Thanks for the response Sarah. I appreciate the input.
Actually Mike, to be honest, I was sold from the get go. After reading the free samples of the book, and all the instrucational blog posts I instantly bought the book. I felt as if you really had a strong grasp and understanding on the LSAT and how students go about it, it was almost as if you named all my problems, and explained in a very simple way as to why they are problems.
Thus, the real reason why I posted this was because I wanted to know what was in it for you, or what is your motivation, and I got my answer from #5. By the way, the statistics are really impressive.
I’m excited to start this journey with your book, as a veteran of the LSAT (this is going to be my second time), this book actually got me really excited to start studying again, I believe this will be able to get me the improvements that I always wanted.
I am going to include some points that I enjoyed in the introduction ch, I want to provide you with my unique insight on why I was attracted-so you could use this information some way-as a thank you for providing a means of studying that sparks excitement without breaking my wallet: (I took a two month Testmasters course, and paid an extra 700 for the extended online version (your website introduced me to velocity, and I wished I saw it before-hand)).
- Using your own natural ability to answer the problems and having it be as simple and clean as possible. This was never mentioned in Testmasters, I just stuck as closely to mastering their techniques because I believed this was the best way. Once I started thinking for myself after three months of failing, I was able to break into the 160s and have a stronger grasp on LR. & being simple and clean, haven’t tried this yet, because I’m not that far in the book, but I really like the idea behind it. I did almost every LR problem because I thought the more I did the more I would understand what they would do, and nothing would surprise me come test day. The idea of only focusing on two or three fundamental problems is interesting.
- I was totally “drawn to learning systems that are technical and (seemingly) sophiscated!” In fact, I didn’t know there are different ways or techniques to solving a problem.
- Training the elephant, training the unconcious. Again, never mentioned in Testmasters, very attractive idea.
- Focusing on skills and habits. This instantly caught my attention. I gauged my readiness by doing PT tests. The month before the LSAT, I took 6 PTs a week. Taking a day off for the Lord’s day, got to give thanks, you know, and from there it would be wildly inconsistent, and the reviews wouldn’t be that meaningful. I couldn’t grasp where I had problems, actually I believed that given enough time I would be able to figure out every LR problem, and my problem was just with timing. I was trying to somehow figure out a way I could create more time by making the easier ones easier or the hard ones easier, thus, test after test I was focusing on my timing.But using skills-and I love the quote because I think this is an awesome idea-“I am not confident about this logical reasoning quesiton because I don’t think I am accurate at doing Y.” For me it was, “okay, I’m not ready because I’m scoring X.” But to think of it this way is genius because first you could grasp where you’re weak, drill it, then move on. The outcome, you are confident you can answer that type of LR on test day with ease and grace and move on.
I’m excited to start this journey Mike, expect me to be an avid user on this site, and I’ll do some free promoting!