"Correlation does not equal causation." - read the banner over my high school AP psychology teacher's dry erase board

In the same boat! Working full time as a paralegal with a 1 hour commute to and from work every day. I've been struggling to find the time and motivation, but I wake up at 5:15 every morning and try to crush some logic games along with a few after work (drilling the games currently). It may take a while longer studying, but just do what it takes!

Agree with @estoutenburg25267 think about how set you are on your target schools/financial aid. You got an awesome score no doubt, but if you are really set on certain schools I would not leave it up to a 50% chance. If you are satisfied with the opportunities (employment opportunities, locations, etc) at schools slightly below your target schools then enjoy your current score and be done with the LSAT!

I wouldn't say redo the CC with a score of 160. If you know what your weaknesses are to a fair degree, focus on them. Having upgraded to Ultimate +, you have access to the LG bundle 1-35. Drill those to start if you are coming up shorter than you would like in that section. If you are relatively unsure of your weaknesses, then I agree that you should take a PT and see where you stand. Best of luck!

@xadrianas6x881 said:

HYS or one of Columbia NYU Cornell w/ a good scholarship. Essentially big law or bust has lead me to only consider schools where I know I'll have an amazing shot.

Curious, out of those three which is the most splitter friendly?

I'm currently working as a pharmacy technician and studying around 3-3.5 hours a day. Average around 35 hours of work a week. Hours are flexible if you find a pharmacy that has a fair amount of employees already. Pharmacies near college campuses are generally more lenient with their schedules, since students are often employed.

@rahelaalam514 said:

I usually just look at where I represented the rule. So if it’s on master game board, I now just take a look at the board and try to see without this rule what still works and what’s a world that is now open that wouldn’t have been before.

I suppose the instances that I'm really concerned with are those where I have translated rule number 1 down in conditional logic (rule 1 is arbitrary for this example), written several more numbered rules down and as a result am able to move rule 1 to the master gameboard followed by completely scratching it out - but if it is game where you are able to make many more inferences and splits, then you may be left with a gameboard that is pretty much full. Full of both rules and inferences. This generally makes it necessary for me to refer to the stimulus again because I have no clue which of the pieces on the gameboards are inferences or rules.

I think you are right about just focusing on what I've learned throughout the other games - and hope the rules have "stuck" without much of a need to even translate the stimulus rules to a simplified form again.

Thanks!

@jhaldy10325 said:

I eliminate redundancies in my representation by scratching them off completely. I don't want any extraneous information lying around to distract me. So if I write out a rule in my rule list and later decide it’s better represented through a split, I’ll scratch the rule off my list once I’ve split the boards. That way, when I look at my rules I immediately know what’s live and what’s not.

You know what is immediately live, but what do you do when you are presented with a scenario similar to what I described - where the stem tells you to ignore only one rule and keep the others and tell, for instance, what must be true? Your split boards become basically untrustworthy unless you can determine exactly what influence the rule no longer in use played in the inference making process. Do you simply refer to the original rule list and translate in your head? If so, that second translation step is the one that I suppose could be prevented if complete elimination of original translations wasn't practiced.

I'd say the same FPing method could apply to the CC sets as the LG 1-35. I'm currently doing a game on days 1,2, 7. And when I say "doing a game," I mean on each day I am attempting the game with a stopwatch until I have scored at/under the recommended time and 100%. This means that each day may consist of attempting a single game 3-4 times, along with reviewing a separate game from a previous day. In the CC you could simply keep track of the game attempted in an excel worksheet or paper!

Thank you everyone! It seems that a checkmark is popular for both the rules in the stimulus as well as the translations - which seems wise in comparison to my scratching out completely haha.

@leahbeuk911

I have an iPhone 6S+ and have no issues. Running 11.2.5

Here's how I'm fool proofing games (on PT 12 now). I work through a game untimed and score myself IF I manage to finish. I recommend watching the video next regardless of whether or not you score perfect - you can discover faster ways and more inferences possibly.

Next, I repeat the game timed after the video with the new information in mind and score it - followed by a BR. If I don't perform under time and a perfect score, I will repeat the game until I do (while recording all score/times). Once perfected, I'm done for the day.

I repeat this on day 2 and day 7. Even if I score perfectly on day 2 in the first try I repeat on day 7 just in case the time from day 1-2 wasn't enough of a gap to truly test my understanding of the game.

So essentially it's day 1,2,7 for every PT for me. The only differences between days is the first attempt on day one is untimed to allow myself to really take my time with the game.

Thanks for this! I'm in the process of fool proofing (on PT 12 now) and have had both encouraging and discouraging moments so far.

@katrakkade441 Awesome detailed explanation! Thank you.

@katrakkade441 said:

You repeat the game that day though. I didn't repeat it the next day unless I was already scheduled to. That helps keep it under control. Each day, I would repeat any of the twelve games I was doing until I could do it without mistakes.

Sorry, what I mean is say on Day 1 you take PT 1 and Day 2 you take PT 2 and 1 (if you follow a 1,2,7 method). When you repeat PT 1 on Day 2 as scheduled, and miss even one question, the FP method recommends that you repeat the game until perfection of score and time is reached. Right? This is the real time consumer for me - repeating games that are actually repeats of prior games.

@katrakkade441 Awesome. Yeah I suppose I just wanted to make sure that I wasn't the only one stacking so much. It especially becomes a lot when you miss a question or two on a repeated PT and have to repeat the game.. Thanks!

@jhaldy10325 Thank you!

@leahbeuk911 Change that username and keep us updated on your progress! Awesome!

Awesome

Beyond buying the Ultimate + package, I don't believe there is a way to get the LG and LR bundles. You could technically purchase the individual PrepTests and then simply print out the LGs/LR/RC (the PrepTests come with explanations I believe)! But I'd suggest saving for Ultimate + unless you only need say... 3-5 PrepTests, in which case you may just want to purchase them individually. Note: It would be unfortunate to finish those 3-5 and end up purchasing Ultimate + for more practice in the end...

Love it! Thanks

Yes! It really is all about understanding sets that various things are a part of.

If you have knowledge about "pencils," you have knowledge about SOME writing utensils.

If you have knowledge about "carrots," you have knowledge about SOME vegetables.

And so forth. You know about some animals, because you know about lions.

Happy Studying!