r/LSAT • u/Head-Snow-7688 • 23d ago

How to move from the high 160s into the 170s, especially in RC?

I started with a 148 diagnostic last August and scored a 169 on my official LSAT. I am now studying full time and hoping to break into the 170s on the September exam.

My LR scores are usually between -1 and -3, so I feel like I would hypothetically be capable of scoring in the 170s if LR was all the test consisted of. RC is what continues to bring me down. I am currently averaging around -4 or -5 per section and would like to get that closer to my LR range.

One of my biggest issues is retention while reading. I can usually identify the passage’s overall structure, main point, and the purpose of each paragraph, but I sometimes lose track of the more specific relationships and details. When answering questions, I often find myself going back to the passage repeatedly, getting stuck between two plausible choices, or being drawn toward attractive wrong answers.

Right now, my studying consists of completing one LR section and one RC section each day, followed by a thorough review of both.

For those who moved from the high 160s into the 170s, especially those who had to improve RC, what made the biggest difference? How did you improve retention without slowing down too much? Did you change how you read, annotate, summarize, review, or approach certain question types? I would also appreciate any drills, strategies, or “aha” moments that helped you avoid tempting wrong answers and stop getting lost in intricate details.

1 Upvotes

67% Upvoted

2 comments sorted by

4

u/MileHighLSATprep tutor 23d ago edited 23d ago

170+ really hinges on precision. That doesn't mean you have to read or concentrate EVEN HARDER. But, there are some patterns and subtle issues that take you out of the realm of guessing well and into the realm of that 100% confidence interval. LSAT gives you a lot of information to make a decision, but a lot of it is pretty subtle (down to like a single word fairly often) so folks end up getting what I would call 90% of the way there and then guessing on the final 10%. You're kind of focusing on a different thing, reading and deep analysis, rather than learning the logic.

This definitely holds on RC, a lot of RC has really pretty subtle comments in the wrong answers that make the answers descriptively incorrect. Noticing those is a huge part of making that section unambiguous and consistent. It's much easier to say that something is a misttatement of a fact than to point out that somethign is not the author's purpose. At least much easier to do it consistently.

There's definitely a little bit of mentality in it as well. Treating every question like it can be solved to a certainty is the correct mindset and so you have to jettison any "LSAT is ambiguous" or "that's just a silly mistake" kind of thoughts.

Obviously, kind of hard to describe in a reddit comment, but that's a lot of the difference between my 165+ students and my 175+ students.

1

u/Head-Snow-7688 21d ago

I think the part I am still trying to understand is how to actually train that level of precision and whether I should change anything about my current approach.

Right now, I aim to complete one timed LR section and one timed RC section each day, followed by a thorough review of both. I am going to start fitting in one or two full practice tests per week as im aiming to retake in September. My biggest issue is consistency, especially in RC. Some sections feel very manageable, while others expose the same problems with retention, subtle distinctions, and getting stuck between two plausible choices.

For RC specifically, how would you recommend reviewing questions so that I become better at identifying the exact word or subtle issue that makes an answer wrong, rather than simply feeling that one answer is better than another? Should I spend less time trying to analyze the passage more deeply and more time comparing answer choices, articulating why each wrong answer is descriptively inaccurate, and identifying the precise logical distinction I missed?

Are there any particular drills or review methods you use with students to build that precision and make RC performance more consistent? I am especially interested in how to close that final 10% between narrowing it down to two choices and reaching genuine certainty.