I started experiencing some nausea and other issues from inner-ear problems about a week ago. I thought I was well enough to take the LSAT since my symptoms were pretty mild except in the evenings, but after adding in test-day nerves I was pretty sick by the time the test started. I ended up leaving briefly to throw up during one section, so I didn't finish it. I had 2 LG sections - one I felt really good about (finished with time to spare and was confident in my answers) and the other I tanked (answered the first game and felt confident, but guessed on almost all the others). The harder LG was the last section, by which time I was pretty brain dead and flustered from having left during the test to vomit... I just found out from the Feb 17 LSAT discussion board that my bad section was the real one and not the experimental...

Should I cancel my score or wait and see if I scrape a good enough score to apply to back up schools while I wait for the June LSAT? Which would be worse - a canceled score or bad score with an addendum that I was ill on test day?

This could be anything from the subtle way an assumption is introduced in the stimulus to a misleading QS. I'll give two:

The Bait 'n Switch assumption. Most of the stimulus/premises will be talking about A, but the conclusion is B or AB (overreaching conclusion). https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-33-section-3-question-24/

The Extra Baggage Dual Speaker. Many times when there is a dual speaker, you are asked to consider both speakers to solve the question like "How do they agree or disagree" or "what is Bob's best response". But sometimes, not only is it unecessary to read the second speaker, but it may actually obfuscate your task. In this case they may give you two speakers but ask you to strengthen/weaken the first speaker's argument... no need for the second speaker at all! https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-28-section-3-question-06/

So I know this question has been asked a hundred times, but I could really use some guidance. So February was my first time taking the LSAT and it was my dream test. My test booklet number was my address, I have a bee tattoo, and I feel so confident that I excelled on everything before the break and the last LR. Then I got the real LG section. I didn't write down one of the rules for the second game(RIP Teapots) and was so frazzled I answered maybe three questions in the last two games. I've never not finished a section before, even from my first cold PT. I really want to go to a T14, and I was scoring in the range for that, but I know this will at the best possible scenario be in the low 160s. Should I cancel my score knowing that it isn't a representation of how I was doing, or save it and just pray that there aren't any hiccups with the June test. I'm living overseas to teach next year, and I really wanted to be done with the LSAT before I left, but I could take it again in June if I cancel it, and still feel comfortable taking it again later in Japan? I'm sorry if this isn't cohesive, I'm so frazzled still. What would you do, oh mighty sagers if you were in my boat?

Seriously. This was my 3rd take and I really messed up on LG. I was rushing through it and was making things overly difficult. I usually will get -1 or -2 on LG and I honestly feel like I got -10 or something. I'm thinking of cancelling but I just am secretly hoping I somehow pull through and get 160+. I've already submitted my application but haven't heard anything back yet. My GPA sucks so I was really banking on the LSAT. I feel like no matter how much I practice, I get there on test day and do something stupid.

Also, I took my first LSAT in February 2016, so if I did need a retake, does this mean Feb 2018 is my closest date?

tear

To everyone writing on Saturday let this be your motto! I was granted accommodations and will be writing on Sunday (superbowl Sunday like come on LSAT REALLY), jk I'm really fortunate that they were so accommodating! I wrote in December so for the newbees, make sure you chill out all day tomorrow and mentally prepare yourself, do NOT DO ANYTHING CRAZY! Also need some advice from you guys...should I refrain from checking the forum before Sunday? I know we are allowed to discuss very few things after the exam, but in December I was obsessively checking the thread on Saturday evening and it helped to hear I wasn't the only one who struggled with the games etc. Since I am writing it a day late I don't know if it would be the smartest idea to psych myself out beforehand by reading anything about it. Let me know what you think! WE ARE GOING TO DO AWESOME! It's really not as scary as it seems.

Can someone please confirm that G2 was silver/gold and G3 was the 12-week game? Thanks in advance!

I had LG(exp)-LR-RC-LG-LR

The first LG section, which is confirmed to be an experimental one, was extremely hard for me, so I had to guess the last 10 questions. Since my goal is to get >170, guessing these questions made me panic and forget to think that this could be an experimental section. As a result, I immediately gave up, only thinking about cancelling the score, and I just stared at the second section for the first 10 minutes or so. However, after I got to myself and started to solve, I realized that this section was easier than I thought, but because I just stared at it for the first 10 minutes, I could not finish about 10 questions. Even worse, I found the rest of the test to be relatively easy (compared to what I have been practicing/solving), and it was too late when I finally realized that the first section could be an experimental section (which is confirmed to be).

I don't know how to end this since I am just writing this down as I think, but I could have achieved my goal today only if I did not immediately give up....

Hi everyone! For this question, I understand how answer choice B wrecks the argument, making it a solid necessary assumption. It was my original answer choice, but I thought I was being tricked at the back end of the test because it seemed like a sufficient assumption. Is it both? Can it be both? If it's not a SA, what am I missing? I hate NA vs SA.

Answer choice B provides the following as a necessary assumption ...

CW-->PBSEKW

The contrapositive of the above conditional plus the author's conclusion make this ...

not(PBSEKW)-->not(CW)

not(PBSEKW)

------------------------------------------------

not(CW)

Seriously, how is this not a SA? It is enough to make the conclusion valid. Please help!

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-68-section-3-question-23/

i can't be the only one who can't remember.

Please note that the information below will change to reflect the information we get! Contribute if you can via the official February 2017 LSAT discussion (linked at the bottom of this thread) without going into too much detail. If you think something is wrong or should be added, please post in the thread and let me know.

Since it is the Feb. LSAT, please be aware that it is undisclosed and, as a result, I will not be updating this thread until I get multiple confirmations on a question.

Real Sections:

LG:

-Gold/Silver Vases/Plates

-12-Week Class Schedule

-Transcribing & Preparing for Interviews

-Different Libraries

RC:

-The Bumblebee's "Waggle Dance"

-Hindus and Romans / Patriotism

-Civil Courts / Judges and Juries

-Liberal Environmentalism / Ecology

LR:

-Speed Limits for Different Vehicle Types / Vehicle Emissions from 1967-1990 / Smog

-Global Warming/Climate Change

-Charles II

-Napoleon

-Meteorite and Nano-Diamonds

-Supernova and a King's Birth

-Ravens/Crows and Worms / Dropping Pebbles in a Tube

-Children Estimating Half-Full Beakers

-Plate Tectonics / Size of Planet

-Skilled Writer Politician Makes a Speech

-Company Criticism / Debt

-Government Sending Letters Across Country / Connecting People

-Middle-Aged Coffee Drinkers / High Blood Pressure

Experimental Sections:

LG:

-French/Russian Language

RC:

LR:

UNCONFIRMED:

If you can confirm that these are real / experimental, please do so by PMing me or posting in the main thread.

None yet!

This thread is closed for discussion. Official post Feb LSAT discussion here:

https://classic.7sage.com/discussion/#/discussion/10331/official-february-lsat-discussion-thread

While mapping out my study plans for the LSAT I read somewhere that reading The Economist and the New Republic were good supplementary materials to prep materials. I read both diligently but I saw even more RC improvement once I started incorporating the New Yorker into my study plan. Their articles are very dense and it can be difficult to keep the information straight. Really forces you to concentrate on what you're reading. Another added benefit is their articles run the spectrum of subjects - could be pop culture, politics, history or science. This was tremendously helpful to me and I hope it helps someone else.

Hi everybody,

I am taking the Feb. 4th LSAT this weekend and had a few questions, and i haven't had a chance to ask anyone else. So, I've heard we are not able to bring much anything into the test room with us, is anyone familiar with what EXACTLY we can bring? Am I to bring a sandwich bag with pencils and erasers in to, thats it?

What is on the ban list that a student normally would take to class with him? For example, can i take my backpack? My cell phone? A calculator (just asking).

Thank you my LSAT fam :)

While I am caveating this with the proviso that there is no true replacement for FoolProofing every single Logic Game, the question is still valuable.

Is it possible to attain the general skills you need for ALL logic games by focusing only on the very hardest games? i.e., in mastering only the hardest games, are you in effect mastering all concepts featured in the easier ones? The below are listed on LSAT Blog as the ten hardest games:

PrepTest 23 (October 1997), Game 2 - Applicants being interviewed and hired (Combination: Grouping: Selection and Grouping: Splitting)

PrepTest 24 (December 1997), Game 3 - Juarez and Rosenberg review introductory and advanced textbooks

PrepTest 25 (June 1998), Game 2 - Tourists and Guides (Grouping: Matching)

PrepTest 27 (December 1998), Game 2 - Lizards and snakes in a reptile house (Combination: Linear and Grouping: Matching)

PrepTest 31 (June 2000), Game 2 - Music store's new and used CDs (Grouping: Selection / In and Out)

PrepTest 33 (December 2000), Game 3 - Stones: rubies, sapphires, topazes (Grouping: Selection / In and Out)

PrepTest 34 (June 2001), Game 4 - Randsborough/Souderton Clinics (Grouping: Splitting)

PrepTest 36 (December 2001), Game 3 - Window and aisle seats on a bus (Advanced Linear)

PrepTest 40 (June 2003), Game 3 - Flight connections on Zephyr Airlines: Honolulu, Montreal, Philadelphia, Toronto, Vancouver (Grouping: Mapping)

PrepTest 57 (June 2009), Game 3 - Dinosaurs: iguanadon, lambeosaur, plateosaur, stegosaur, tyrannosaur, ultrasaur, velociraptor and Colors: green, mauve, red, yellow (Combination of Grouping: Selection / In-and-Out and Grouping: Matching)

If I fully mastered these (getting them to well below JY's target time, missing zero, all inferences made from memory), would that suffice for LG mastery?

~xqr

Well, it's that time again. Another test has come around and for many of you, that means it's time for all of this hard work, passion, and ability to pay off. You've dedicated months if not years of your lives to this test and to the opportunities it can lead to. Just remember that your LSAT score won't be earned on Saturday. You've already earned it. It was earned in the curriculum and in the problem sets. It was earned in the dozens of PT's and BR's and group study sessions. It was earned on that one question you thought you'd never understand but that you refused to let go until you saw through it, and it was absolutely earned on endless LG fool-proofing drills. So don't worry about Saturday. You've already proven yourselves. Saturday is not when all this happens, it's just when the process ends. And I know that everyone of you is going to show up and achieve your full potential.

Before you go though, we'll be meeting to get pumped up for game day! Hope to see everyone there!

https://media.giphy.com/media/11F0d3IVhQbreE/giphy.gif

February Test Pep Rally

Thu, Feb 2, 2017 7:00 PM EST

Please join my meeting from your computer, tablet or smartphone.

https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/535875789

You can also dial in using your phone.

United States: +1 (646) 749-3112

Access Code: 535-875-789

First GoToMeeting? Try a test session: http://help.citrix.com/getready

I didn't spend much time on RC in previously preparation. I'm aiming at June LSAT. I commonly get incorrect 2-3 per passage. I wonder if I need to do each passage under 8 minutes from the early PTs and timed RC section from PT30. Any advice would be appreciated.

Is it possible to have 2 answer choice that both weaken the argument but to different degree?

Also, for the weakening question in general, if I have to make an additional assumption to believe one of the AC could possibly weaken, then it would generally be wrong, right? Perhaps subtle ones don't necessarily do this..

Am I in the right mindset for this? I would really appreciate if someone could confirm my thoughts on this.

This may seem like a stupid question :)

My first name is too long to fit in the space available on the LSAT answer sheet (thanks Mom and Dad). To make things more interesting, I do not have a middle name, and my legal first name has a space in it. Everything is correct on the LSAC registration page and my admissions ticket, but looking at the bubble sheet, I realize that my first name won't fit. For same of example, let's say my first name is "John Adams"

Would I bubble in J-O-H-N _ A-D-A and leave a space? Or should I bubble in J-O-H-N-A-D-A-M (and still have a character left off)?

Can someone let me know which other games are similar to this one?

This is the first time that I have encountered this kind of set up.

I know Lawgic is incorporated in the CC in order to gain a full understanding of the the LSATs components. However, I find that trying to use conditional logic to try and solve LR problems actually confuses me and slows me down. I actually understand the problem better when I just read the LR stimulus very carefully, focusing on the indicator words and parsing out conclusions and premises. Is it ok to not worry about conditional logic for LR or am I going to need it when I get to later question types? Thanks!

Are the new games discussed at all in the course? It's my understanding that these games, by design, are difficult to directly prepare for. I've seen enough of them to understand why this is the case. The general approach I've heard is to master the approach to all games and bring that mindset to these new ones (and don't get flustered).

I'm having trouble negating and translating the first sentence of this question. How am I supposed to negate a sentence with two group four indicators?

Thanks to this community I've improved my RC and logic game scores tremendously, yet for some reason my AR score has gone down. That was the section that I was strongest in. I'm supposed to sit for the Feb test Saturday but I think I'm going to parlay that into writing for the June one instead. I was still planning to take June anyway, but was going to take Feb since I was already registered. My husband said he thinks taking the test Saturday is still a good idea, for practice reasons, but I don't want to chance it. I was devestated after receiving my Dec score and I read here that the day of score could be lower than PTs when you account for day of jitters etc. it's just that I'm older than most of you tenderonis and cannot afford another year of waiting. sigh I have to remind myself it'll be worth the wait.

In the third rule, it says that if y is not in the park if either L or O is in the park, but then on the explanation, the sub game boards, he says that Y can be in or can be out if either L or O are out..., what am I missing? I thought if either one of them was out, then y had to be out too.

Please help!

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-b-section-2-game-2/

I finally decided to withdraw Feb LSAT. I felt underprepared and have advantage on this application cycle. I didn't take enough PTs and RC practice. It's a really hard decision since I prepared for more than three months.My target score is 170.Currently in around mid 150s.

I may apply for another master degree while preparing for June/Oct LSAT.

Hope my skills will get improved.Life goes on.

Hey All,

So we have this health study that found that people who gained approximately 1 pound per year after the age of 35 tended, on the whole, to live longer than those who maintained the weight they had at 35. However, there have been other studies that indicated that weight gain tends to lower life expectancy.

Pretty standard resolve the paradox stimulus. I'm thinking: "Okay...well 'weight gain' is a pretty vague concept. 1 pound a year versus 10 pounds a year will certainly yield different results. Maybe the answer choice has something to do with that? Or maybe we find out that one of the tested groups were not representative-- meaning maybe they were poor eaters or the weight gain was a result of muscle gain because they were regular gym goers."

Well, none of the answer choices did any of those things (not completely anyway).

I eliminated the correct answer (C) because it says that smokers tend to be leaner than nonsmokers. It says nothing about weight gain.

If (C) read: Smokers, who tend to be less likely to gain weight than non smokers, tend to have shorter life spans than nonsmokers, then I could see what the test writers were getting at. (C) would be providing us with an example of a situation in which another factor (namely, smoking) can effect the outcome of the study. (C) would give us a potential reason that these two studies yielded different results because the group was not a representative group. I think (C) would still provide a very weak resolution because it is not specifically linking the scenario in (C) with our stimulus and we are just given a vague possibility that may or may not be relevant. However, I'm not a fan of the other ACs either, so I guess (C) is what we're left with. The "may" part of "may or may not be relevant" is apparently enough.

HOWEVER, my contention with C is what I mentioned earlier. During my timed section (and even BR...) I eliminated C because it said nothing about weight gain. So smokers are usually leaner? Okay...? Maybe there is some sort of propensity in leaner people to smoke? Maybe people who eat less are more inclined to pick up smoking habits? The point is we don't know...so how on earth can we assume that weight gain is playing a factor at all in the scenario in (C)?

Thanks in advance.