests not made by lsac will just hurt my progress. and does anyone who scored high on the test have any experience with how long they were in the high 160's range and how they reached 170+. and help would be appreciated.</p>
<p>Did you get the Powerscore books? I would NOT recommend princeton nor kaplan. They may lower your score. And you are right, only take REAL past LSATs, not the fake ones. </p>
<p>I scored a 172 and started at a diagnostic of 163. I studied about 3-4 months (took Testmasters course, 1 month hardcore). During the second month I was still scoring in the upper 160s. On practice tests later on, my scores averaged mid-170s and on test day I scored a bit lower (as do most people.</p>
<p>It depends on what section you need help with the most though. Games and reasoning can be improved more than reading comp.</p>
<p>Hi mitssu -- the big questions at this point have more to do with assessment than planning. What was your diagnostic LSAT score? SAT score? And what's your section breakdown -- where are you missing questions? From there it'll be easier to advise you. I gained about nine points just from old LSAC tests, but if you've already gained nine points, you might be looking for something extra to push you over the edge.</p>
<p>how do you do better on the reading comp?</p>
<p>my diagnositc was a 158, so i have increased substantially, but i would really like to attend a top law school and would like to get at least 170+. i bought both bibles and have just been taking all the old tests. </p>
<p>my logical games is perfect or nearly so. my reading comp is also pretty good. however, my logical reasoning section is a bit more inconsisitent. for example in the two reasoning sections i will miss only 1 or two on one of them, and 6 or 7 on the other. is this normal? is one reasoning section harder than the other in a given test because my scores for those two sections rarely match. and my SATS were 1450. </p>
<p>im pretty comfortable with the test, but as mike said i am just looking for something a little extra to push me over the edge.</p>
<p>Hm. That's... bizarre. No, the two LR sections should be basically identical. I have no idea why that's happening, or where to even start advising you. I mean, I assume you're familiar with basic argument structure or you couldn't be doing that well on one section.</p>
<p>Do your lower LR sections tend to be the ones earlier or later in the test? If earlier, you might need warming up and I'd suggest trying to do 5 or so practice problems before starting each test. If the later one, you might be getting exhausted and should look at ways to increase your endurance.</p>
<p>If it's random, I don't really have any advice. Maybe look at the particular type of question you're getting wrong and see if you can discern any patterns.</p>
<p>This is advice I've dispensed quite a few times before, so I'll be copying and pasting from a post I made elsewhere. But the gist is that you're probably running into problems with certain LR question types. Figure out what those question types are and then drill yourself to death on them. Here's the more detailed response:</p>
<p>After I started scoring fairly consistently within my target range, I decided to push things further. I noted the incorrect answers in the LR sections I'd marked for every test I'd taken thus far (a little more than two dozen tests) and categorized them according to type. After that, I determined which question types were my weak points. Then I took about ten to fifteen fresh tests that I hadn't touched and noted all the questions from the top five or six categories of LR questions I missed most often (there's an online resource somewhere that actually tells you the numbers of the questions in any given test for a given LR question type). With that in hand, I went through drills of my most problematic questions types (i.e. I would sit with a stack of tests and go through every assumption question, every weaken question, etc.). Having gone through those drills, my LR technique definitely tightened up.</p>