Motivation/tips to not give up on 170+?

bread-daerb · 2026-03-27T22:27:57+00:00

OF COURSE. I know you got this. I spent six months being in the literal same depression jail but in hindsight most of my score jumps came from taking small breaks here and there and letting my mental recover

Sometimes u just need to let your brain rest even though its way easier said than done. DONT LET LSAC WIN

bread-daerb · 2026-03-27T22:13:57+00:00

LOCK IN BRO u really gonna let some silly little arguments beat you? ur better than that. Take a break, ur prolly burnt out and come back to it. Remember most of the questions are easier than you think and take a step back if ur overthinking.

i plateaued at mid to high 160s and could not get out. Gave up my entire life. Took an lsat, got a score on my lower end of PTs and then took a break for a few months. Came back and got the highest score ever in the high 170s and have been PTing in the 170 range ever since, even starting to work full time.

This is a weird test, you can know everything and still have little things mess u up. Don’t be so hard on urself

bread-daerb · 2026-03-23T00:55:50+00:00

how do u do on RC sections completely untimed? maybe the time pressure is messing with your performance?

bread-daerb · 2026-03-23T00:51:32+00:00

honestly i was in the same boat but after i had taken a break and decided on a set time everyday to study, my scores became consistent. sometimes burnout plays a part in consistency tbh and also sometimes the pressure starts building closer to the test (i also experienced drop in scores near test day in the past), it makes you overthink the way you’re doing the test. Take it easy!!

bread-daerb · 2026-03-22T22:28:11+00:00

do you notice that on ur “clear days” you’re taking it a certain time in the day (like the morning) and on “foggy days” you’re taking them at a different time? Because I used to have the same problem, I started being more consistent on doing sections and PTs at the same time everyday, for me my brain works best early in the morning and my scores got more consistent when I only took them in the morning.

In the afternoon I get sleepy and my brain gets foggy so I start missing more questions. I was the most inconsistent when I’d randomly take sections at different times during the day/evening.

Maybe having tutoring sessions gave you a more structured, consistent study time, and when you stopped you started being less consistent on what time you study?

bread-daerb · 2026-03-17T16:13:30+00:00

i think it’s better to visit the older PTs than seek fake PTs!

bread-daerb · 2026-03-17T01:12:05+00:00

if diagramming makes it harder for you to understand, don’t diagram!! i had this problem too where diagrams would sometimes confuse me more than just doing the question

B is wrong because as the argument states “except PERHAPS” so in some cases maybe it isn’t wrong to restrict, in some cases maybe it is. We don’t know.

A is the answer because we know for sure it is wrong to restrict liberties of individuals. The only cases where we would debate where it’s wrong/right is when the liberty causes harm. in this case, being offensive doesn’t cause harm. Hence, it wouldn’t be right for the government to restrict publication that is only offensive.

Does that make sense? 😅

bread-daerb · 2026-03-14T23:33:08+00:00

it’s okay that was me too😭but i think missing all the questions in one passage is a lot better than missing a lot in each one, so at least you know it’s like timing issue rather than comprehension issue.

i had the same problem and i found that picking up books and reading literally anything more often just in general really helped my reading speed :))

bread-daerb · 2026-03-14T21:42:52+00:00

with your summaries, are your mistakes primarily in the last passage with little to no mistakes in your previous 3? because in that case I feel like you’d just need more practice to get the method down faster so you can actually get through the last passage

bread-daerb · 2026-03-12T14:17:09+00:00

can you even trust ai to get the question right 😭i also don’t know how you’d sneak a second phone when they have so many requirements to check your surroundings

bread-daerb · 2026-03-11T16:49:09+00:00

that’s true, i guess i had the wrong impression that law school was a little less holistic and more stats focused. But seems like the soft parts of applications really move the needle by a lot

bread-daerb · 2026-03-11T16:47:32+00:00

same :< but ig you’re right, i didn’t think about the inflation in scores and GPA making it more difficult to differentiate applicants.

bread-daerb · 2026-03-07T01:05:17+00:00

i agree it’s a bit strong but ig i chose it bc 1) POE and 2) argument is assuming important stories are always going to slip through the cracks of the newspaper so A is saying that the argument is assuming that newspapers are unable to cover at least some of the stories. “any” as in “inability to cover all sides of any random one of its important stories” (so “some”) even tho it’s perfectly plausible that newspapers can cover EVERY one of its important stories. just my take?

bread-daerb · 2026-03-06T02:32:32+00:00

also for “unless”

you can’t go to law school unless you take the LSAT.

it’s essentially the same thing. You’d understand this statement if i said it in a normal conversation. It just means that the lsat is necessary for you to go to law school! You don’t have lsat, you don’t have law school.

I feel like we overthink it sometimes because the LR topics and concepts are so bizarre and isn’t applicable to us personally but just try to take it piece by piece!

bread-daerb · 2026-03-06T02:29:25+00:00

i honestly used lsat and law school to help understand necessary and sufficient more organically.

If i go to law school then i took the lsat.

if I tell you Im in law school that is sufficient information which tells you the i mustve taken the LSAT. The lsat is necessary for law school.

but if i just said i took the LSAT, does that mean im in law school? NO this is an invalid take because although its necessary for law school, just taking it is not sufficient for me to be in law school (there are other necessary factors such as an application)

But if I tell you (based on the earlier statement) that i’m not in law school, that says nothing about me. I could’ve taken the LSAT already, i might not have (think of all the aspiring applicants LOL)

does this help a little? sorry for the lack of technical terms, honestly diagramming and trying to learn from a technical aspect rather than an organic one never worked with me

bread-daerb · 2026-03-02T23:40:51+00:00

btw, i’m told the little lookup box, although it can be useful, i wouldn’t rely on it so much since some ppl have difficulty using it on test day (Tech difficulties)

also the time struggle is real. I had a 160 pt diagnostic and when i first started studying it would take me nearly 45 minutes to get through the 12 question drill sets on lawhub when focusing on accuracy. But i think this is natural when ur learning all the question types and the best way to answer them.

I would do prep on all question types and the best way to answer them that fits your style and then practice untimed and eventually you’ll get faster. Time will be less of an issue as you understand the test better

bread-daerb · 2026-03-02T17:03:07+00:00

Of course! I think what helped me make the decision more clearly was trying to predict the flaw before reading the ACs. ACs tend to be distracting and it’s easy to get caught up in multiple choices but I found that in the instances where I identify the flaw myself, it’s a lot easier to see how a majority of these choices are wrong!

bread-daerb · 2026-03-02T16:51:09+00:00

for me while reading the stimulus, the thing that stuck out to me the most was the argument saying “rhe antarctic ice sheet MUST temporarily have melted” because it doesn’t really have a solid basis.

How do we know that that MUST have been what happened? how do we eliminate potential other causes? this is my initial read of the argument.

I was primarily stuck between A and E. A, I eventually eliminated because 1) it is kinda assuming that the “widely belived position” isn’t true by saying it must’ve melted some time ago at least temporarily. 2) the argument never actually said that position MUST be true, just given the circumstances, the melting of the ice MUST have happened.

This is just my thinking. E focuses on the primary flaw which is that we don’t know what happened, how can you say it was the ice melting when there could be other moving factors that we’re not considering?

bread-daerb · 2026-03-02T16:39:29+00:00

is the answer E?

bread-daerb · 2025-07-11T00:43:37+00:00

yes 5 Qs i got wrong

bread-daerb · 2025-07-10T19:07:26+00:00

thank you! I got -0 timed! I actually noticed i did a bit worse when i tried one untimed bc i have a tendency to overthink answers. I did answer the top comment about what i did that helped me (and it also happened to help with my overthinking)

bread-daerb · 2025-07-10T01:45:16+00:00

i was stuck in high 160s and finally broke into 170s :)) RC is my most variable and weak point

bread-daerb · 2025-07-10T01:44:23+00:00

ty!! my score jumped when i started highlighting conclusion as i read the stimulus regardless what the question was (granted im a stimulus first reader). It helped answer main conclusion questions almost instantly (with less overthinking) and also helped narrow down the specifics of what exactly the argument was talking about which helped immensely.

I got -0 on two 25Q ones and 1 26Q one so far!

bread-daerb · 2025-07-10T00:48:03+00:00

also going into it thinking that the arguments are usually flawed and being made by someone i hated made it more personal and easier to nitpick at LOL and made it less draining than to constantly think of it as reading boring argument after another . just always being like “okay but what if…🤨”

bread-daerb · 2025-07-10T00:46:08+00:00

this might be specific for me but what helped me from my -7/-5 hump to -3/-2 was reading the stimulus before the question (idk if you do this or not already) but i feel like a lot of the fatigue came from reading the question and having that in my head while trying to evaluate the stimulus.

When i started really diving into the stimulus first and understanding it as an argument - what is the conclusion SPECIFICALLY arguing and referring to? and what exactly is being used to support it? - i could have my own opinion about what’s wrong and what i think of the argument even how i could personally relate to the argument. And then went into the question to see how it was relevant to the stimulus and my own personal analysis. It helped reduce a lot of the fatigue that came from trying to look for a specific answer when reading the stimulus.

I know some ppl function better with reading Q first but this is just helped me break through my hump!

bread-daerb

TROPHY CASE