@Marcus91 ok after further thought I suppose if something dissolves in water the trace elements are still there just in a diff form?? but between assuming the test takers are trained biochemists and the flagrant use of the word significant this question is foul

Since when does dissolve not mean to eliminate or make disappear? Perhaps it’s me… and then the word “significant.” This question is all over the place

tried this, didn't work for me. I think it didn't because you assume that all the questions toward the end are hard, but that's not the case - some are easy. so you overanalyze, spend a lot of time, which cuts into your time for questions 1-18. and there are a good number of hard questions sprinkled in from 9-17. a better approach, for me at least, is to zoom through questions 1-10. I try to finish them in under 7 minutes. I predict the answer, if I see it, I pick it, flag it, and move on without reviewing the other AC's. that leaves you 28 minutes to do the remaining 16 questions which will likely be harder. you'll finish with 5 minutes left on clock, and then you can go back & review all your flags to make sure your predictions actually led to the best answer for the question.

I do the same thing you do, passage with the least # of questions last. before I start the section, I find that passage, bubble D on all the answers, then proceed to the other 3 longer passages. then when I get to the last passage at 7 or so minutes left, most of the time, I complete all the questions but just in case I don't, they're already pre-bubbled so I can at least guess on the last one & not leave it blank, or not have to rush away from the question I'm currently working on to bubble the last question & then ultimately run the risk of getting them both wrong.

rotate them back around in the original order you took them so you see your oldest RC first for the second pass. you won't remember - if you somehow do, then you should get perfect on them all. if you don't, then they're good to reuse

I'm 0 to -2. When I miss two it's because I don't follow my own advice. You need to pick an answer you like, take 2 seconds and speed glance at the others, decide whether to keep your answer & move on. if you feel unsure but you've already spent a minute on the question, flag it & go. When I follow my own advice at most I miss 1 and that's because I finish the section with 5 minutes left to review/correct anything I left flagged.

predicting the answer helps. if you already know the necessary assumption, flaw, etc. it's much easier to feel confident picking your answer & moving on.

one piece of advice - the lsat tends to recycle topics, so don't let something that got you once get you twice. any passage you don't understand? research it once you're done. this passage on the earth's magnetic poles, the earth's crust, tectonic plates and lava absolutely kicked my ass once. I didn't research it & then another passage covered the same topic a week later, and it beat me again.

I used to have that issue too - I think your prephrase/prediction is too specific. now I identify the weak point/assumption & just hold that in my mind, without coming up with a specific prephrase. on the red admiral question, because the reasoning is based on an analogy between the two types of butterflies, you know the correct answer needs to address that analogy. use that to eliminate 2-3 answers and then just evaluate the remaining two.

I think SA is one of the question types that's easiest to learn & pick up once you know what you need to do, so don't fret.

If a stimulus says citizens burning down houses is harmful to society. additionally, burning down houses can kill other citizens. therefore the government should make it illegal to burn down houses. Why should the government make it illegal? This is not proven by the argument 100%. You're looking for an answer like "the government should make illegal any activity that is harmful to society or has potential to kill people."

on harder questions they may use tricky language to try to trap you so instead it might say "the state has an obligation to bar conduct with potential to be detrimental to its constituents"... but it's still the same thing, p > c

I was torn between C & D because I did not know what terrestrial meant. Hopefully I am not the only one

@YasmineJohnson haha oh no, not simple. I use the highlighter religiously. they sneak in these little adjectives slightly modifying one sentence, you overlook it, spend 2 mins totally confused on a question, then realize the answer hinged on that one little modifier the entire time. happened to me enough times I vowed to never let it happen again. I read SO SLOW to make sure I don't miss a single word lol

read the stimulus paying attention to adjectives/qualifiers, underline the conclusion, and highlight the MAIN premise(s) supporting it. I emphasize main because there can be more than 1-2, and although those provide support sometimes they can be context or like auxiliary information. what works for me is, the job is to identify what's necessary for the argument to work. I treat every argument as a necessary assumption question after first read & before going to answer choices ask myself what must be true for the author's conclusion to work? that's typically the weak point in the argument, and from there you can SA, strengthen, weaken, find the flaw in it.

congrats! prepare for your score expectations to go through the roof now. as a tip I'd say, at this point you are missing so few questions a test that it may be hard to analyze trends on certain question types you're missing based on a single test. compare over many tests instead, and then drill that question type (hard questions) and analyze every question you get wrong. if you aren't already, paraphrase before you look at the answer choices by identifying the assumption the author makes in the text. that alone made my score jump several points because I stopped falling for trap answers b/c I knew what I was looking for. 7sage's stimulus analysis is really helpful in this regard because of their section on 'notable assumptions'. sometimes after a section/test I go through every stimulus to check whether the assumption I identified matched theirs, & if they picked up on something I missed.

& lastly don't get discouraged if you have score swings (I used to but had to work myself out of that). as long as my average score is going up, I've grown to be OK w that instead of aiming for the same number on every exam.

I got this right because A is stronger than B, but I'm working on absolutely knowing w/o a shadow of a doubt the other answers are wrong. B to me could also work if A hadn't been there, because I assumed if they're relatively easier to spot then perhaps the field observations over counted them. Is this an assumption too far? Is the issue that we have no baseline on which to compare how easy songbirds generally are to spot so knowing that northern cardinals are easier to spot doesn't help us know whether they're truly easy to spot? any tips?

@SydneyTate yes same approach for every passage type. oh, but for comparative passages I read the first passage, answer which questions I can & eliminate the AC's I can, then I read passage 2 & come back to the questions.

is there a common theme across both tests? are you frequently missing the same question types? if so, drill the question types causing you trouble & get better & faster. then come back & take another PT

recycle them back thru in order in which you initially took them. On a PT, you might find you vaguely recall a couple questions but if you space them out by months I don't find it to be an issue. especially since so many topics are recycled on the lsat. Also I reuse the stimuli for practice paraphrasing - if it's an argument, I practice strengthening it, weakening, and identifying the necessary assumption. if it's not an argument, it's an inference set & I practice coming up with a valid inference without viewing the AC's. it's helped me become faster on the test

I've reduced my LR fluctuations by forcing myself to follow a standard formula for every question type. On a main conclusion question, I identify the conclusion first before going to answers. I ask myself, does it have support? On weaken/strengthen, I always identify the assumption/weak point in the argument before going to answers. On RRE, I identify the discrepancy & every piece of the paradox before AC's & don't allow myself to select an answer choice unless it addresses every single one. I used to be a little bit loosey goosey on the info in the stimulus, and since implementing these standards I'm forced to develop a deeper understanding of stimulus before I get to AC's, so I'm not as easily fooled by traps. Maybe it'll help you too

many don't agree with this, but I tried the whole "focus only on structure" thing and it didn't work for me. I need to understand the passage in & out to do well on it. so now I spend 4 minutes reading each passage, highlighting, etc. & then when I get to the answers I knock them out quickly because I know the material well. this also helps me not to fall for traps, because I have a strong grasp on what the passage supports. also maybe try a highlight/underline system. I underline the main point of every paragraph, highlight the author's opinion/beliefs in pink, outside/3rd party opinion in yellow, and background info like definitions/dates in orange. it helps me read with intention

I've been studying for 7 months and finally scoring in my desired range. if I could go back in time, I'd chill on the PT's. perhaps take a section, aggregate the incorrect answers by question type. whichever types have repeat misses, take the curriculum & drills until you improve. then tackle the next question type. then maybe take another section, repeat until you get to your desired score for that section type. taking PT's back to back without addressing the underlying issues is just a waste in my opinion & something I wish I hadn't done. once you're solid in LR and RC, then take a PT to see how your hard work panned out. & repeat

export the prep test results as a pdf from your browser & upload into chatgpt. use the 'answer popularity' column - I'd assume the second most chosen answer is a "trap"

never leave a question unanswered. before I got the timing down, I'd take the last 20 seconds and pick D for every question I couldn't answer. if you guess on 10 questions, you'll might get 2-3 of them right

during the actual timed section/test, are you glancing back at the passage to check if what you selected has support? that could help on the first pass, as I suspect you're doing that during blind review

when I'm reading a passage, I try to predict what questions I'll be asked. of course there's author opinion, main point, purpose of passage, purpose of paragraph; but there's also other things that come up in a passage that just seem important, and often times you'll be right, a question does appear on that topic

so when I'm reviewing after a PT, I go through the RC questions & ask myself should I have predicted that question would appear? I've caught on to certain indicators, like when there are lists present it's not unlikely you'll be asked about the list or items in the list, or if there are competing viewpoints, you're almost always asked about them.

so maybe look for common themes across the questions, compare to the passage & try to understand how you could've known while reading that question would be there. it helps me as I don't go into the questions completely blind. if something stands out to me in the passage, I'll spend 5 extra seconds to make sure I really understand it well. sometimes I'm right, other times I'm not. But when I'm right it pays off

I didn't like it either at first until I read the description under the question icon. I guess they know, per question, the highest score of people who got that question right. Even if it's a level 5 question, if the average score of people who got it right is 168 that's what they show you. A level 5 that few people get correct except the highest scorers will show a higher prediction. Once I learned that, now I kind of like it