Hi everyone,

I've been studying for almost a year and I have put in a lot of hours but I'm not making any more progress than I already have, especially in LR and RC. My diagnostic score was a 141, my personal best is a 155, and my goal is a 165.

Does anyone have any tips or recommendations to improve my LR score? It's getting very discouraging to invest so much time and money into this test and not get the score I want after so long.

I've done nearly the entire core curriculum and hundreds of problem sets in drills but it's not translating on actual prep tests and I'm very nervous to not get the score I want for when I take the test in April and June.

Any bit of help is greatly appreciated, even just saying what your strategy is for each question stem if it's different compared to what I do or what JY does.

Thanks!

I have been studying on and off for 3 months, I am not sure how to go about studying more seriously. This week I have been working on Necessary Assumption questions (not doing too hot on them) but should I get a good grasp on NA questions and then go into studying for another question type and continue that cycle on one question type at a time? If you have any words of wised regarding this, I will be eternally grateful.

Hi, everyone; thank you in advance for taking the time to read this.

I just began my LSAT journey a week ago and have been studying for multiple hours each day since then. I understand the struggle is inevitable, but MSS questions are absolutely taking me out! Subsequently, this is making it difficult to find the motivation to keep going when my screen lights up with the color red after blind reviewing and being quite confident in my reasoning. Based on the amount of time it's taking me to choose an answer, I know my over-thinking is a major player in this, but I am averaging like 2/5 and then 3/5 BR. I have found that typically, my biggest issue is that I don't see the correct answer choice even as an option for being correct because I believe it over-assumes what is said in the stimulus, and for that same reason, I am choosing the incorrect answer. The worst part is I feel like I'm not really learning anything because I just keep guessing. The only pattern for incorrect answers that I've been able to identify is when the wording is too broad. I (for the most part) understand the explanation videos but have no idea how I'm supposed to think that way when I'm actually doing the quizzes/drills. I can't articulate this as well as I had hoped, but I'm hoping someone else who has experienced this could provide strategies, approaches, etc. that helped them.

For reference, I scored a 143 on the diagnostic with no prior studying, and am hoping to take the June LSAT.

Well, it finally happened - hit a -0 on LG! Specifically, the exp. LG section on PT91. Would it be more satisfying if it were the scored section? Yes. Am I salty about it? HELL NO!

Been chasing this one for a few months and testing on Friday - not a moment too soon.

Just want to say that you CAN do it - if you're struggling, my advice would be to make sure you're circling every "viable" board you create, because looking back and using them to weed out bad answers on MBT/MBF questions can be HUGE to save a few minutes at the end to review your answers. I've started flagging MBT/MBFs until I finish the rest of the board and it's great for stress and accuracy.

Other than that, Drill baby drill!

I believe in u!

#PT94 - S2 - Q15

Can anyone explain options A and B? Many thanksss!

I'm also not sure about the flaw in the stimulus. In my understanding, the stimulus goes as:

I think the flaw in the stimulus is that it takes the illicit negation of the premise to support its conclusion. The conclusion implies that if one could gain some good from the incompetent or evil leaders, one would follow that leader (the illicit negation of the premise). This is why the incompetent or evil leaders bring some good to followers.

If my understanding is correct, I didn't find any similarity to the stimulus in both options A and B.

Admin Note: Edited title. For LR questions, please use the format: "PT#.S#.Q# - brief description of the question."

I have been studying for the past ~year and a half and I'm taking it for the third and final (I already sent out apps end of nov/beginning of dec) time on Saturday. My prep lately has been going pretty good - I just got my highest score two weeks ago and that will readily get me where I need to be BUT this week my drills, RC in particular, have taken a hard left turn. I'm trying to be relaxed about studying this week, I'm going to take a pt tonight, but now I am not sure if I should hold off until Friday night or not take it at all and focus just on RC but I also have some LR I really would like to solidify too.

PrepTest 94 - Section 1 - Game 4

I can't seem to figure out a faster way of answering this QS without brute force, any ideas?

I want to see the ideal way to split up the groups

hi all! I am averaging about -12 on LR prep test and each time it seems to be the 2nd half of the section that I get answers wrong. They tend to be a mixture of tags. Anyone have any advice on fixing this issue?

-5 to -7 on LR and RC, -11, -14 on LG. I've been doing games for over a month and my test is in 2 days pretty much. Really thought I was gonna be able to have these click but it just didn't. I thought this was supposed to be the most "learnable" part of this test? What is wrong with me

How long after I take the Jan LSAT can I wait to take my writing section? Thanks!

If I am getting -10 consistently on reading comp and i am taking jan lsat, should I just cut out an entire passage, and try to do my best on 3 passages?

I got this wrong initially by marking down A but the correct answer is E. This stimulus tells us a few things

It can be hard to tell whether adults can be held morally responsible for the treatment they receive because its hard to know if that is on their control or not.

Sometimes people's actions are the inevitable consequences of the treatment they received when they were an infant (and since infants can't control anything they can't be morally responsible for receiving that treatment).

What absolutely MUST be true here?

A. an infant's actions are not on the chopping block here + never is really strong language

B. maybe this is true but it feels really tangential

C. this concept of partial responsibility does not exist anywhere in the stimulus we are operating in a binary universe

D. we know that the statement (people cannot be morally responsible for things they can't control and the inevitable consequences of things they can't control) is true but this offers a false contraposition of that statement (suff - neck confusion)

E. If everyone sometimes performs acts for which they are not morally responsible, that means that no-one should be held morally responsible for every act one performs.

Admin Note: Edited title. For LR questions, please use the format: "PT#.S#.Q# - brief description of the question."

help can someone please explain why H isn't in 2 for this question?

Admin Note: Edited title. For LG questions, please use the format: "PT#.S#.Q# (G#) - brief description of question."

Is the LR section harder to improve on or RC? I do great on the games, not so much on either of those. I have 5 weeks before I take my 2nd LSAT test and need to bring my score up by at least 7 points....please any tried and true methods that would really help someone in a pinch or is it still just practice practice practice?

Reading the stimulus, I thought there was the following logical gap in Anita's claim:

having a quandary about newsworthiness(the premise) and the guidance being inadequate(the conclusion).

So I picked (D) since I thought it meant the contrapositive of my pre-phrase. However, is (D) wrong because of "ethical dilemmas" since the stimulus refers to quandary specifically related to newsworthiness?

Also, is (E) wrong because of making a "professional decision"?

Then, why is (A) the correct answer?

Is the main conclusion for main conclusion questions always explicitly stated in the stimulus? I was wondering if there was ever a case where the main conclusion turned out not to be in the stimulus but an answer choice that happened to be supported by all the premises in the stimulus. Or would this be a MSS thing instead?

Thanks.

Any tips to increase speed on LR. I get up to question 19-20 with around 2-4 wrong but the last 5 I tend to have an average of 5 minutes to complete. Should I attack it in a different way maybe going with the lsat 5 Questions first then solving the rest any tips would be great!

I just want to make sure I’m thinking about this right. I did a game where one rule said if H is in, G is not. And another rule said if J is not in, S is in. So when diagramming, if the slash is through the right variable (necessary condition) it’s always true that both can be out but both can’t be in. If the slash is through the left (sufficient condition) it’s always true that both can be in but both can’t be out (at least one must be in). Right? I tend to make reversal mistakes so I’m trying to make sure I fully understand.

Hi all,

I'm struggling a little with understanding how some of the conditional indicators (if, when, etc.) imply the exclusion of other conditions.

For example, the below makes sense to me:

If you are in New York, then you are in the United States.

Maybe because the content is familiar? Of course not being in the United States means you're not in New York, so /USA -> /NY

But, in the following example question:

A teacher earns respect if she fosters a love of learning.

Must we assume that if means if and only if, in this case meaning the only way she can earn respect is by fostering a love of learning? Couldn't she be a Nobel Prize winner that does not foster a love of learning, but is still respected?

Hi, I see how AC C is correct, but I do not see how AC A could not also be correct? Could someone please explain by AC A is incorrect. Thanks!

hi y'all, I am taking the jan test and just wanted to see what y'all think. I feel very confident on LG, it is my strongest section. I miss between 2-5 questions at the most. For LR and RC, I do miss around 10-12 for each section :( would this give me a decent score?

Hello,

I was interested in hearing your thoughts about how relevant older PTs i.e 60s-70s are for the Jan LSAT? I feel they are pretty different in terms of LR question types!

I have almost completed redoing PTs in the 90s/80s but I feel like my familiarity with them is helping me increase my score. How should I practice more relevant content?

Thank you

There is no explanation for this question on 7sage, so I'll just post a discussion that includes my reasoning on how I got this wrong in timed conditions and later right in BR. If anyone finds it useful, great!

P: The evidence for this explosion is that 45 of the 70 active opera companies were founded in the last 30 years.

C: There has been an explosion of public interest in opera over the last three decades.

<><><><><>><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

The author makes this assumption.

The fact that 45 opera companies were founded = an explosion of public interest in opera.

Now, the conclusion seems a lot weaker right? If you could give an alternate explanation to why these new opera companies were founded that contradicts the idea that there has been an explosion of public interest in opera, then that weakens the conclusion, which in a NA question means it is right.

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

AC B.- If denied, this weakens the argument which is correct. What if the 45 opera companies that opened did so because some other opera companies shut down? Then that shows that there has not been necessarily an explosion of public interest, but rather a replacement of opera companies in the same market.

AC D.- The premise and conclusion still stand as they have nothing to do with average audience.

AC E.- This does not have to be true for the argument to stand on its own. It could still be the case that not all 45 of the opera companies that opened. The explosion of public interest could have still happened as at least some of these opera companies opened because of an explosion in public interest for opera.

There is no explanation for this question on 7sage, so I'll just post a discussion that includes my reasoning on how I got this wrong in timed conditions and later right in BR. If anyone finds it useful, great!

RRE question.

In jurisdictions where the use of headlights is optional when visibility is good, drivers who use headlights at all times are less likely to be involved in a collision than those drivers who use headlights only when visibility is poor.

Record shows that making use of headlights mandatory does nothing to reduce the overall number of collisions.

<><><><><><><><><><><><>

Why is it that drivers who use headlights at all times are less likely to be involved in a collision than those that only use it when visibility is poor? If in any case, the record shows that making it mandatory does not reduce the number of collisions.

Sometimes repeating the stimulus in a question form that directly addresses what the gap is between the 2 statements is what helps reach the link the gap of what is missing. It is also important to do this in a confusing stimulus because you do not want to lose sight of what you are trying to reconcile.

It is also good to prephrase (try to picture the flaw in a question before moving into the ACs). In this case, because maybe what causes the collision is not necessarily the headlights and perhaps there is another factor that plays a role, and the headlights are just correlated with this.

<><><><><><><><>

AC C: I picked it but I switched to E on timed conditions (wrong decision). C sounds kind of irrelevant but in reality, it directly addresses the question stated above. Why is it that there is a difference between the drivers who use headlights at all times and those who do not? Because the former are more careful, which might explain why they get into less collisions.

AC E: This sounds good at first, but it fails to reconcile the statements. It just gives a reason to maybe why the jurisdiction implemented the law. It does not explain why those drivers that use headlights at all are less likely to be involved in a collision than those who use it when is poor.