So I'm aware that the standard on 7sage for LG sections is that you should never erase and that you should always re-write out your game board for each question as needed in a set. I understand the argument for this and it is totally practical for easy sequencing games with minimal time involved in re-drawing game boards. But I highly question this strategy when it comes to more complex game boards, especially when you have say 4 different split game boards for the question. To re-write out 4 game boards fresh for every question in the set seems like a waste of time in these cases, especially when you have really involved game boards with sub-categories and everything.

As a result, I've found myself doing a lot of erasing. I tend to write in very lightly to the original board and then I can erase it easily for the next question. I'm wondering what others do with this?

I realize there is something lost in erasing in that when you write out the game boards fresh each time sometimes you can have inferences saved on different questions that can help you in later ones. But I'm not yet convinced the trade off in time lost is worth it.

/

Are the drill packets grouped by type yet?

.

Hey Y'all,

I am currently registered to take the LSAT next week in Beijing. Curious if anyone has experience taking the test abroad (or even better in China) any tips on how to make the day run smoother?

LSAC provided the address in English and I am trying to get them to provide it in Chinese to mitigate any translation issues that may occur with a cab driver. Any other tips for taking it abroad would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks!

I couldn't pick any of the answer choices in PT44.S4.Q8. Can someone clarify if my understanding is ok?

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-44-section-4-question-08/

[Stimulus]

Premises:

Conclusion: Therefore, ________.

(B): Insurgent parties are to stay in power ---> address disagreements

(B) talks about "to stay in power" which is not mentioned in the stimulus. We don't know what the party needs to stay in power.

I don't know how we can infer that since factions within the party are as different from each other as they are from the ruling party, they can't stay in power unless they address disagreements.

I don't know why we must assume [staying in power] requires [not having disagreements within the party].

Even if Faction A in Party X is ideologically closer to Party Y and Faction A disagrees with Faction B in Party X on many issues, maybe these factions (A and B ) need the money Party X provides.

For example, the Liberal Democratic Party in Japan, which had a number of factions with different ideologies, had stayed in power for more than five decades (1955-1993). During that period, some factions within the party had closer ideologies with other parties. Disagreements came forward. Factions fought against each other in the same constituency. But even though they had brief interruptions, it is still the ruling party.

I am at a standstill, I understand what I am tasked to do with these types of questions but I am still getting quite a few incorrect and Ive been blind reviewing and reviewing the LSAT trainer and I am still not getting them correct, does anyone have any advice on this? I would REALLLLLLLLYYYYYYY appreciate it!!!!!!!

(Edits for additions)

Hey ya'll, I don't know if this will be helpful to anyone, but I am hoping that sharing this will help to reinforce it in my own head. LG is my worst section by far. I started out going -16+ and without any understanding. I read Kims LSAT Trainer and that helped but I was still feeling hopeless. I am now Foolproofing 1-35 and finally feeling a modicum of proficiency. I understand/recognize 99% of the stuff they throw at me. I am like Yoda during BR. But it's not all there under timed conditions yet. Basically, I have this gap between BR and timed. I possess all the ability and knowledge to go -0, but I need to train all this knowledge and ability to work together consistently and reliably when the clock is ticking.

Drawing Best Practices

-Read "with pencil down". Circle/underline key words. Never get burned by mistaking "exactly one" for "at least one".

-Visualize the gameboard before drawing. Difficult games may appear as one thing but actually be another.

-Write/draw neatly and use the space wisely (remain calm. calm writers write neater)

-Keep it as visual/representative as you can. Don't be mechanical at this stage and feel free to modify pieces in their "pool" if it is helpful.

-As you apply rules to a master gb, eliminate those. Before moving on to the questions, consider rearranging the remaining rules so that everything is together (rewriting)

-When splitting, visualize the outcome and leave room for further splits.

-MBT/F: if you have doubt about the right AC, diagram it. Don't get stuck here. Literally ANY world that abides by the rules will give you the correct AC. If you are stuck, skip it and return.

-Don't draw elaborate sub gbs, make them representative, but skeletal.

-If you find an error on the master gb, return to previous questions.

Inferences

-"Not both. A-->/B". "A/B" MUST MUST MUST be written for one of the "out" spaces.

-"Pinching the board" on sequencing games. If you have a boxed item (AB for example) consider the restriction that places on other items. Must leave room for the boxed item.

-"Conditional Sequencing: forced in rule". If there are 2 "out" slots remaining, and you still have to place A-->B-->C, then C must be in.

-"Dual subcategory forced ordering". 2 subcategories and one of them never runs consecutively, maybe a forced ordering (every other).

-"In/Out Contrapositive". Always consider these. Can unlock an entire game.

Strategies

-Slow-->Smooth-->Fast

-Spend extra time with a confusing rule, get it right!

-Take note of possible distributions

-Finish translating the rules, then STOP. Is this game open or restricted? Should it be split? Where are the restrictions or major triggers?

-Focus on restrictions -- always

-When splitting, try to eliminate complicated rules

-Complete "if" questions first

-Trust your gb. Select an AC and move on. Circle and return if need be.

-With new rules, check the AC after each major inference (especially on MBT/F questions)

-MBF = (4) CBT and CBF = (4) MBT

-Wordy AC? Scan them and check the less wordy first.

-Be aware of corresponding wrong AC "mirrors"

-When drawing sub GBs, mark those that break the rules in some way otherwise you might try to use these for future questions

By the wrath of the old gods and the new, they actually did it. Little did I expect when I woke up yesterday to be most psychologically traumatized not by Reading Comp or Logic Games, but by the blasted writing sample.

Using the writing sample to have us write about whether a brother of the Night's Watch should be allowed to renege on his vows -- a sick, treacherous ploy by those above us to erode our confidence in the protective blanket the Watch provides the realm.

Mark my words my brothers and sisters, there is a darkness in this world, more cold and tormenting than even the four-hour exam by the name of LSAT. Winter is coming, with or without the Watch. Without the brothers on the Wall, however, along with Winter so too will come an unending shadow, shrouding our hearts in unspeakable darkness.

To those who argued that oath-breakers should be forgiven (or, gods forbid, encouraged), may the Seven protect you from what is yet to come, and may I remind you of the words that each brother of the Watch swears, with both men and gods as his witness:

"Night gathers, and now my watch begins. It shall not end until my death. I shall take no wife, hold no lands, father no children, discuss any specifics about the June 2017 LSAT. I shall wear no digital watches and win no glory. I shall live and die at my post. I am the #2 non-mechanical pencil in the darkness. I am the watcher on the walls. I am the shield that guards the realms of men. I pledge my life and honor to the Night's Watch, for this exam and all the exams to come."

Did you argue against the Watch? I welcome any traitors to out themselves below.

So i am 13 PTs into foolproofing and i am noticing that i am solid with sequencing but i am having a hard time with grouping games, both in out and multiple groups. So i was considering drilling those extensively and then going back to drilling chronologically. I was wondering if anyone would be so kind as to make a list of specifically fundamental in out and grouping games that they found to help them nail down the methodology and send it my way. Thanks in advance

Hey guys! Here's the official June LSAT Discussion Thread. Please keep all discussions of the June 2017 LSAT here!

Here's some ground rules, taken from my usual sticky:

We know that everyone will be excited to discuss what was on the June '17 LSAT, but mentioning specifics about the test (e.g., "I got B for question 6" or "the 3rd LG was sequencing") can get both us and you in a lot of trouble with LSAC. Saying that the test was hard/easy without going into detail is okay, but anything more specific is not okay. LSAC monitors this forum.

If you're unsure what may be too specific, feel free to PM me with what you'd like to post.

The only exception is you can say which sections were real or experimental. For example, the LG with "flowers" was experimental. That's okay.

TL;DR: PLEASE don't talk specifics about June's LSAT!

Here's where you can see the current Real/Experimental Sections:

https://classic.7sage.com/discussion/#/discussion/11428/june-2017-lsat-real-experimental-sections-keywords

Have fun discussing!

Hey guys!

I'm finding that I'm still having trouble really intuitively knowing when my job in Parallel Method of Reasoning q's is to mirror the lawgic/structure of the argument, and when we're being asked to carry that train of thought/conclusion/principle into the answer choices (please don't say it's always about structure; maybe I'm not articulating what I mean correctly, but it's defintily 100% the case (after watching many many of JY's videos) that we're asked to carry the salient claim/reasoning into our selection of answer choice. (Ie. PT17.s2.q24 from Problem Set 3; or PT28.s3.q26 also from set 3).

The second q stem reads "which one of the following arguments is most similar in it's reasoning to the argument above?" Both answer choices seem to emphasize an especially strong match with part of the argument, not just a simple structural match...but the stems don't really do all that much to tell us that.

But after going through the practice sets in the curriculum, I can't seem to accurately/quickly distinguish whether paralleling the pattern of reasoning will refer to finding a parallel conclusion, or more broadly, overall parallel structure.

So sorry if this post sounds beyond confusing--I realize my attempt to articulate my struggle isn't great--but I'm just a little surprised that (if this issue really does exist, and I'm not just creating problems....happens) that it's not distinguished/discussed in the curriculum "as a thing".

N.

I've been working through the Cambridge LR Flaw pkg and I've noticed that a good amount of the correct AC are E. Now before anyone jumps, I wouldn't go as far as to say choose E when in doubt on the question type. There are 284 questions in the pkg and E has been the correct AC enough for me to notice. Pretty useless info here but if I remember I'll give an exact number when I'm done. I believe the questions are from PT 1-38. I wonder if they say something like, "we'll go with E for flaws, C for MSS, A for MBT..." when determining which letter to select for the AC?? Again, this is pretty useless info and why did I hone in on it anyway?? Leave it up to me to be extra! LOL :)

Hi,

For me, the toughest part of the test has always been not letting my brain get tired from analyzing minutia and subtleties over and over... and over and over. I scored best on PTs when an LG section broke up LR and RC. I kind of think of LG as a "break" or a mental energy boost. Yesterday the LSAT hit some of us with LR, RC, LR right out of the gate. I was fine with the first LR (experimental :/) and the RC, but mentally gassed by LR #2. So, my question: Does the LSAC take section order into account when standardizing? Like, if the average score for takers who had the above order is 4 questions less than those with a different experimental section, is that considered? In a test where mental stamina is potentially the most important factor, not doing so would strike me as a little unfair.

Thanks!

Taylor

I had a question about phase 2 of the memory method.

The following was stated, "The second phase of the memory method is exactly the same as the first, with one exception: you only spend 30 seconds on step two (Check Your Memory). Do this 6-8 times".

Is phase 2 done with the same passage or different ones? Also, i'm assuming phase 2 happens when we become comfortable with phase 1? Can someone provide more insight on this?

Thank you :)

How did people find this section? It seemed pretty smooth but not enough to compensate from the hardest RC ever

Hey y'all

I'm going to retake in September, and for the last two weeks I've been chipping away at Logic games from PT 1-15. However, I've seen marginal, if any, improvements. When I foolproof them, I can get perfect on the entire section with 10 minutes left, but the moment I see a fresh set I go -6 to -9. I planned on spending a total of a month straight on LG, but my patience and determination is waivering.

Now that I've given you background, please read my questions: 1. Any particular LG sets you think will help me for the most recent tests? 2. Should I go back and do the LG portion of the CC? (haven't done it since last summer) 3. How to maximize what I learn from the Fool Proof Method (i.e. what questions do you ask yourself/what do you observe about the LG set)

Thank you

Hi everyone,

I plan on fool proofing LG using the typical method of using the PT 1-35 bundle. I was just wondering what are people's thoughts on fool proofing LG by type versus just going through the bundle from PT 1 to 35 in order. I read the Pacifico guide and he states that one shouldn't record the type of game one attempts, which makes sense to me, since we don't have that luxury during real test conditions. However, I have since read some other guides by people who have done really well on LG, and they recommend drilling by LG type (I guess to really drill the strategies for each type) So I am now having second thoughts!

So, I guess I'd just like some input from the high LG scorers out there, what are the pros and cons of fool proofing by type/not, and what method do you think is more useful for a beginner?

Thanks!

If I had three LR sections, one first, third, and last which one was the experimental section?

I'm finally breaking into the score range I want and I know that RC is my biggest challenge and the one sections I'm still a bit inconsistent in. When I'm blind reviewing I've been able to get the right answers (mostly), but I'm not at all able to feel confident in my answer choices. I think it's because I can usually eliminate the wrong answers and not find support for the right answers.

does anyone have any tips or advice?? In specific for finding support for inference question, but just for BRing RC in general!!

best of luck everyone, and any help will be appreciated

So as I am going about my studying I am finding that flaw questions are particularly hard for me. I have noticed a pattern though. I get roughly 60% of flaw questions correct. The way the questions answers are worded is what trips me up. I have noticed there are two "kinds" of flaw answer choices. There are those that relate the answers directly back to the stimulus;

Example - 62-4-11

The reporter concludes from the evidence showing only M can cure athlete's foot that M always can cure athletes foot.

or there are those that make the flaw abstract;

Examples - 64-3-14

It repudiates a claim merely on the grounds that an inadequate argument had been given for it

It fails to consider that, even if an argument's conclusion is false, some of the assumptions used to justify that conclusion nonetheless be true.

It is these that I answer with almost 0 confidence and inevitably get wrong. Thinking about it deeper, I can almost never describe a flaw in abstract form. I have decent success on LR (-6 to -8) per section because I can read the stimulus and in that specific instance patch the holes/connect the bridges/strengthen/weaken. I can never tell exactly WHAT the author has made a mistake on.

Obviously this is a problem. If not just for flaw questions alone. This contributes to about -4ish questions per test because flaws questions appear roughly 8 times.

What can I do to train myself on these kind of questions?

Any thoughts? How did you guys feel about it?

I got 3 sections, 2 with 25 questions and 1 with 26 questions.

I think I did OK... but totally bombed the RC...

I just took the June test today and it seems that the general consensus online is that the RC was incredibly difficult.

For context, RC is usually my worst section, with me going about -6 each time, and LR is my best, where I usually finish with 5+ min remaining per section. I've been studying for years and only sometimes break the 170 wall on PTs.

My issue is that on this test I found the RC surprisingly doable; I clicked with each passage and felt that I fully understood the theme, structure, author's intent, etc. for each passage.

However, I feel that I got bent over and shafted on all 3 LR sections (I had exp. LR) and ran out of time and had to guess at least one question as a result on each section.

To my surprise, everyone on the reddit thread seems to be upset over the RC, with some saying it was the most difficult one they've ever encountered, and are pretty "meh" about the LR. Meanwhile, I'm sitting here feeling pretty confident about the RC but every now and then I have to wipe away the tears gently dripping onto my desk from remembering the LR.

Anyone else in the same boat? I'm starting to feel that maybe I didn't do as well on RC as I thought I did :((/p)

Hey All,

Games are by far my weakest section. The foolproofing method is working wonders, thank goodness.

I am slowly working my way through the CC, but I'm finding that the game sections are placed really, really late . I skipped ahead to the sequencing games and spatial games so I could start FP'ing those and it worked well for me. Does anyone see any downsides to skipping ahead to the other game types as well? I know the general advice is to move through the curriculum as given, but I'd like to be FP'ing as I go through the CC (it's worked out really well for me to do 3 or 4 new games a day as a sort of warm-up to the CC content) and I'm out of spatial and sequencing games. Also, if I wait so long to start the later game types, I don't think I'll get through it all and give myself enough time to really improve on my weakest area.

I feel a sense of urgency and a need to move these up also because I must, MUST sit for the September exam. I'm gonna anticipate your responses here telling me to wait until I feel my score is +5 of my goal, and that's all well and good, but there is such a thing as "real life" and right now my parents are graciously allowing me space to live and study rent-free, but only if I take it in September. I may be able to pull off taking it again in December if I really need to, but I can't count on that.

So I have accommodations (time and a half - 53 minutes per section) and just finished the test a little while ago. Something weird as hell happened... The proctor was timing us (me and one other person) incorrectly!

I had the bezel on my watch set to the minute hand when we started and at minute 43, the protcor said 5 minutes remaining and I was like ??? but thought maybe I messed up my watch or something so I just accepted I had 5 minutes left and finished the first section accordingly. At the end of section 1, I thought about saying something but stupid me fell victim to authority worship and assumed that I was in the wrong and didn't say anything in the very short time we had before moving to section 2.

Now it's minute 43 in section 2 and once again, proctor calls 5 minute warning. At this point, I know I'm not wrong and she definitely messed up somehow so I push past my initial outrage/disbelief and keep moving with 5 minutes left. As soon as she calls time for section 2, I immediately tell her that I'm almost entirely certain we didn't get the appropriate time for the last 2 sections. After brief discussion, she says that she knows what time we started and if by the end of section 3, the time isn't adding up, she'll give us that time back at the end.

Lo and behold, we finish section 3 (this time after the full 53 minutes) and at the break, she realizes I was right and that we were gypped of 5 minutes from both section 1 and 2. She talked to the supervisor and did allow us to go back to each section for 5 minutes once we had finished the test but before the essay.

Obviously, that whole fuck up threw off my mental game and presumably negatively affected my score. Not to mention that section 2 was RC so those 5 minutes weren't nearly as useful at the end because I had to waste time skimming a passage again because I naturally forgot some of the details after a few hours.

I figure I should email LSAC about this whole situation but I was wondering if any of you have had something similar happen and if so, what did you do about it? I'm not sure what LSAC could do aside from maybe a refund of the registration fee. Tbh I'm not even sure what I want them to do about it.

Any advice or input on my situation would be very much appreciated!