Hi. I took April LSAT then scored 158 from the test (I am planning to cancel this score since I purchased the LSAT score preview). It is not a horrible result as a first-time test taker, but disappointing for me b/c I am aiming the score around 165 as my target.

I know I am looking forward to substantial rise, but I wish to ask: do you think is it possible for me to get 165 in just three weeks?

My average PT score is around 160 - 165, depending on questions, conditions..etc. In usual, it stays around 160-162 and reach up to 165 on a lucky day.

Now I am preparing for June LSAT, which is only three weeks away from now (I will take the test in South Korea btw), and wish to ask for some advices about my plan and feasibility of getting this target score.

I am not really worrying about LG since I have gotten -0, -1, or -2 in most (almost all) recent attempts. I think what should I do is taking a section drill in every day or two then getting more comfortable with this section.

My LR scores are really inconsistent. Sometimes I get -3, sometimes it drops down to -9. I've considered the reason why. For now, I suppose one reason lies on the moment when I fall into a loophole. When I cannot understand points of some questions, I often get to think too deeply then feel some obviously wrong answer choices look correct (I regret a lot on this type of questions when I review). Therefore, I am re-reading Powerscore, LSAT trainer, Notes I've taken from 7Sage courses, and wrong questions to specify a proper thinking strategy I should hold during a test thus I can return to this task whenever I try to fall into a loophole. I am also taking a section drill in every two days to clarify whether this is working or not.

RC is my weakest section. I usually get -7 and get almost half wrong when I completely screwed it up (not really often). I've re-read a LSAT trainer to identify the reason why, as I've done in LR, then found out the fact that I often focus on a tree instead of a forest. When I reach to questions about a specific part of passage, I focus too much on the part they specified then neglect/forget a general purpose or main points of the work. This made me missing a whole point during the test then getting wrong on both general and specific questions. Therefore, to overcome this bad habit, I am writing down a purpose of each passage whenever I review the passages I've done and taking a section drill every day to adapt myself into a more general perspective. + I'm especially struggling with a comparative passage because I am really, REALLY bad at it. I often miss the relationship between two passages and distort a point of the Passage A while reading the Passage B. Thus, if you have any specific tip on solving a comparative passage's questions, I am happy to hear that.

I am planning to take a full PT once or twice per week (may take 3 PTs in a last week or two), depending on the amount of time for review. In between each PT, I will take two section drills almost every day while I review. (LG, RC for day 1, LR, RC for day 2...) I planned like this because I think what should I do right now is clarifying the BEST thinking strategy for me for each section, not just mechanically taking PTs over and over again. I believe this may bring my score up substantially.

How do you think about the plans above? Well, even I am not really optimistic on getting the score I am aiming for, but nevertheless, I wish to do my best under the current circumstance. Therefore, I am happy to hear any comment/advice. If you have any tip on question solving (especially on RC and LR), it would be grateful if you can share.

I don't understand how E is the answer. I can we say that it must true that some of his friends must be lying? Is it cause we know that John isn't unique from them and knows no person who smoked 40 cigarettes a day for the past 40 years

and yet who is really fit and well?

What insights or resources helped you to conquer Reading Comp?

I am having a hard time understanding why 'D' is the correct answer choice. I initially chose 'A' as my answer, yet obviously, this was incorrect. I was hoping someone could break it down for me and explain why 'D' is correct and why 'A' is incorrect. Thank you in advance

Please explain how the correct answer was determined.

So, I just finished the MC/MSS section of the program. It seems I am still struggling with it here and there. With it being complete, I am reviewing notes trying to figure out how to do it faster and better, but obviously I have already been exposed to the questions in the course. Outside of the actual practice tests, is there another way I can study those sections independent of the whole test to hopefully gain a mastery of it?

Why is the correct answer D? As opposed to E, I can understand that no where in the text does it show that in order for a consumer to purchase the merchandise, they must have the ability to verify any and all claims regarding it. Yet, for choice D, I am having a hard time understanding why there would be a contradiction made.

This is the question I found in PT 19 section 1, third game.

If F is assigned to b2, G is assigned to b2.

If V is assigned to b1, W is assigned to b2.

Does it mean that if F is in b1, G can be b2 or b1?

Does it mean that V is in b2, W can be in b1 or b2?

I follow the logic F b2 -> G b2, but not the opposite direction, so G can be in any position when F is in b1.

I hope it is correct.

Can two arguments that are contrapositives of one another be considered parallel in a parallel argument question? #help

Hello everyone, I am planning on taking the June 2022 LSAT… I have been studying for a while… I am having a hard time getting my practice test scores to where I really need them to be and really dont know where to start in diagnosing where I am going wrong… I am feeling a little overwhelmed. Any guidance would be appreciated :)

Does this mean that the sufficient alone is enough for the conclusion to be drawn and once the conclusion can be drawn, the necessary is a must?

Can someone explain to me how Japan is a “model” if they are in a shortage. I’ve been trying to understand this for the past 6hrs

Hi everyone, I just found out that LSAC has plans to gradually remove the logic games section from the LSAT supposedly through 2023. Was just wondering if anyone knows whether this next testing cycle is going to contain the logic games section...

What is the difference, can someone please enlighten me.

Anyone have advice on determining when a flaw question has jumped from a correlation to a cause and effect argument? Each flaw question I do with correlation and causation in the mix, I never can identify when the AC is 'infers cause from mere correlation'. Any help is appreciated! :)

I am signed up to take the June LSAT and I am behind on my course. I am currently 77% of the way through the CC meaning that I have 50 hours left to finish it. I have not done any PT's since my diagnostic. I have about a month until my test. Do I push through the 50 hours of CC or do I jump into PT's and do that for the next month?

So I picked C during BR after I had mapped it out using lawgic but turns out E is the answer. I dont really understand why E is answer. Help please :)

Admin Note: Edited title. Please use the format: "PT#.S#.Q# - brief description of the question"

Hi everyone, I've been rolling around in this question for a very long time and still have some fundamental questions so would be great if someone can confirm my thinking/help answer those questions. Thanks in advance!

Stimulus breakdown:

P: The robots that are being designed are the ones that can be maintained with the least expensive, least skilled human labor possible

C: So robots won't eliminate demeaning work, they're just gonna basically substitute one "demeaning job" for another

In more human terms, the argument is saying that if there are 100 people assembling car parts in a factory (assuming that we call that a demeaning job), then the addition of robots will basically take those 100 jobs and turn it into 100 jobs of monitoring the robots (which they also assume is a demeaning job).

My question: It seems like this question makes us assume that "hazardous and demeaning work" is the same as "least expensive, least skilled human labor." Is this a flaw or is this something we could be allowed to assume?

Answer Choices:

A) Using 2-step test, this does happen in that he ignores that some jobs might be eliminated if the factories don't use robots. But this is not the flaw because even if he did consider that, it doesn't hit on the conclusion that robots are really just substituting and not reducing the net # of demeaning jobs

B) Not descriptively accurate, so fails step 1

C) Descriptively accurate - he doesn't specify what the engineers think but fails step 2 because that's not an issue. Even if he hits on the sentiments of the engineer, it doesn't weaken his argument that the robots are just subbing demeaning jobs and not even decreasing the net #

D) Not descriptively accurate - there's not any fear that's happening here

E) Descriptively accurate and if he did acknowledge that it's possible that 1 robot could replace the 100 shitty jobs in the care factory with just 1, then his conclusion that "robots will not eliminate demeaning work" no longer holds.

My question here is though, is it okay that a weakening answer basically completely destroys the argument? I know we can't attack the premise but not sure where that stands for the conclusion/broader argument.

#help

Admin Note: Edited the title. Please use the format: "PT#.S#.Q# - brief description of question"

I’m having a really difficult time with LR. Is there an approach that works for you when taking the test under timed conditions? For instance, MBT means do this; MSS means look for this. Sort of a guide or plan of action for each type of question.

(PT9 S4- #13)

J: worked 3 years and will vacation 4 weeks this year

Everyone who worked 1-4 years entitled to 3 week vacation

Apply half of unused vacation to next year.

So it makes sense to me that J had two weeks left over from last year so she got half of that this year

(A) J did not use two weeks in which she was entitled to

(C) J only used one week in which she was entitled to

What is the difference between the two and how can I distinguish them?

I selected choice A, but the right answer is B. Can someone go over the answers and clarify please?

I get the questions correct under timed conditions, however, when I do blind review I change my answers from correct to incorrect.

Quick question -

I've just finished the grouping games intro videos on the CC. After watching JY walk through the solutions, I'm wondering, do we always just notate the necessary conditions on the gameboards?

For example, game 4 on PT26 (the lawmakers and scientists with one chairperson) has two not both rules. G -> /V and H -> /Y. Instead of notating G or H in, JY notates /V or /Y in, making the rules irrelevant since the necessary is satisified and the sufficient condition falls away.

In the game with the two boats with three adults and five children, there is a F -> G rule, and the contrapositive is /G -> /F. Instead of notating F or /G, JY instead notates G into the diagram. Once again, the necessary is satisfied and the sufficient condition falls away.

Is this what I'm supposed to be doing in my gameboard setup? Because if so, this might cut down some time while I'm doing games and even get my head straight when I'm doing the games.

If anyone has any advice on this, please let me know. I'm struggling most with just the gameboard set up (for most games) - as soon as I accomplish that, the questions are ridiculously easy.

I've completed Logic Game PT 1 - 52. Would you recommend I continue to do more recent PTs or redo the one I've already completed? I miss about 7-8 questions for a complete set (4 games) with timing (30 mins). When doing a blind review, I still miss 2-3 questions.

I'm preparing for the 2022 June LSAT. Any advice would be appreciated!

I submitted my paperwork for accommodations on April 7th (for the June test). This whole time it has been "under review" on LSAC and I looked today and there was nothing indicating that I had submitted paperwork. Ugh...I'm super frustrated. I emailed LSAC so I hope they get back to me soon. I never got an email indicating the I had submitted paperwork for accommodations. It just kept saying that they were under review so I assumed they received them. Has this happened to anyone before?