Do what ATRIN94 said. Go through core curriculum on 7Sage, buy a book, and learn about LR. Increasing repetitions without improving your understanding is bound to do a lot of damage. Spend more time studying than practicing.

This one is so hard. The first and most important keywords we learn in LR are 'and' + 'or', and we learn to treat them very differently (of course).

If the stimulus said 'if Skiff's book is as important or as well written as Skiff claims, he will be promoted' instead of 'if Skiff's book is as important and as well written as Skiff claims, he will be promoted', A would have been the perfect and obvious answer choice.

But it feels like that condition isn't satisfied with answer A, since it only states one of the triggers.

I understand what J.Y. means in the explanation; he is saying that since the conclusion has been triggered, we know that both of the conditions were met, even though only one was stated (I think?).

Anyways this was not how I answered the question... there was one simple thing that led me to the correct answer choice A. The stim states that 'If Skiff's book is published this year, Professor Nguyen vows...". AC A is the only AC that mentions the Skiff's book being published this year. Maybe after this year, Professor Nguyen retires, and can no longer help. This eliminates all of the other answer choices on its own.

I'm fairly sure it's just to give you a chance to self-assess your confidence in a section. Then you are able to gauge how confident you were and compare it to your actual performance.

I don't think it has an impact on how drills are curated for you, if that's what you mean.

@kenzie.k Sorry I missed this, but I'll answer now with hope that you see it and it helps.

Like you said, it's inevitable that you will eventually skip over a key detail in your map. I'd recommend against just trying to pick the best answer possible and moving on without skimming the passage one more time.

Obviously, if you have to re-read for every single question related to the passage, you f-ed up your reading of the passage. But if you lost the anchor on a specific question, it is totally okay to go back and re-read a bit. That is one of the biggest positives of mapping! You spend so little time per question, that it is no burden to your final time if you want to slow down for that one, and ensure you get the right answer.

However, I'd recommend this only if you are comfortable and consistent with your timing. I typically finish a section with 4-5 minutes remaining, so I know that is the amount of time I can comfortably spend trying to look deeper into questions. Other people will be different.

Hope your studying's going well!

@Kadri Even further, negate both and see which would render the argument completely invalid!

Man, I really struggle with these PF reasoning questions. I am able to correctly identify the flaw in the stimulus, but I start hallucinating when it comes to the flaws in the answer choices.

Some sort of bias carries over once I have the original flaw in mind, and I always find a way to apply it to around 3 of the answer choices. Guess I found what to work on.

For those having difficulty understanding why C is the correct answer:

The main takeaway from the passage is that toddlers are unable to comprehend a new set of instructions due to their undeveloped frontal cortex.

C states just this: some behavior is not willingly disobedient... that would require them to understand the task. They simply do not understand, and therefore cannot be disobedient.

Try Adderall. Lol.

@Arthurxx We are not talking about ALL RATIONAL CONSUMERS, like answer choice D (and A) mention. We are talking about CONSUMERS that act RATIONALLY. That is what helped me eliminate those answer choices.

@YasmaineJ Hope this response isn't too late.

I would not give "bi-conditionals" too much thought. In my opinion, this complicates the answer/process. It is good for analyzing the stimulus after the fact, but bi-conditionals (or any other relationships tags, for that matter) and their "rules" are too much to think about while trying to solve a problem in a testing environment.

To make it simpler, just take the given rules as they are, and select the answer choice that best matches those rules. (1) Must have exemplary record, (2) did something this year (3) above-and-beyond, and (4) saved a life. Answer A matches those rules exactly. That should be the extent of your thought process while solving this question.

I understand wanting a deeper understanding of bi-conditionals and other relationship tags, but I argue that applying these tags is unnecessary and troublesome if you can't solve without them. They force you to think too much about your knowledge of relationships instead of the answer. And that takes time and brain-power from you!

What kind of questions do you typically miss? Are you missing a random 2-3 questions, or are you missing the 2-3 "curvebreakers" in the section? Or perhaps a certain type of question, like CondReasoning?

If there is a pattern to your weakness, attack that pattern. Otherwise, it is just a consistency / focus issue. The only tip I can give is to be thorough for every question- walk through every bit of each question like you are J.Y. solving it in his videos.

I say this because MY most missed questions are the "easy" ones, where I think I have the answer after reading only half of the stimulus/answer choices. I got through this by approaching each question the same, no matter what level of difficulty I thought the question was.

RE: RC, work on your mental maps. In my experience, if I do not immediately know the answer to an RC question after reading the passage, it is because I did not commit that specific piece of information to it's position relative to the rest of the passage. The fix is to always be actively thinking while reading. Each sentence is either a building block in the map, or is not relevant and can be discarded.

Hopefully this was at least a bit helpful. It is extremely tough to improve once you hit the 170+ threshold, so it's okay to be a bit frustrated. In this range you know you can solve each question correctly, it's just a matter of your mental approach. Each problem is solvable and has one definite answer... go find it!

Well said. I have fallen for that trap once or twice- seeing an insult of some sort and immediately choosing the answer containing something about ad hominem. Nice and easy distinction to make once you know about it!

@bwilliams Yes. Especially from the last 5-8 full-length PTs. All else equal, your performance on the actual LSAT will mirror your performance on those PTs.

It could depend on the specific test that a section is coming from. A lot of individual sections come from earlier tests, and are less similar to the conditions that the modern test creates (aka: they are easier).

If this isn't the case, and you are doing individual sections from more recent tests, but still not performing like you wish you were, it is probably just a mental block that you need to cross.

Mental stamina is important- maybe it's a good idea to take a 15-minute tea break in between sections of your PT. This works for me, as it is crucial not to overwork the brain during prep, especially right before the tests. Don't be too concerned that this doesn't mirror your testing conditions; for test-day adrenaline is usually sufficient to keep you locked without these breaks.

The stimulus says that a monster is threatening if it's physically dangerous, OR if it inspires revulsion. This means either one is enough to satisfy the conditions to be threatening. E is simply talking about a special kind of monster that is not that is not physically dangerous, but still inspires revulsion. Since the psychological factors are irrelevant, you can re-frame answer choice E as "All monsters that are not physically dangerous BUT who inspire revulsion, are threatening". This is true.