Yes, I was thinking the same. I always try not to look at it, but sometimes I can't stop it. I think it would be beneficial for us to not know, especially if we have all the options activated, since we know we're getting more than just the wrong answers.

@Daisy228 There must definitely be something that I'm not doing well, but I still need time to figure that out. For now, I'm just working on two things that I never really did: skipping questions that seemed too hard and practically robbed me of my time, and blind reviewing pretty much everything: the questions I flagged, the ones I took too long to answer, the ones I skipped at first, the wrong ones, etc.

Other than that, I just don't know how to figure out what my real problems are.

Hello, thank you for sharing your story! I'm actually on the same boat right now. I scored a 150 this June and I'm now realizing that I need sharpen my skills, but don't even know where to begin. So this was very helpful. Thank you!

@AriVilker1 I think you're right with this. As soon as I got my result I turned on every single one of the blind-review options. I think I cheated myself a little bit by turning them off since I was only reviewing what I explicitly knew was wrong. But if I were doing things correctly, then I shouldn't even know what was right and wrong in the first place. Maybe that's what caused me to fail this test?

@PhoebeHopp Thank you so much. I never tried doing type-specific drills because I always felt like I was running low on questions and had to constantly re-use the same ones all the time. While I never memorized them, I somehow felt like I was cheating. So I mainly focused on doing sections and PrepTests, and drills only when it came to conditional logic, since I wanted to do as many as I possibly could to get faster at diagramming, or simply know when to do it and when to skip it.

I think my main problem is that I'm usually stuck between two answers (shocker, I'm sure most people go through this) and often select the wrong one. This mistake is easy to fix during blind review, because the trap answer was forcefully eliminated and I also have more time to understand why it was wrong (and that it was wrong, too!), but when I'm doing a PrepTest or a section, there's no way for me to know how or why I should choose one answer instead of the other. I mean, of course there are some techniques I could use (for example, one answer is too extreme, or it focuses on a set that the main arguing is not interested in, etc). But under timed conditions it's so hard to see those flaws.

I have an honest question, why would someone want to exclude a drill/section/PT from their analytics? I'm asking so that I can use these tools when necessary, since I really don't know what circumstances might be ideal to do that...

@BentonSimpson Yes, 100%. I know that customization is really helpful for most people, but that "untimed" option is so juicy and good looking... I can't stop myself from selecting that every single time. I'm just weak like that. So this change has really helped me get out of that habit. It would be perfect if we could have the option to select how we want it, everyone would be happy.

I like this new version because it forces me to stop being so lenient with myself. I would prefer if we could just select an option in the settings to make it the way it is now or to change it to the way it was before, that way everyone would be happy.

It's just that if I leave it up to myself, I will choose the easiest path, meaning that I will always make my drills untimed, and that's one of the reasons why I wasn't making any progress... because I'm so soft on myself. Plus, that's why we have blind review, no? If I need more time because I couldn't finish some answers, I will get that additional time on blind review. And at the same time I will be working on doing answers under time pressure.

I actually really like this feature. It's forcing me to get out of my comfort zone. When I was able to select everything for myself, I would just select untimed practice every time with the excuse that I was still studying, which is fine, but I kind of needed to push myself in terms of time, and well, now I can't really cheat myself. This is also how the LSAT proceeds. Once you start, you can't really choose anything, and this feature really helps me get into that mindset... the mindset that I'm subject to what the LSAT writers will choose for me and not what I will choose for myself. At first I was really against it, but now that I think about it, this is really the help that I needed.

Plus, you can still change your settings if that's what you want. It's not like they're taking the option completely away. So I personally like it. I have seen lots of people complaining about it, so I just wanted to voice my support. I'm the type of person that can't force herself to do anything that will make her life more complicated, I really need people to force me to do things. This is why I'm very excited about this change.

@elst678 If you go to drills, there's a section down below that says "Drill by Tag", and you can find the tags that you want to target there specifically. You can also custumize everything there.

I understand you. I am in the same boat as you are, so my advice might not be the best one out there. However, somebody made me realize not long ago that there was one stupid thing holding me back, and it was believing that I knew and that I understood everything, and I fear that you might be in the same place that I used to be.

Even though I haven't broken the 160s, something that has helped me improve was recognizing that I do not know the content. I don't understand the stimulus when I read it, or the question stem, or the assumptions being made, or the actual flaw; I don't know the strategies, and if I know them, I apply them poorly or even use them when they're not required; I don't know the logic behind the argument, I can't see the logical gaps or the logical jumps, I mistranslate some sentences, I can't locate the premise or the conclusion, and if I do I fail to establish an appropriate connection, sometimes I'm just oblivious to everything. And to be fair, not knowing those things is okay. What's not okay is not knowing those things but telling yourself that you do. That's probably what's hampering your progress. At least it did to me.

That mentality prevented me from seeking other sources, from honing my abilities, even from blind reviewing correctly. I wouldn't tell you to go back to the core curriculum (although maybe you should, this is something I myself have been procrastinating), but I would recommend you to get rid of those thoughts. Once you know that you didn't understand something, and you're honest with yourself, you will feel more motivated to try really hard to understand it.

That's another tip, whenever you answer something incorrectly, don't just fix it during blind review. That's easy, since you already got rid of the most attractive trap answer. Instead, focus on understanding why the wrong answer is wrong and why the right answer is right. Most experts don't tell you this because it sounds fancy: it really makes the difference. And don't let that question go until you make the connection yourself. Don't even see the explanation before you've made the connection yourself. And after you've answered it (whether correctly or incorrectly) then go watch the explanation. Also try to explain to yourself how you got to this or that answer. What steps did you take? Where did you go wrong? What exactly did you need to do in order to make it right? It is hard work. Sometimes I'm just as frustrated. But you will persevere.

@JoelKeenan Wait, I'm lost. Where do you get that answer choice D says "If you make a promise, it must make sense"? If anything, the right way to translate answer choice D would be "If it makes no sense, then promises should not be interpreted in such a way". Let's say that, for the sake of the argument, you find the contrapositive in that. Fine. But answer choice D is still talking about interpretations rather than making promises, so I don't understand where you get that interpreting a promise means to make a promise. You're equating two terms that shouldn't be equated.

But also, if you try to link the premises that you're giving me, I can't find the right way to do it. For example, you say that the main premise is "If a promise makes sense, then love is not a feeling". And then you tell me that the conclusion is "If you make a promise, then love is not a feeling". And then the missing premise is hidden in answer choice D, which after applying the contrapositive, it says "If you interpret promises it in such a way, then they make sense". And I'm going to be fair and say that interpreting a promise is the same thing as making it. In which case, the hidden premise now says "if you make a promise, then it makes sense", right? Well, to me that's still not right, because the idea of "making sense" must go in the sufficient assumption place ("if it makes sense, then you can make a promise"),otherwise you wouldn't be able to link both ideas. But sadly, my translation is not giving me the answer that I'm looking for.

My translation might be wrong, I would never assume the opposite. But I feel pretty confident about it.

The argument form is very simple. If love is a feeling (A), then Promise makes no sense (/B).

The conclusion negates the sufficient condition by claiming that no one should see love as a feeling (/A). By doing this, the argument completely falls apart. There's nothing triggering the necessary condition, which means that the claim just... stays there, floating around.

Therefore, the right answer choice is simply Promise makes no sense (/B).

Hi! I'm not an expert, but what helps me is to identify the premises and the conclusion, and then I try to simplify everything as best as I can.

So, for example, if a premise says "Some dogs like swimming in the pool", I just focus on the quantifier "some" and the fact that the statement is positive. If there's an answer choice that has "most", "none", "all", etc., I would immediately eliminate them because I'm looking for a "some" statement. Or if an answer choice says "some people don't like carrots", I will also eliminate it because the original argument does not contain a negation.

But even more importantly is to make sure that the conclusions match. So if the conclusion says "Therefore, some dogs are good swimmers", then again, I need to make sure that my conclusion has "Some" in it, and that it doesn't contain a negation.

If you want to be faster at this, you will first eliminate all the answer choices that have different conclusions to the one that you're looking for, and then you can read the premises of the ones that are left. Also, if the argument is way too complicated to keep this in mind, then I just encapsulate some ideas into A, B, or C statements. For example, let's say I have this argument: "I am smart, all smart people score 170+ on the LSAT. Therefore, I will score 170+ on the LSAT" If it's too hard for you to keep these ideas in mind, I would just say "All A's are B. A. therefore, B" or whatever it is. If you do this, you're going to be able to see the argument's form. So you would need an answer that says "All As are B; A; So, B". I don't know if that makes sense.