Yeah, the older exams used to have basic algebra on them. An older partner at my firm thinks I'm a moron since I'm studying so hard for a test that she remembers to be on simple high school concepts. :'(

I actually purposefully take PTs when I'm not completely rested. I know that I'll have too much anxiety the night before the actual LSAT and won't be able to sleep much. Knowing this, I've been making sure my recent PTs mimic this particular test-day condition so I can learn to deal with it. I agree with @974 that you should at least try it once. If you do worse than usual, you can figure out what specific weaknesses manifest when you're tired. If you do just as well as usual, then you can have some peace of mind that a less-than-perfect night of sleep won't hold you back. During the June administration, I kept stressing out over the fact that I had gotten a bad night of sleep and I think being preoccupied with this played a negative role in my performance. For October, I know I'm capable of hitting an ideal score even if I've slept minimally.

I was also very disappointed with my June score. A big issue that I had during my first round of studying was taking older PTs and not familiarizing myself with the newest ones. So make sure to focus most on the recent tests.

Have you taken PT 75 since June? I studied for a couple months after the test and then took it again (without having ever looked at the test and answers). I felt that BRing and reviewing the entire thing was super helpful in seeing what my problem areas were and determining what, if anything, was a result of anxiety. Turns out my fundamental skills were bad and I've been able to work on that a lot. I also saw that I had bubbled D for the last three answers of every section, so I had obviously run out of time on every section -- something I somehow did not remember. So definitely retake PT 75 if you haven't already and use it as a guideline for what you need to focus on. If your skills are there, just work on getting faster.

It's unlikely that you got a fluke bad score both times around, and that's actually a good thing! This way, you can work to identify and fix your weaknesses. Good luck!

The second I opened my 180 watch from its packaging, the reset screw fell out. I was able to catch it and screw it back in and it works, so if you can find any similar type of screw, it should work too! I would see if their customer service would mail a single screw to you. Otherwise, I'm sure a watch repair shop can help you!

Thanks so much @2543.hopkins. That was so incredibly helpful. You're so right -- it's really easy to allow questions or passages suck up a ton of time. It's also really easy to just set a time limit and move on and come back later. This was so helpful. THANK YOU!!

Thank you @2107 and @2543.janson35 !

@4090 @aincao151 I never really learned the fundamentals of NA and SA from the study materials I first used to learn about LR (Powerscore), which could have been either because it went completely over my head or because they didn't teach it well. I had been winging it on these questions the whole time. The LSAT analytics tool on 7sage helped me identify that this was actually a problem area.

I read the 7sage articles I could find for free on these question types (I'm not enrolled in any of the programs) and also picked up the Manhattan LR book, which was incredibly helpful. The Manhattan book has a lot of chapters dedicated to Assumption questions, so it clarified everything for me. Embarrassing, but after almost a year of studying, I only now truly understand what the difference between the two are. After re-learning it all, I applied my new knowledge to the Cambridge NA and SA packets to solidify my understanding. I do a little bit each day, and really feel confident in my abilities on these questions.

I started by doing the questions in the Cambridge packet untimed and doing a careful review after every page so I didn't reinforce any bad habits or incorrect logic. There are a lot of great LR answer choice explanations on the web. I used the free Manhattan forums but I think with the 7sage enrollments, you get a ton of question explanations as well. Once I was consistently getting every question right in the packets, I started to do two pages at a time, timing myself on a stopwatch and trying to go at a test-taking pace. I do a rough calculation of what my average time was per question. I try to be under 1:30 per question. I haven't missed a Necessary or Sufficient Assumption question in 3 PTs, which is significant because it is a very common (the most common?) question type. Hopefully this is helpful to you guys!

Hey @tutordavidlevine115, I actually had the same concern recently and posted my own thread about this: http://classic.7sage.com/discussion/#/discussion/3690/recent-70s-pts-harder-than-others

I think the test definitely has changed, but the changes are very very subtle and really not big deals. You can definitely adapt to them. Once I started taking tests in the 70s range, I was shocked to find that my score was reverting back to my cold/diagnostic score. But after doing a few of these newer tests and making sure to do really detailed reviews of these tests (as with any test), my scores have bounced right back to my normal range. It wasn't even a slow progression back to where I was. So, I totally understand where you're coming from. Just spend a lot of time reviewing every single question on the newer PTs (including those you got right) and with a few more tests, it will all make sense again.

For me, I think one of the changes was harder necessary and sufficient assumption questions. I was already very shaky with this question type and putting them in scientific terminology made them impossible for me. I brushed up on NA and SA questions (which turns out I never understood) and they're a breeze now. I think the test is still standardized and still testing the same fundamentals, but maybe in ways we aren't used to if we've been focusing on older material. Just focus on these new tests now and be diligent about your BRs and your reviews, and everything will be fine. Identify your weaknesses and work on them. You'll do great in October!

What kind of mistakes are they? I know that I tend to go through the rules so quickly that I often skip over a rule accidentally, which obviously messes up the whole game. One way I've resolved this for myself is by quickly numbering each rule before I actually read them. I just spot out where each new sentence begins in the list of rules and number it. Then I make sure I have the same number of rules on my game board annotations when I've written it all out. This way, I don't miss any.

Another thing that I've seen suggested a lot is to read the rules once, don't notate anything, and then do a second read-through and start notating then. That way you have an idea of how the rules work together and have a bit more familiarity with how the game works, which should minimize mistakes too.

@2543.hopkins Thanks for the insight and putting things into perspective. Let's do this!

I like the comparative passages too, @leonsmoney936 ! It's definitely easier for me to maintain my focus through two separate 2-paragraph passages as opposed to one long 4-paragraph one.

@alexandergreene93842 I've been studying at a slow pace for almost a year, mixed in with a full-time job. I would say LR is now my best section thanks to the LSAT Trainer and 7sage articles here and there. (Can't say LG is best because of the random crazy games.) I don't find many LR questions difficult, especially not when BRing. With the 70s, I'm finding that I can't even perfectly comprehend explanations after doing BR -- something that has never happened before. I guess I'll have to put on my big girl diapers like @974 and burn through the section faster so I can spend time on the tough questions.

Somewhat reassuring that others don't find the 70s harder...

@alexandergreene93842 In PT 72, for example, section 2 question 16 was written in such a way that made it very easy to misinterpret the argument (beyond what I feel is typical in PTs), and then there was a perfect wrong answer choice that matched the incorrect flaw. And section 4 question 7 presented a really hard situation to follow, which made it difficult for me to assess where the flaw was.