Somebody is probably also in this boat. I took the November test and feel pretty ok that I got a goal score. But who knows? I want to register for the January test to secure a good testing site (live in NYC...:some are dreadful), but I don’t want to burn 150$ if I drop out because I got a plenty good enough score for my goals. (Also, LSAC isn’t offering a 100% refund for November test takers like they have in the past)). So here’s the question: anyone have experience with a good testing center closing on them? I called LSAC today and they said the testing center I want (Queens College) has 300 seats left. I’m guessing that enrollment is going to skyrocket the day scores come out. Anybody else monitoring January testing centers?

Should I start off by completing all logic games from PT 1-35 in order? Or should I start by going through all sequencing games with the goal of seeking mastery before moving on to grouping or advanced linear? Any input would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.

please delete this discussion, thank you

Has anyone heard of a test site being cancelled the night before the test? I was scheduled to take the test in Fair Lawn and received and email the night before stating it was cancelled. How does LSAC correct this issue? I want to be able to take the test twice (November and January) before having to submit applications for the 2019 Fall enrollment. Thanks in advance for any help or input.

Hey 7Sagers,

Here's the official November 2018 LSAT Discussion Thread.

**Please keep all discussions of the November 2018 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:

Have fun discussing!

I finished the section but was still bubbling when the head proctor called time and was called out by one of them. I deserve what happened and will try again in January. I’m just going to put my head down and work hard so that I won’t be lacking those last few seconds next time. Any one here have experience with this and can share some insight?

Hello 7Sage!

A couple of months back I posted here asking for help regarding improving my study habits. The turn around has been incredible utilizing the tips that this community gave me!

I am finishing up fool proofing logic games in the coming weeks. It has been a struggle working full time and helping to make sure the wedding happens without issue, but I am really hitting my stride with understanding the process it takes to fool proof the test.

I am curious to see how many of you have fool proofed the LR section. Have you used a similar method that you used approaching LG? Any tips?

Any little bit helps! Looking forward to reading the comments!

Best,

Jonah

Literally have never looked at the essay part...should I before tomorrow? Any quick tips?

Hi everyone!

I'm freaking out a little bit because they just cancelled my test due to the snowstorm we are having in New England. Has anyone else had this happen before? I won't receive information from lsac about the details of a reschedule for the test until next week and I was just wondering if anyone knows what I should be expecting to happen in this situation. The not knowing is killing me!!

Good luck to everyone that will be taking the exam tomorrow!!

Rule No. 8

any advice for RC skipping strategies?

how long people should spend per question before they skip?

there's the classic 10 in 10, 25 in 25 for LR timing/skipping strategies.

any similar skipping strategy for RC?

or just general advice on how to manage the clock for RC? thanks.

What would this fallacy look like: Mistakenly equating what is actual for what is merely possible?

i.e., what to look for/why they seem to be a little more tricky compared to earlier ones/ways to approach. seem to get stuck on these. thanks!

Based on the LR problems I'm getting wrong (Weakening/Strengthening, Necessary Assumption, MSS, etc.) I think I'm having difficulty understanding support. Or at least understanding it concretely. For example with weaken questions, I know that I can't weaken the premises or the conclusion, and I know the "right" questions to ask (Even given these premises, the conclusion still doesn't necessarily follow because...) but unless the weaken question has causal or conditional reasoning it it, I'm not really sure how to approach it (aside from just kind of feeling it out). I have absolutely no problem finding the premises and conclusion and understanding which is which, or mapping out arguments. But the idea of support still feels kind of nebulous to me. If you have any ideas on how to make support more concrete, or suggestions on what made the concept click for you I'd really appreciate it!

So contrary to popular opinions regarding not taking full PTs right before the exam, I couldn't help myself bc I had bought PT 85 just a few days ago and wanted to take it before I sit for the exam (2nd take) on Saturday. I'm not sure if it was the nerves, the exam itself, or maybe even the fact that I may seem to getting burnt out but I ended up scoring 10 points lower than I usually do for pts (Usually hitting ~165). The 1st section (RC) was super difficult for me as well as the 2nd section (LR) and I ended up falling for many of the trap answers.

Feeling super discouraged and slightly freaking out about this exam and wanted to see if anyone had similar experiences with PT 85? I plan on just BR through this exam all of tomorrow and then taking Friday off before the exam to just watch netflix haha. Trying to tell myself that this Nov exam isn't the end all be all - there's still Jan or even March if need be.

Also, what games do you guys recommend to do right before the actual exam on Sat? One I can take with me to the testing location to do before the exam starts that will get my juices flowing.

Hey guys I know it is a little too late to improve now since the test is in two days ( There is always January), I am having a very hard time timing myself doing logic games. I have gone through the curriculm and done the foundational games 7-10 times. However, I still trip up when I see a game that has a sentence that throws me off and looks like a game i have never done before.

Are there situations where the foolproof method is not applicable because they came up with a new game and you will just have to "figure it out" ?

Completely lost on this question. Any explanations would be much appreciated.

Admin note: edited title

I'm having a hard time understanding this question at all. I've found very little help online for this question. Can anyone please explain.

"If the standards committee has a quorum...."

Admin note: edited title

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-83-section-1-question-18/

Hey everyone,

I was wondering if any of my fellow 7sagers could offer some insight into this topic. I am planning on writing the Jan LSAT. LG is my weakest section, similar to most others on the LSAT journey. I really like JY's methods of teaching LG and I am beginning to get the hang of it but I feel really overwhelmed. I want to try the foolproof method of doing the games but I'm just wondering how I'm supposed to do one game so many times when there is a lot of other stuff to focus on. Between PTs, BR, drilling, watching explanations, and trying to stay sane, how did you guys adopt the foolproof method? There are just so many games and it would obviously be impossible to foolproof all of them in the mere 70some days that are remaining till the Jan LSAT, but how can I even get close? If you keep going back in a day or two to redo a previous game, I feel like you would barely get through any new content? I usually manage to make 20-25 hours to study each week and I've thought about just using the random bits of spare time in my day to foolproof a few games for fun every day. But still, I just don't see a way to move forward with studying while continuously redoing old games over and over. And the truth of the matter is that I could certainly use the foolproofing on every game I come across because I'm definitely slow in this section. I'm not aiming for a perfect score but I want to be as prepared as possible in order to reduce my anxiety surrounding LG.

Looking forward to hearing your ideas, suggestions, and thoughts. Please #help!

Hello!

This NA question is causing my blood pressure to rise.

I have trouble accepting E).

Negating E) doesn't destroy the argument. It's okay if medicine DOES reduce stress, as long as it isn't ONLY reducing stress. Maybe it reduces stress and inhibits hormone production.

I bring this up because in the second premise, it says that "any illness caused by stress--> treatable ONLY by the reduction of stress".

To bridge the gap between this premise and the conclusion, we need a NA that states "Medicine does not treat high blood pressure ONLY by reduction of stress", NOT "Medicine used to treat HBP does not reduce stress", which is what E) is saying.

I feel like if the premise had said, "any illness caused by stress--> treatable by the reduction of stress", AC E) would be absolutely the necessary assumption of the argument.

Please help. I'm so stuck :'( :'(

Thank you!!

Admin note: added link

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-48-section-1-question-20/

Reposting from my comment

This question has one of the most insane assumptions I’ve ever seen on the LSAT, I’m sorry but this should of been taken off the exam. The assumption that a twin watching another twin would fall more (or completely) under the watching self category and than the watching other category would be like assuming both twins looking in mirror would have difficulty telling which one they are.

D) In the studies of Identical twins, participants who observed their twin reading overreported by a significant amount how much time they themselves spent reading in the days that followed.

This cannot weaken part of the argument without strengthening the other part. Is a twin watching a twin more like watching an other or watching oneself? you know the answer. So you plug this in, it would actually strengthen the argument.

You basically have to assume that group this answer effects for sure (the watching other group) is somehow effected less than the group that you have to make a massive assumption for, so that the argument can be weakened.

Admin note: edited title

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-81-section-2-question-22/

Hi! Just wondering if I'm missing something. Why are some of the video explanations missing from PT 85?

I'm taking the November 17th LSAT and took my second to last PT yesterday (PT 84). I felt incredibly discouraged after I saw my score of 162. I've been averaging 165-166 and haven't scored this badly in months (even scored a low 170's last week). While RC and LG are typically my weaker sections, I was surprised to find that I didn't do too hot on LR on this exam, and noticed that the LR seemed much more difficult and vague.

I watched PowerScore's prediction video about this upcoming test and they said that LR stimuli and question stems have been deviating from set formulas in recent years. However, I took PT83 last week and got a 166, so maybe I just had an off day last night? Has anyone taken PT84 and had a similar experience (LR seemed more difficult, esp. in comparison to other recent exams), or is it more likely I just had an off day?

If it comes down to it, I can take January's exam as well if I need to, but I'd also like to apply as early as possible. I'm taking PT82 tomorrow so I'll see how that goes. Best of luck to anyone else taking the test on Saturday!

https://thehustle.co/Soy-farmers-trade-war-China-America/?user_source=up_social_fb&utm_source=facebook1&medium=social&fbclid=IwAR3CC6YkLmCpOF4BMhJK2XZUZJGaBcvcTv7caFt2PTuZc1m2hbFIVHxp9Ws

Team soybeans, we messed up.

I took the LSAT in September and scored almost 10 points below my average. That said, I got right back on the horse and continued to study so I can redeem myself this Saturday. I got back the September exam through the LSAC portal and I am wondering if people think it would be beneficial to retake the September test or go over some sections this week? Or would it just bring back bad memories and ruin my mojo??

Should I diagram a "might" statement as an existential quantifier? Like "If Jack is smart, he might eat healthy." But, it doesn't have to be the case that Jack ever eats healthy, so that's why I don't think it's correct. Please correct me if I'm wrong