Practice Tests or Timed Sections?

LSAT Demon Daily listener Nate recently reached out with a question many LSAT students ask: What’s the best way to tackle practice tests? He was curious whether focusing on individual sections or committing to full-length exams was the right approach. The answer lies in using a mix of strategies tailored to individual progress and needs.

Combining Study Methods

Effective LSAT preparation involves a combination of drilling, timed sections, and full-length practice tests. Each serves a unique purpose in building skills and confidence for test day.

Drilling allows students to tackle one question at a time, immediately reviewing each mistake. Every LSAT question is its own lesson, forcing yourself to understand the question before moving on is the key to improving. Even questions answered correctly should be reviewed if there’s any uncertainty about the logic. Drilling strengthens foundational skills and allows students to practice solving each question without worrying about timing.

Timed sections mimic the pressure of a 35-minute section while keeping the focus on accuracy. Students should do timed sections regularly and review every wrong answer. Although the timer is on, timed sections should be approached the same way as drilling. Focus on getting every question you try correct. Guess any questions you don’t have the time to get to.

Full-Length Practice Tests: Full practice tests simulate the test day experience, helping to build confidence and comfort when taking four sections back-to-back. These should be incorporated periodically, especially as test day approaches or if nervousness about the full test format persists. When taking practice tests, it’s important not to let pressure impact how you approach each question. Think of timed practice tests as practice for ignoring the clock on test day.

The Drawbacks of Frequent Full-Length Tests

While full-length tests are valuable, relying on them too much—particularly in the early stages of prep—can be counterproductive. Students scoring in the 140s or 150s may encounter a high number of incorrect answers, which makes reviewing mistakes overwhelming. By the time review begins the reasoning behind certain choices might already be forgotten, reducing the effectiveness of the review process. Moreover, full tests take multiple hours, and many students end up skimping on review due to time constraints. Without a thorough review, the opportunity to learn from mistakes is lost.

Which is More Effective?

Drilling and timed sections focus on targeted skill-building. Smaller, manageable chunks of questions allow for deeper engagement with the material and more effective review. Reviewing mistakes immediately after a single question or section ensures that the reasoning behind errors is fresh and easier to address. Students are advised to allocate around 50% of study time to drilling and 50% to timed sections. Full-length tests can be added sparingly to acclimate to test day conditions.

Taking Full Practice Tests

For those in the earlier stages of preparation—scoring in the 140s or 150s—taking a full test every week is unnecessary. Instead, focus on mastering smaller sections and individual questions. As scores climb into the 160s and closer to target goals, full tests can be incorporated more frequently, perhaps once a month.

The key to improvement lies in consistently and thoroughly reviewing every mistake. Full tests should never come at the expense of proper review, as the insights gained from analyzing mistakes are what drive progress.

The Takeaway

LSAT preparation is most effective when it incorporates a balance of drilling, timed sections, and full-length practice tests. While full tests are essential for replicating test day conditions, they should not dominate your study time. Drilling and timed sections allow for focused learning and effective review, which are crucial for improvement.

Taking a full-length practice test occasionally is beneficial for building confidence and stamina, but success comes from understanding mistakes and learning from them, not from the sheer number of tests completed. A steady, consistent approach that prioritizes accuracy and learning will yield the best results.