Practice Test 42, Question 19 doesn't seem to offer any correct answer choice. (Please someone correct me.) The correct answer is supposed to be A.

While I have seen a slow, but steady timed PT score while prepping, and I was only a few questions from meeting my goal score on previous timed, in person PTs, I just took an in person timed PT and completely froze after the first section, thinking I bombed it. Now I'm really shaken up and am not sure what to to do with just a few days left. Should I finish/retake this PT? Should I just drill? How much should I drill? Should I postpone the test? I feel utterly defeated and as though the months of prep didn't even make a difference.

How do you spend those last 7 days?

I'm currently stressing out considering I completed the base 7sage course and have seen great increases in my scores (155 on diagnostic, 163 average, 167 max) throughout PT 30's-40's. My all time highest was just last week on PT 44 when I got a 167, so riding that high I took PT 85 this morning and got a 158. I haven't scored so low since July, and while I know it there is a degree of variety, a drop of 9 points within a week is very concerning. I have heard that recent PT's are slightly different, could this have contributed to it? I usually average about -4.4 on LR, -6.1 on LG, and -6.6 on RC. On 85 I got -7 on each LR, -6 on LG, and -9 on RC.

I'm trying not to let this get to my head, but November is my last chance to take the test (3rd try within a year). I could definitely use some advice on how to spend this final week. Should I go back to the basic lessons, keep drilling, or take another recent PT to hopefully do better and get the bad taste out of my mouth going into test day? As of now I am leaning towards taking another PT tomorrow for reassurance but I also don't want to burn myself out. No matter what I am taking Thursday and Friday completely off from studying for peace of mind.

Hey guys :)

I was just wondering if anyone has advice regarding RC. I've tried drilling the memory method again and again but it just doesn't seem to be working. RC is the thing holding me back from hitting 170 because I don't have the slightest chance of even reading one of the passages. I'm stuck and I'm not sure where to go from here. I think I'm understanding the material but I'm spending about 6-7 minutes answering the questions.

Can someone explain this to me? This is a pfmr question but the answer looks like a contrapositive based on JY's explanation. For some reason I can't seem to understand why this is flawed and the comments don't have any additional help. Thanks.

Admin note: edited title

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-74-section-4-question-25/

A will go to B except when C happens.

Maybe it can be done conditionally, I'm not sure. I've been thinking about writing C as a sufficient (either positive or negated), but I realized that except is saying something totally different then our typical conditional "lawgic." Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think it's saying that when it's satisfied, the rule is irrelevant and when it's negated, nothing happens----the rule still stands while also not triggering anything. This is polar opposite of the way our conditionals are understood. So I was thinking it ought be represented in a special way.

J.Y. used the diagram method, but it doesn't really sit well with my style of understanding. I was wondering what others do.

Thanks!

PT 54 (June 2008), LR1 Q9. This is a Necessary Assumption question I got wrong initially but got correct on the blind review after grudgingly going with (A).

Here's the argument as I see it: the new minimum wage increase means that the museum's expenses exceed its revenue, so now it has to make adjustments that will impact museum-goers.

The correct answer is (A): Some of the museum's employee's are not paid significantly more than the minimum wage.

I skipped over (A) initially because it sounded so weak the way it's phrased with the word 'significantly.' I now get the basic idea, and I get that all the other answer choices are just plain wrong, but STILL. Anyone care to chime in and perhaps share how they navigate around a word like this? I don't recall seeing it in the CC.

Hey guys,

I've been having a lot of trouble understanding the explanation behind this game, which is also explained in the curriculum under sequencing games with a twist as the third example.

There can only be one repeating product on the board. For the rule "G is not advertised during a given week unless either J or else O is also advertised that week", JY says that we know that G cannot repeat b/c it'd carry another component with it. However, I don't understand why this is necessarily known, when G could repeat and bring J one time and bring O the second time. Am I missing something?

Thanks y'all!

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-21-section-1-game-4/

https://classic.7sage.com/lesson/sequencing-game-wa-twist-3-game-board-setup/

I've been studying since September for the November test and I've brought myself up to the upper 160s (168 average from 157). I want a 170+ on the actual exam. Should I keep drilling on my weak points and take next week's test or should I postpone til January? I really wanted to apply this cycle, and I'm not that far off from my goal, so I'm leaning towards taking this upcoming test and retaking in January/postponing applications if I don't meet my goal. Any thoughts?

Hi Everyone!

First post here. So I'm trying to find Flaw questions where the five answers are of the following type:

I noticed that for the Flaw questions that specifically list out flaws in plain-text, it's much easier for me to identify. Conversely, when the flaws aren't listed out specifically and are rather categorized to the common flaw types we see, I tend to miss a lot. Can anyone help guide me on how to find more of those flaw types? I'm Ultimate + so I have access to all the question types.

Can someone please critique my understanding of the distinction between Strengthen and SA questions?

I think it something like this: strengthen questions merely require introducing a supporting premise or negating a potential weakness. SA/PSA are more specific in that they don't want any random supporting premise but one that links the premises with the conclusion. Essentially, an assumption that from it is sufficient to know the conclusion.

Also, I don't fully get the the difference between SA and PSA questions, and is it really important to know? Examples would be appreciated.

Hey guys on the logical reasoning newer sections, the amount wrong i'm getting in the Logical Reasoning has gone up. I would usually average 2-4 wrong a section in the older PTs but now I am consistently getting -6 wrong per section. I read this is normal, but usually at least 2-3 of the questions i'm getting wrong every time are the long harder necessary assumption questions. The easy ones I always get right. Any advice to improve accuracy in these?

I'm almost done with the LG section in the CC and I've been full-proofing as I go. I am definitely getting better and I'm very excited about that.

However, I just came across the snake/lizard game and literally stopped doing LG after a 4 hour day of LG. It was so demoralizing.

How often do we see games this difficult? And please spare me embarrassment if this game is actually an easy game :)

Hey all

So I've noticed that for many "This passage most strongly suggests XYZ..."

there often right AC's that are only subtly supported by 1 minor line reference. Sometimes it's just one WORD/ADJECTIVE that provides the support for the right AC. Often, these are minor details that I just forget too.

And if you miss that 1 minor line reference/word, you get it wrong.

And there are also like 4 really attractive answer choices.

Any advice on how to get these questions right? I find myself missing them very often.

It's also really tough to do these questions under timed conditions because you're like trying to scan/read the entire passage all over again as you dive into the AC's, trying to find that ONE word/line reference to support your right AC, as well as trying to find reasons to eliminate wrong AC's.

Any suggestions or advice would be appreciated. Thank you !

I'm looking for an easy fix for a problem I've encountered numerous times. While I'm sketching and contemplating possibilities to a specific question in a logic game and then look back to compare answer choices, I later realize that I'm referring to the wrong-number question. The answer choices often look so similar from one question to the next that it can take a while to realize I've made this mistake. Has anyone else encountered this dilemma, and how did you deal with it?

Hey folks. I've been thinking about the above phrase and have noticed that it's more ambiguous than I thought.

If I said I had as many apples as Sally, does that mean I have the same amount of apples as Sally, or is my having more than her consistent with the phrase, "as many as", as well?

Hi!

For LR I have 5 min left after the first round to go back to any circled questions but i havent cultivated that strategy for RC.

I usually have 8~9 min for the last passage and have no time to go back to the circled questions.

Does anyone consistenly have a couple of minutes left at the end of the RC section? Is this a do-able or desirable strategy to develop?

Hi 7Sagers,

The questions that eat up much of my time (and eventually I choose an incorrect answer) are those that have answer choices not mentioned in the passage. This happens a lot especially in "author would be most likely to agree" questions.

After reading the passage (~3.5 min), I really don't remember those details. But at the same time those not mentioned answer choices have some mentioned words and it takes so long to check them in the passage (and finally i usually pick a wrong one after spending 3 min on that question).

For those who had this problem but already solved it, what's your secret?

Thanks in advance!

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-77-section-3-game-4/

In this game, I struggled so hard during time because I didn't know if the volunteers could show up twice in one group. For instance, on my timed go, one of my boards had H(S/T), N (L), H(T/S) in group Z.

My question is where was the rule stated that they can't show up twice in a single group? I never assume this is the case unless told otherwise. So maybe I am missing something?

In blind review, I just went with the assumption that they could not stack and it was incredibly easy. I don't ever want to run into this problem again in the future. Any thoughts?

EDIT: The only line I can see here where that might explain it is with the statement, "each committee will have three volunteers assigned to it."

But wouldn't 3 Haddad's mean there are 3 volunteers. Maybe I am taking too much of a "game piece" approach. Where in my mind they are saying three game pieces are being assigned to each.

I'm taking the November LSAT, and where I used to feel confident I could reach my target score (170), my last three tests were 169, 169, and 167 today - and it's freaking me out!

My average of my last 10 PT's is 168 - an average which includes a 165, a few 167's, a few 169's, a 171 and a 175(!). I don't even have a solid pattern of which section screws me up the most... although my RC has started to get consistently WORSE over the last few weeks... for no discernible reason!?! I'm just not doing as well anymore on the hardest questions for RC and LR, and I'm not sure how to improve on that account.

Can I get some advice for how best to spend the next two weeks to reach my target score?

On my most recent, and best pt, i did -5 both LRs, -5 RC and -10 LG. Second time getting that 161 3rd in the low 160, average is 157. I am aiming for 165 or bust and feel im super close. Thinkin trying to get that LG to -5 would be the best way to focus next two weeks? Drill the weakest LR categories and same for LG? Thoughts? Any encouragement?

Josh @"Cant Get Right" mentioned he had a LG flow chart in one of his webinars, which basically discussed his systematic thought process he applies to each LG. He mentioned he was willing to share it. Does anyone know where it is? Would really love to take a look at it as a study tool. Thank you!

Does anyone recommend fool proofing games one at a time, and not moving to a new game until having mastered the game you're working on? Or, alternatively, is it better to work on a set of, say, three or four at a time?

I have an adequate understanding of the material. I am relentless in my reviews of my LR sections. When I see a question I have a clear strategy. My issue is getting through the questions quickly enough. I neglect about 2 questions in each LR section, though not completely, but I end up having 30 seconds for each. It is just not enough.

Any tips? I am sure there are plenty of people that encounter this issue. I do not have a natural affinity for speed reading. It is killing me that two the difference between -5 and -3 in a section is just due to speed.