Hi! I recently tried this method where before I take a PT, I write down question types and my process to solve them, and tell myself that for every question type, I just have to follow my process. No matter the difficulty, it is all solved in the same way.

Example: for weakening questions, I don't have to disprove the conclusion, I just need to make it unlikely to be true; for flaw questions, I have to describe the error in the reasoning etc. And btw these descriptions are based on the silly mistakes I make such as trying to prove something wrong in a weakening question when I don't have to, or trying to weaken a flaw question. You could customize your own version of this for what you usually miss in PT but not in BR. This closed my PT/BR gap for LR.

I often get so anxious that I lose track of what I'm doing, and reminding myself that I have done great in BR, drills and I can do the same in the PT if I just stop panicking and follow my process as usual is what has helped. For the mind wandering, I suggest using the highlighter tool. When I do this, I'm forced to interpret each sentence, is it conclusion, premise? then I highlight it, is there a questionable word in an AC? highlight!! This is how I keep myself focused.

Weaken = make the conclusion unlikely NOT necessarily destroy it.

C) Painters used live models. [This is the core argument and this doesn't make it likely that the artist worked as a live model]

D) Including yourself in an important painting with important people is against the norm. [Going against the norm could be harmful to the artist's own image, he will be less likely to do that --> proves conclusion less likely]

@MichaelWright Thank you! Tried the speed drill today and PT/BR gap improved significantly for LR. RC, however, was a -11 PT and -3 BR. Will keep trying this method, but if you have specific tips for RC, I would greatly appreciate it!

@MichaelWright Hi! I have a pretty similar problem. When I do a timed PT, I go on autopilot mode and I feel like I'm not even registering what I'm working on. I do timed drills and most of the times I have enough time remaining to double check my answers. I consistently get level 4 and 5 questions right but when I do the PT, I'm stuck in Q3 or Q6.

My PT to BR gap is almost a difference of 8-10 points. I have drilled my weak question types to perfection but when I come across these question types on the PT, I overthink and I either get it wrong or spend too much time on it. This might just be test anxiety/mindset problem and I'd love to know if you have any tips that have worked for other students (besides breathing exercises :(( those have never worked that well for me).

I'm also taking the June test, aiming for a 170+, currently scoring 159-161 on the PTs and 167+ on BR.

Will universities take into account the current job market in terms of evaluating softs? I have been unemployed for about 10 months now but I have been actively involved in volunteering roles such as teaching ESL and refugee related research (20hrs/week), I was wondering if this would be viewed as an inferior or negative experience in comparison to a full time role. Any advice for making up for resume gaps besides the LSAT would be appreciated.

@anulirz hey, i think "some" and "some not" follows different rules, btw this AI explanation/exercise really helped me, maybe you should try it out?

Grab a pen and paper right now and do this physically.

Draw This

Draw a box and label it "All Alphabets"

Now draw 10 small circles inside the box. Each circle = one alphabet.

The Original Statement

"Some alphabets are not phonetic"

Now shade in 3 circles and label them "NOT phonetic"

The remaining 7 are phonetic.

Your statement is satisfied. Just needed at least one shaded circle. ✅

Now Try YOUR Negation

"No alphabets are phonetic"

Shade ALL 10 circles — none are phonetic.

Now look at your drawing. Are some alphabets not phonetic?

Yes — literally all of them are not phonetic. Your original statement is still true. You didn't kill it, you made it even more true. ❌

Now Try The Correct Negation

"All alphabets are phonetic"

Erase all shading — every circle is now phonetic.

Now look at your drawing. Can you find even one circle that is not phonetic?

No. Zero shaded circles. The original statement is completely dead. ✅

@Kevin_Lin Would you say it is safer to translate any "few/a few/fewer than half" type of sentences to "most not" rather than "some"?

@lsaty

• I don't do BR cause I feel like it wastes my time. I only reattempt the ones I get wrong to see if it is a timing issue. Most of the times it is not timing.

• I keep a WAJ and have specific notes about the wrong assumptions I made and what I can do better next time. Sometimes I'll make a silly mistake but I still note it down to see if its a pattern. In the WAJ, its helpful to not just say things like "I rushed" or "I confused A with B" but to look for what you usually miss when you get rushed. Or what mistakes do you tend to make when you are running out of time and how can you be better in those situations? I also use chatgpt to see if there is any mistake pattern I can avoid by copy pasting my WAJ

• I come up with a mental check list for questions that I find difficult. For NA questions, I would think, have i highlighted the evidence and the conclusion? Do i understand what assumption the author is making? Am I picking an answer choice that is too broad? too strong?

• For RC, the major breakthrough was when I started highlighting opinions, through my WAJ i found out that I constantly picked ACs that mentioned something in the passage but was jumbled up with irrelevant info. The highlight tool also helps me retain info and be focused on what I'm reading instead of just mindlessly going through the passage, definitely make use of it if you are a visual learner

I was in the same position where I couldn't break into the 160s. I thought I had studied for such a long time and understood everything, but my score was not improving. I thought I knew everything there is to know about the test. After the Nov test, I did a breakdown of my wrong ans type and was brutally honest to myself. I sucked at conditional reasoning, and I was drilling those question types, doing my review, but I never went back and tried to learn it from scratch. Like you, I was also testing out different platforms, and they all had different methods, especially for conditionals, where some of them tell you not to diagram and some of them make you diagram. This was just too much conflicting info, so I decided to stick only with 7sage, and I redid the foundation lessons. I took it really slow and made sure I was understanding every single concept I learned. Even though I felt like I already knew certain things, I still took the time to go through the lessons and figured out that I didn't really know everything. I was also not taking breaks and was constantly thinking about the test so much that I burnt out, and when I would drill, I wouldn't really be focused, so I was studying just for the sake of studying.

I think if you are scoring between 141-145, you would really benefit from redoing the self-study lessons. No matter what your goal score is, I would suggest being in the mindset of getting as many right as possible rather than, for example, getting 15 or 18 correct each section to get to a specific score, imo this causes your brain to skip learning everything in detail. English is also not my first language, so I struggled with grammar, but it got easier when I slowed down instead of panicking. I started at a 141, and my score has gone up so much. The test is quite learnable, I would suggest not quitting if you really want this! I'm happy to chat more and share my experiences with you if that helps! Good luck!

Hi! Planning to take the April test! Would love to take PTs and review together!

For the domain + rule framework, can we kick "resident" to the domain?

/Purpose --> Prohibit

/Prohibit --> Purpose

@YvetteHan I was also confused on if I was supposed to find a flaw in Mr K's reasoning or the authors. I think by Mr K's allegation they are talking about the allegation he makes which is the people who are complaining about him are doing so because of political differences. We are supposed to find a flaw in the argument against his allegations and the only argument against him is made by the author. I initially thought allegation in the question stem was pointing out to the people who complaint about his company, but they only complained and didn't make any allegations against Mr. K. It is Mr K. who makes the allegation against those who complained.