Hey guys im reaching out to anyone that can offer me some advice. I do pretty well untimed and timed I do horribly. I took the June LSAT and scored a 150 and my target is a 168+ Ive been studying since August, and I am signed up for the November exam but I took another practice test and I am still around the same area, Idk why when its times all my organized thought goes out the window I have raging anxiety and I cant think straight and stumble on works. It like the episode of spongebob with all the mini spongebob running around like crazy. Basically it is just extremely hard for me, I have gotten significantly better at Logical reasong although more improvement will help as well as continuously foolproofing LG. My biggest struggle is 100% Reading comprehension I mean like bad I don't know what it is. Anyway I am applying for Fall 2020 cycle if I took the January would that be too late, I pretty much have the rest of my application supplements already done, its just this exam I need to get out of the way. Please anyone help me, I feel like a failure and I just don't know what to do.

(Also aiming for a good school not necessarily a T-14, in terms of application cycle and lsat date)

Hi everyone! I’m taking the lsat tomorrow in Walnut Creek. For those of you who don’t know, Walnut Creek is 15 minutes away from the Lafayette fire. I just called the hotel and they said that they currently don’t have any power and are unsure of when the electricity will come back. Assuming that that electricity is still out tomorrow, will the test be cancelled? If so, will LSAC send a notice? How do reschedules work?

I thought I had been getting better at LR, I took this section and got -9 which is no better than when I began studying. Kinda discouraging but I think this was a really hard LR section.

I got almost perfect RC, missed one,because I misread the question. Was it easy for you too? Shoot me any questions!

I don't know about you guys but something I have had to contend with since the digital format is striving to read LG rules as accurately as possible. It's just something about the digital format that makes misreading or completely missing a rule more likely for me, which had never been an issue before. On RC and LR this isn't catastrophic but on LG it is, as you will blunder the entire game from such a tiny mistake as missing a "not" within a rule. So here are some tips for those who have encountered the same problem as I did.

Read slow. This is just great across all sections. Slow is smooth, smooth is fast. It's especially hard on LG since we want to bank as much time as possible for the miscellaneous monster, but in the end rushing will more likely cause blunders than it will bank time.

Tick the rules with your highlighter. By ticking I mean just highlight either the first letter or the first word of the rule statement. This way you are accounting that you've taken the rule into consideration. If you try and highlight the whole statement you risk highlighting the rule underneath it by accident as you lift your finger off the screen, fickle as touchscreens are, which has happened to me before.

DON'T FORGET TO TRY TO SCROLL DOWN THE RULES PAGE. This has happened more often then I'd like to admit. You're in the zone, translating your rules, not realizing there are more rules underneath the ones you just wrote until you get to a question and things just aren't making sense. Frustration and panic ensues and throws you out of your focused mode. You can always bounce back from a blunder of course, but it's always best to just avoid it from the beginning.

Return to the rules and set up when no answers appear as correct. Generally you will find that you misread something or missed a rule. Often times this means you have to start the game all over to account for the corrected mistake. You might start to feel dread and start to think "it's not even worth it to finish the section now, I won't have time." Although it's always unpleasant to start over, you shouldn't think you won't finish. Full proofing trains us to finish with extra time and it's always possible to bounce back from a mistake. Perhaps you will have to auto-select for the last three questions, but that still leaves good chances for a strong performances on games.

Powerscore says 1 way to weaken a casual conclusion is to show that “Although effect occurs, the cause did not occur.”

This is bc (According to powerscore Lr bible) the effect is always produced by the same cause.

But in PT 88.4.24, AC A seems to show no cause but effect, which seems to fit into powerscore’s definition of weakening causality. Is AC A wrong because of “sometimes”, which makes that AC too weak?

For me, AC A seems to mean in cases without traumatic experience, medical condition causes cortisol change.

Given that the original conclusion is traumatic event causes cortisol change, would AC A fall into the no cause, but effect category? Would it be right if the word “sometimes” was removed from AC A

Thanks

Admin note: edited title; please use the format of "PT#.S#.Q# - [brief description]"

Hi guys,

I have been studying seriously since the beginning of September but I just don't seem to be improving very much. My diagnostic score was a 162 (pt43). Since then, these are my scores:

2007: 163

73: 158

39: 165

25: 163

78: 165

53: 165

75: 164

My weakest section is logic games. In LR in the latest tests I have been getting between 2-4 wrong. and RC is 2-4 wrong too. Should I just keep doing games as JZ suggests? I know it is a decent score but with my diagnostic I had pretentiously hoped I would see quick improvements. I am taking the Nov LSAT.

Thank you!!

We're looking for the NA.

P1: When a driver is talking on her cell, the person on the other end of the call can't see if her driving conditions become difficult.

P2: If the driver is instead talking to a passenger, the passenger is usually quiet or can help by warning about any difficulties.

Therefore, talking on a cell while driving is more dangerous than talking to a passenger.

What absolutely HAS to be true?

E ) Talking on a cell is no more dangerous than talking to a passenger who continues to talk during difficult driving situations. This is certainly not our NA since our conclusion is about talking on a cell being MORE dangerous, especially because the continuing to talk could be the passenger providing helpful warnings.

D ) If a passenger's helpful warnings are just as likely to distract the driver, this actually weakens our argument.

C ) Don't give a hoot what the drivers believe.

B ) Of course driving is less dangerous if the driver isn't talking to anyone, but that's not what we're comparing.

A ) For this argument to hold up, we have to assume that speaking to a driver during a difficult driving situation increases the danger (ie, risk of accident), the one exception being (unless) the person she's speaking to is providing helpful warnings. Bingo. I overlooked this AC at first because it's asking us to infer that since the person on the other end of the call can't see the difficult driving situation, they are going to keep talking. But I guess that's a small enough and fair enough inference.

Can anyone explain this question for me? Have no idea why the right answer is right and how it weakens argument. Thanks

Admin note: edited title; please use the format of "PT#.S#.Q# - [brief description]"

So I am scheduled to finish the CC this Friday. Haven't taken a full PT since the diagnostic but, should this be enough time with PTs etc to be prepared for the Nov exam/?

Thank you!

I wonder whether can we make an inference of A←s→C from A‑m→B‑m→C? (reference: PT62 section 2 Q19)

For sure, it would be an invalid argument if an inference of A‑m→C is made.

Neither the lessons from The Valid Argument Forms nor the from The Invalid Argument Forms include this inference.

Seems ok to me.

Does anyone else thing AP questions are getting harder? I chose D for this because it reads more like a clarification - or even a necessary assumption - than direct support for the conditional conclusion. #help

Admin note: edited title; please use the format of "PT#.S#.Q# - [brief description]"

Hey all,

I did some analysis for the first passage of PT88. Here is the link to it: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RQOfouoAh5m5pReXF3E4u-Ibmi803v5OEcXsTWnxexA/edit?usp=sharing

Hopefully someone finds this useful before JY's videos come out! Let me know what you think or if you have any questions on my reasoning!

I do well on most logic games and have also improved in Logical Reasoning. However, I have seen little to no improvement in RC and am unsure of how to accomplish any sense of improvement. Can you please suggest ways in which I can attempt to improve?

I especially encounter this problem when I run into difficult passages which I cannot decipher in the section but also in passages which I think I understand the content but end up having multiple wrong answers in.

Is the test on the tablet issued in landscape style or portrait style? I want to practice it the way it comes up on the tablets at the testing site on my ..laptop (tablet style).

I got this question wrong because I misidentified the conclusion. I thought the last sentence was the conclusion and the second sentence was a premise(which didn’t seem that relevant at the time). Both sentences are conditional.

My question is in these questions, how can I tell what is the main conclusion? I was not super familiar with the topic(microbes/methane) and I had trouble identifying the main conclusion, so I just poorly assumed the last sentence was the main conclusion. But how could have I had known that the 2nd sentence was the main conclusion and not the last, given that both sentences were conditional statements and it was not super obvious or intuitive (and it was hard using the “because” test of “because P, then C” since it was difficult to determine what was P and C due to the obscure stimulus topic on microbes/methane?

Admin note: edited title; please use the format of "PT#.S#.Q# - [brief description]"

So I just printed out the ticket for the test next Monday and was checking test location on google map. However, the weird thing is that the hotel name (which is the test center) does not match the address provided on the ticket! It says “fiesta Henderson hotel,” which seem to locate in Henderson rather than Las Vegas. The address on the ticket is “3510E Tropicana ave, Las Vegas, NV, 89119,” and google map shows no hotel at all in that address. I’m so freaked out!! The test is only one week away and I need to fly to Las Vegas to take it. Should I contact the hotel or LSAC? How fast will LSAC respond? Should I write an email or just call them?

Feeling a headache today, which is reminding me to send positive vibes and wish calming, clear thoughts to everyone. Let's remember to lighten the study load this week, breathe, slow down and stay confident. We are superstars, and we're going to knock it out of the park!

Anything, based on 7Sage's difficulty measure, between level 1-3 I do with ease, I can spot the conclusion, the support, and prephrase an answer almost verbatim. Not quite the same mastery with level 4's, but I can still spot the flaw easily and prephrase a good answer. These level 5 problems are a completely different story. Sometimes I have difficulty even spotting the conclusion, I cannot spot the flaw, and definitely not prephrase a good answer. It is like everything falls apart with these questions, and sometimes when I think I got it down, I am stunned to find out what the right answer actually was. I do these problems with maybe 20-40% accuracy, 20% on a bad day and 40% on a good day. I would like some advice on how to get better at these tough LR problems. Any help appreciated.

Hey 7Sagers,

Here's the official September 2019 LSAT Discussion Thread.

**Please keep all discussions of the September 2019 LSAT here!**(/red)

Rules:

✅ You can identify experimental sections. 🙆‍♀️

You can say things such as the following:

❌ You can't discuss specific questions. 🙅‍♂️

You CANNOT say things such as the following:

Hi, I'm currently a 167-169ish scorer. My goal is T14, preferably East Coast schools with dreams of Penn/Columbia. Just hypothetically speaking, if I were to get a 167-169 in Nov and a 172 in January, what would you say is the better time to apply? Im thinking I could get that three point increase by January if I tried hard enough! I graduated from an international institute with a "Superior" (GPA of 3.78/4.3)

Hey guys, could someone help me understand why (e) is the correct answer? I seem to be able to produce at least one possible world in which everyone has flower arrangements with at least one use of lilies in it (U gets the LL block), and in which there are two people with the HR block (U and Z). As far as I can tell, I've got the antecedent setup/questions mostly right. It's just this last question that flummoxes me.

Thank you so much! Sorry for violating any norms here: I just signed up for the course and haven't yet got a sense of the norms yet!

Admin. note: slightly edited discussion title to fit formatting guidelines: "PT#.S#.Q# (G#) - brief description"

I struggled with figuring this out when I first started doing logic games so I hope it helps. If it's a grouping game where we are told each element within one category of elements must be played "at least x amount" (or some equivalent statement, and generally it will be 'at least once') it can be made into a chart. This is because with 'at least' there is no limit on how many times each individual game piece can reappear, making them not unique.

Anyone else taking it at the tourist nightmare hotel across from Penn Station?

I'm seeing a lot of LR questions worded with statements like "more likely" or "less likely."

e.g. people with university degrees are more likely to have dogs than cats

Can I interpret this sentence as university degree (positively CORR) dogs? Is there a better way to understand more likely/less likely sentences? Thanks in advance!