I definitely found it harder than 145 and 149, but also there's so much randomness in what you get on the test I would say that they're all representative of what you might see on test day, so make sure you really review what happened there. I felt like the LR sections were harder than the RC for this one, especially some of the NA/flaw questions.

Diagramming! Create a broad outline of the argument ie if A then B, if B then C, therefore if A then C. Don't read each AC completely, read only as much as you need to prephrase what a matching argument would be. Then see if the choice matches and if it doesn't, move on. For example, if AC A says if all cats are mammals and all mammals are fluffy, stop reading there and figure out what must follow-refer back to your diagram if you get lost. If the next sentence doesn't explicitly say that all cats are fluffy, it's out, no matter what else comes next. You can also generally use this shallow dip strategy to eliminate some before you even have to map them out-maybe you have the traditional structure above but AC B says all cats are mammals or fluffy, it goes out since it has a conjunction instead of a simple condition. It feels slow at first but if you practice it enough you'll get quick enough to get through each AC super quick, especially when you end up eliminating 3 or even 4 without having to read and think through them all :)

Honestly just give yourself a day or two off. I know it feels counterproductive but sometimes you just need a reset and to come back with a fresh perspective. Find some RC sections on topics you find interesting and practice those to remind yourself that the test can be fun and engaging. If your test scores keep getting higher you're clearly doing something right. Keep going and don't be too hard on yourself :)

Testing stress will generally drop your score a few points, especially if you're taking it in an unfamiliar environment. I would also make sure you're taking your PTs in a similar format-same break time, same time of day, etc. The higher PT numbers are more similar to the real LSAT tests since they have more logic games style questions, so prioritize taking those!

Start slow! Do some untimed drills just to get back into the groove and maybe watch a live/recorded class or two to get into the mindset and rhythm of answering questions. I wouldn't go in totally cold to the PT since presumably you won't be taking the real test after a month off, so you want conditions to be somewhat similar. If you're finding it hard to do long chunks, break it up into 20 minute sessions throughout the day-keeps things fun and engaging but enough time to go deep on a question or two at least :)

I choose which one to watch based off of my weakest areas in my analytics! I find it helps to do in-depth review of areas I struggle with, and often other people ask questions that I didn't even realize I had or didn't understand :)

Think about high level ideas! It's not about the details of the medical processes or how they work, but what the author thinks about them. Try replacing the complex idea/term with a vague catch-all term like "this condition" or "this process" and read through, just thinking about structure/relationships and author view. Answer as many questions as you can with that lens, and then any more passage specific questions you can go back and look for explanatory details :)

It's hard to know without seeing the question, but if the conclusion doesn't explicitly state that the sample applies to the general population, then it doesn't necessarily have to have a diverse well-randomized sample representative of the general population. For example, if it said something like "this shows that more of these people believe yes than no", it's referencing back to the people in the sample, which is a valid method.

Are you doing timed drills? Sometimes just the stress of the timer can make performance drop-hide it or do untimed, it feels unproductive but even if you're going slower you're working on your process so you can do it faster timed. Also maybe redo some basic mapping/lawgic drills to recement foundations. And take a break! Sometimes your brain needs to sit on something for a few days so it can make connections unconsciously. If it feels like too much to totally stop look for causal reasoning in everyday life (reading, discussions etc) and do some casual practice so you're staying fresh :)

The higher numbers seem to have more logic games-y questions that are often at the end of the real test's LR sections, so I would focus on those. Get lots of sleep the night before-don't burn yourself out doing a last minute PT or studying too hard so you're fresh on test day. Maybe do a few warm up questions the morning of, and bring/use noise cancelling headphones if they have them at your test center to minimize distractions and replicate your practice environment :)

Yes, this is generally true! You always have to link premise to conclusion so a value statement connecting why the premises mean that something should/should not be done is often the right answer. However, you always have to make sure it goes the right way (premises as necessary condition), and you can't take the contrapositive of a value statement so it has to match, not be negated and flipped. Parallel reasoning also has the matching value statement rule :)

I wouldn't focus on timing until you're happy with your accuracy. Instead of drilling for speed, drill for accuracy-focus on less questions but aim for not moving on until you're sure you've found the right answer. The great thing about accuracy drills is you can do 2 or 3 questions at a time and get just as deep of an understanding if you're really breaking down the question and explaining to yourself why your AC is right and why each of the other 4 is wrong. You can even try to break up shorter accuracy drills throughout the day before evening exhaustion sets in-maybe 1 in the morning and 1 on your lunch break. On days with more time practice doing a full section to start to build up endurance. Not a mom but a full time student also working 30+ hours a week-I know the struggle! You got this, and remember to take a break when you can as well-rest is just as important for building muscles as working them is :)

I would definitely focus more on drilling difficult questions if that's what you tend to struggle with in your analytics. However, including some easier questions in your drilling help ensure that you're not overthinking 1 star questions like 5 star questions, and also help you drill speed so you have more time for the harder questions :)

The causal and conditional reasoning live classes also have quite a bit of diagramming :)

I would say focus on quantity over quality, and split your time evenly between RC and LR, or maybe even more on RC if your LR score is ok. You don't want to overpractice and burn out, so focus on just doing 1 or 2 RC drills and really digging into your wrong answers and wrong answer journaling what you got wrong/takeaways for next time. I also find the recorded RC classes really helpful, they go a lot slower but the more you practice deep analysis the better you will be at it under timed conditions! Also just reading more in general in everyday life and stopping often while you're reading to think about structure and main points :)

I feel like i'm in the exact same boat! Took the October test hoping to be one and done but I fear that's not happening. I work and am a full time student, so what I've found works best for me is doing smaller drills of 5-8 questions, but turning up the difficulty level to 4 or 5 and really focusing on accuracy and understanding over speed, then reviewing my wrong answers right after and diagramming out whatever I missed. By the time I do my weekly PT I feel like I've absorbed enough information and skills that I can apply but I'm not so burnt out that I have no energy. Sometimes more is less :)

Honestly just reading more in general, I read the Economist/Scientific American on my lunch break and make myself stop after every paragraph to come up with a main point of the paragraph and then a 1 sentence summary of the whole article. Also on RC sections emphasizing reading for structure, not detail. I try to prephrase every RC question answer before looking at the answer choices to see if I can find one that's close, which saves me time for the longer/harder RC questions where I do have to go back and hunt through the text. Not sure if you're already doing it but wrong answer journal everything I get wrong, and for LR ones I got wrong I make myself diagram them out following along with the explanation videos :)

A lot of the other question types use similar logic/strategies as SA, so you'll still be getting better even if you're not focusing on it. I also found that my SA skills got way better after I took a week off. That being said, what also really helped me when actually doing SA questions was explicitly writing out all the premises and conclusion underneath like they do in the videos and making myself physically find/draw the missing link. Some other tips: strong language (ie. always, never) often indicates a good SA (sufficient=strong is how I remember), and most correct SA ACs involve the conclusion condition as a necessary condition, so I look for that first.

Hey! I took the October LSAT and did my last PT on LawHub, and found the format to be super similar. I'm pretty sure LawHub and 7Sage use the same question bank, so questions will be similar. I've heard LawHub's highlight/search features can be glitchy; I don't use highlight but search worked fine on test day. The one big difference is you can't skip the programmed breaks on the real test. My actual test definitely felt harder than some of the earlier PrepTests since some of the LR question styles/distributions were different, so I would recommend prioritizing the later PrepTests (higher numbers). My real test did have a comparative passage, although I had 2 RC sections and not sure if it was experimental. Hope that helps :)

I'd love to be added :)

Most questions are arguments in some form or another. If there are premises that support a conclusion, this is an argument, though it may be valid or invalid. 7sage has a list of conclusion indicators-if you see any of these, it's probably an argument. Sometimes you won't get an argument with MBT or MSS questions, so you'll just get a lot of causal or conditional premises and you have to complete the argument with your AC to make a valid conclusion. In general, conclusion indicator word = argument!

Don't even look at the questions after you finish reading. Stop and ask yourself: "What is the author trying to get me to believe by reading this passage?" Then go to the question and find the best match. If you're still struggling with this, it helps to study the common passage styles so you can get more familiar with common passage structures and how they relate to author purposes/MPs :)

The stimulus will generally give you all the information you need without any outside information. Even if you knew nothing about smoking's effects on cancer, the fact that the two groups had different lifestyle factors could in itself resolve this discrepancy, as we know that there could be some effect, even without outside knowledge of what that would be. However, if you do have to make an assumption, it should be EXTREMELY reasonable-very common public knowledge. In most cases, though, you can reason it out and shouldn't depend on outside knowledge-some questions prey on this and the right AC is something that would seem contradictory to common knowledge but is still supported by the stimulus.

Honestly just lots of practice! Diagram it all out, don't try to do it in your head. There's some great 7sage skill builder exercises where they give you a bunch of conditionals to chain up, get a piece of paper and pen and do them all. For the ones you got wrong, redo them until you understand. Key tips to remember are that you can only connect a necessary condition to another condition necessary for that one, if it's sufficient it doesn't map onto the chain. For example, if A then B can link up with if B then C to be if A then C. However, if A then B and if C then B would stay 2 separate chains- if A then B and if C then B.

If armor limits growth, this would mean ocean stickleback are smaller than lake stickleback. Ocean stickleback have armor to protect against predators, but what about lake stickleback? The argument assumes that their larger size plays the same role of predator defense as the ocean stickleback's armor, thus a larger size and lack of armor. However, if only the lake stickleback need to be larger to survive cold winters, then this provides an alternate explanation for why only the lake stickleback are larger and lack armor-it's not a predator defense but a climate defense. We have no idea what the impact is on predators, but maybe lake stickleback have some other defense mechanism that we don't know about. If lake stickleback are preyed on more often by insects than ocean stickleback, having a larger size wouldn't necessarily be a better defense as these insects are smaller than the stickleback, so we would have to make a pretty big assumption on how a larger size would help-much larger than the assumption that there's another explanation for their size :)