Reusing PTs isn't so bad. They can't replace a virgin PT, but if you didn't get the grade you wan't the first time around, that means there are definitely things you can still learn from retaking those older tests.

I've been studying for 13+ months and I am also taking the September LSAT. While I've saved most of the newer ones for these last 6 or so weeks, I have also rewritten a number of tests. It's been helpful both as a diagnostic tool (if I can the same question wrong both times I took it, that's a big red flag!) as well as serving as a benchmark for improvement (I've seen a 6-7 point improvement in my raw score when rewriting tests that I initially took before I found 7sage).

Your priority should be rewriting those PTs that you did the worst on. Treat the very oldest PTs (i.e. those that you first wrote the longest ago) as a substitute for actual virgin PTs. If you want to try and compensate for the fact that you've seen these tests before, try giving yourself a few minutes less than the normal 35 minutes per section.

This question almost had me stumped. I remember JY once saying that it is important to study the wrong ACs in "Flaw" questions because every AC is a legitimate flaw that could come up again. Since all the ACs describe legitimate flaws, I wound up going with E just because its the only AC that actually described something that happened in the argument. I definitely didn't appreciate the argument's full complexity though.

These are all good responses. I'd say that the most improvement comes after the CC, as you learn to apply the concepts you've learned on actual, timed PTs. All that a -57 means is you have 57 hints as to how you can improve. Seize on every single one!

A practice test everyday would be overkill. Doing more PTs on its own isn't necessarily beneficial. You need to do a methodical blind review and then examine and learn from every single mistake and hesitation on one PT before you move on to another.

At the beginning, you will be making more mistakes, so your review will take longer. I've seen people saying that, when you're starting out, 1 a week or even 1 every 2 weeks is plenty. If you're taking PTs faster then you can review them, you definitely need to slow down. If you are making mistakes or due to fatigue or burnout, you need to slow down.

That being said, now that I'm close to the end of my study arc (been studying since May 2017 with only a few weeks off here and there over this period). I can do two, even three PTs in a week without feeling burned out. Why? Because on a good day, I only get around 3-5 questions wrong on any given test, so my review is very targeted. Also I have been building up my stamina through taking PTs for a long period of time. Thus I can do more PTs in a week than someone starting out.

Another thing to keep in mind is that the more recent tests (36+) are more relevant to what the LSAT you write will look like. I'd say you'd get more from rewriting a PT in the 70s that you wrote a few months ago then writing PT 10 (for example) fresh, as there are question types that no longer appear and some of the older questions are not quite as "tight" as you would expect in more modern tests.

I wouldn't mess with the order, the PTs are structured as they are by testmakers for a reason. Instead of changing around the order of the sections, have you considered adding a fifth "experimental" RC section from an older test and writing that like its the first section?

One other thing, try getting all your LSAT studying done before you go to the gym ,if possible, especially if you are sitting a PT. Going to the gym has a noticeable impact on my LSAT skills to the point that I schedule my workouts so that they are always after any LSAT prep.

No need to beat yourself up over it, but in my experience its better to just finish for two reasons.

Number one, you might be off somehow, for whatever reason, on the day of the test. Learning to recover after a bad section is really important. We all run out of time/miss a few questions/transcribe a game rule incorrectly at times, and it sucks. What's much worse though is lettering that mistake stay with you for the rest of the test. If you nail 3/4 sections, you can still get a respectable score.

Number two: it often isn't that bad. I've had PTs where I missed a game, or ran out of time in LR and couldn't come back to some questions and my first thought was "I've bombed this" only to find out, upon scoring, that I actually did quite well. The severity of my mistakes had been amplified by the time constraints and my own anxiety.

So again, like I said, its not a big deal at all. But, if this happens again, try just pushing through and staying calm. We all make mistakes and we all have bad days, what's important is making your best effort to work through it. If this happens again, accept the lower score and treat that PT as an exercise in staying positive and focused in the face of adversity because, after all, PTs are just for highlighting your weak points and practicing under timed conditions -- the only score that matters is the one you get when you write the real thing.

@

Sage Advice is really good.

One trick I learned from one of the webinars is to do coinfidence drills. Take an LR section and write it under timed conditions. For each question, after reading the stimulus, go through the answer choices with extreme confidence: once you read an answer choice that sounds probably right, pick it and quickly move on. I took it a step further, and only allowed myself to consider each AC once (so if I got to E, that would be my AC and I would move to the next question).

It sounds weird, but this really helped with my speed and accuracy. It helped me to hone my ability to sense correct ACs and trap answer choices. I realized that if I was pretty sure about an AC, I was usually right. Also because I knew I'd only have one chance at each AC, it caused me to consider them more closely. Use a LR section from an older test and see if it helps you!

Another helpful technique is taking an LR section and, untimed, breaking down each stimulus and AC into abstract lawgic. This will really help with your ability to see through the distractions to the core logic at the heart of many of these problems, thus improving your accuracy.

I think it's better to mix it up more often since on the actual test, the ability to switch between the (partially) disparate skill sets required RC, LG, and LR is super important. I always found that when I focused on just one section type for a long period, my abilities in the other two would take a bit of a dip. So I'd always try to do extensive work on at least two of the sections in a given day of study.

You can still focus on a particular section that is pulling down your score, but I'd recommend always doing at least a little bit of each section each day that you study, no exceptions. So, let's say you want to spend a week foolproofing a bunch of LG, try to do at least a handful of LR questions and a passage or two of LR each day that you study. These can even be old LR questions/passages that you've already completed -- the important thing is that you are reinforcing these mental skillsets.

I started doing this and found that it really helped maintaining my averages in the other two sections when focusing on one.

Why not just tell them whatever reason you had for deciding to wait for a year? I don't think you need an excuse for making your decision.

@ 25?? Oh man I had 27 bubbled. But I was pretty sure I was off by, at most 1. Can anyone confirm?

Can anyone confirm how many questions were in the real RC? I mayyyy have misbubbled.

100% you should be studying in the morning. If you are writing your test at 8:30am, whether you are sharper at this time or not, you need to get used to doing this type of mental activity at that time. Not only will you be helping to recreate your mental/physical state on test day, but, if you are groggy in the morning, waking up this early will help adjust your body clock so, eventually, you will be alert at this time.

So I chose AC C initially, then switched to A. The reason I did this is because during BR, I started to wonder if in C, where it concludes that the practical joke would be wrong, that it was too different from whether one should do something.

In other words, is it a safe assumption that if something is wrong, then one shouldn't do it?

#help

There's not much to add, the advice everyone has given you here is correct!

What I will say is that PTs are a tool to help you practice for the real test. The point of doing them is to give you practice and identify weaknesses. If you're taking 3+ a week, you probably will be getting less out of it than if you took 1 or 2 and really milked each one for every bit of information that you can. If you're fresh for each PT you do, and learn from every mistake you make, you an only improve.

I'd say do 1 a week until you're scoring at or above your target score, as odds are there will be bigger conceptual issues that you initially run into.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but that seems like a valid way to think about it. With SA and PSA questions you technically are adding a premise to make an airtight (well, with PSAs, almost) argument.

As far as actually answering the questions, I've found it effective to practice doing these questions the way that JY explains it: by writing out the lawgic, predicting the answer, then attacking the ACs. Practice a bunch using this method, and you'll get faster and more accurate.

After doing this for long enough, I found I started to develop an intuition which ACs are plausible vs. obviously wrong.

This would be an amazing additional to the beginning of the core curriculum!

I eliminated A because I thought that his re-election campaign and his receiving of contributions could be happening concurrently, which seemed to muddy and sort of clear sequential relationship between the two premises. Was this an incorrect assumption? #help

@ You most definitely can (and should!) warm up on test day. If you do a few easy LR questions and a couple logic games before walking into the test room, you are still going to be much more mentally prepared than just going in cold.

Are you warming up before your write PTs? If not, maybe you're a little rusty when you start the section.

I had a difficult time eliminating AC D, mainly because of the fact that the average age was decreasing "most years in the last several decades". When I read this, I thought that maybe this could be true without directly contradicting the opponents explanation.

If we take several decades to mean, say, 30 years. Most of the last 30 years could be around 16 years. That means there are 14 years that could have not seen a drop due to this effect. Ultimately I eliminated D because it just seemed I was adding waaayyy too much to the stimulus.

Can someone #help me by commenting on whether my interpretation of D and/or my reasons for eliminating it were correct?

While I ultimately selected B, I found E quite hard to eliminate. Can anyone #help me understand why it's wrong? In this video, JY doesn't explain why the other ACs are wrong.

@ of course! I was taking two PT's a week, on Tuesday and Saturday mornings.

As far as breaking through the barrier, it only happened after lots and lots of practice, which isn't a super satisfying answer. Obviously careful blind review is key. After each test, mot only would I try to prove why a given AC was right, I'd take the extra 5 mins to prove why all the other four are wrong. Also, I would reprint each logic game that I got wrong or felt I did to slowly. Instead of printing out a bunch of copies, I would just slip it inside a plastic sheet protector then use a fine point dry erase marker so I could practice the game, then quickly erase it. It saved a lot of paper and made the games super portable. I would then put all such games in a stack, and practice periodically.

RC was my last stumbling block. I just started reading A LOT (I switched my major to English relatively recently) which made a big different. Also finding a notation method that works for you is key. I printed off and stored the RC passages I found hardest and redid them with a dry erase marker, just like LG.

I studied for around 16 months, until I felt ready. I also wrote every PT (some more than once! If you really struggle with a PT, don't be afraid to reprint it and write it again a few weeks or months later).

Also, make sure you are warming up about one to two hours before each PT! Write a couple old games, and old RC passage, and a page or two of easy LR Q's.

I hope some of that helps!

@oshun1 I know right? Just goes to show that things always look worse directly after the test. I almost fell out of bed when I saw my score.