@ what is your availability next week?

I also plan on studying there. I hop around to around different libraries 😂

Hey! Im in the Pembroke Pines/Davie area. I am willing to meet at NSU-Alvin Sherman Library. Also struggling but delaying my test date because of my struggles. Working hard to conquer this thing!

@ thank you!

Practice, intense review, drill. Repeat. Make use of digital problem sets, fool proof method for games, more timed sections with immediate review, then practice tests.

@ said:

The amazon listing isnt actually happening per LSAC

Thank you! Verified.

It is actually encouraged to take PTs in slightly distracting environments. I agree that this is frustrating and I also have had to relocate mid-test or even mid-section because of noisy surroundings which is incredibly annoying, like an inconsiderate person whipping out a cell phone and having a loud and animated conversation in the library. The goal is to build up your focus so that nothing can distract you on test day. I like taking PTs at the “Quiet” room of the library where there is some movement but minimal talking, so more like test day but around people so I’m not used to being alone in complete silence.

I advocate timed sections before full length tests at the advice of Steve Schwartz of The LSAT Blog/ LSAT Unplugged as well as Strategy Prep/ LSAT Demon. They say full length tests are more a measure of endurance a more final phase of timed practice...and that you should be able to review timed sections immediately following their completion. I personally find that review is much faster immediately upon completion than for a full test, because I have a better sense of my logical errors because I know why I was inclined to choose wrong answers and why I rejected the right one and I remember precisely what sort of timing errors I made when I am unable to attempt some questions. I have some sense of this when reviewing a full PT but it takes more time for me to do so, especially for RC. Timed sections are great for individual section pacing and timing errors to meet your goal of getting easier questions done in less time to save some time for harder ones. I can never extensively review a PT the same day that I take it...my sharpness isn’t at its peak after a 5 section exam. I can do LG the same day but reserve RC and LR for a subsequent day with fresh eyes.

You do need 3-5 tests to see where you stand, ideally the average of about 5 reflects your starting point.

Your BR score is great— I think you have high potential to make gains relatively quickly. A lot of your progress here on out relies on your reflections of what happens when you integrate time, assessing those errors, and making an effort to do improve your approach on subsequent PTs to hit your goal.

RESOLVED

TopLawSchools: https://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=310630

Hi, sorry, there isn’t any way to customize a test at this time. You have to do a Flex and pick your own random section as part of a problem set or another test.

What indicates that in spite of policy indicating that only less populated regions are to be identified and used as nuclear dumping grounds, there is no threat to the people nearby? What indicates that there are not any misgivings about safety via policymakers?

“No reason for not” = there is a reason to...identify specific dumping sites.

(C) By distinguishing less threat (being fair here, the argument didn’t specify any nature of what constitutes the “threat.” It doesn’t necessarily have to be to physical health resulting in illness, it could mean social harms i.e. economic/bureaucratic) results when the less populous areas are distinguished as nuclear dumping sites, the policymakers are ensuring that there is no threat to human health, and are thus not mistaken/deceiving in their claims that there is no threat to human health. In other words, their decision to have specified dumping grounds ensures that no threat results to people nearby if in fact, there are no people living nearby (assuming that in less populated areas, there may be isolated geographical regions, say perhaps a forest, where no humans are living. Thus, the policymakers are not lying and not mistaken in their claims although they have policy for identifying where to dump, while simultaneously claiming no threat to human health.

(C) resolves the paradox/discrepancy by introducing an idea that there is another factor responsible, other than the headlights use or disuse, that cause the discrepancy between headlights use and accident rates.

First let’s focus on the paradox- mandatory use of headlights not having any impact on the incidence of accidents, yet when optional, left to the driver’s discretion, for at least some subset of drivers, accident rate is less when used at all times, not just when there is rain/fog/etc. Hmmm....what could be special about this subset of drivers who opt to always use headlights, even when not required? If it’s not the law/requirement what else could account for the fact that when optional there are less accidents than when required?

What if it’s not the requirement of headlights, whether they are used or not, that lowers the accident rate? What if the correlation is attributable to another cause...the cautiousness of certain drivers? Any acceptable answer choice would cater to the idea of an alternate cause (if not the headlights, then what— the car? The roads? The driver?). C identifies the drivers.

You should do drills of your problem areas— game type, LR question type (with special attention to any of the highest yield areas—as identified by your PT analytics) , RC passage topic type/etc.

I would consider a more intense review strategy that spans more than a single day. Really break apart the exam, analyze your errors, watch explanation videos with valuable insight that you feel could be implemented to future PTs.

Hey!

Don’t fear! I’m going on my 4th LSAT and I have to say your situation isn’t all that uncommon. There are just fewer people who are willing to be honest about their journeys, and many give up. It’s all very much okay and all you can do is propel forwards.

They are not going to average your scores unless the school specifically says that’s their practice, which is quite atypical! They can’t hold you to a different LSAT standard than someone who hit their target on their first try. You just have to demonstrate that you are capable of scoring high on the exam. They will see all scores but only the highest (unless otherwise stated) will be your benchmark for candidacy. You can always write an addendum explaining your lower scores, depending on whether or not you want to acknowledge them and whether such is ideal for the school you are applying to.

It depends on your breakdown, your personal aptitude, etc. Every person is different. Without those obligations, my progress has been slow, but for another person in my shoes, it may be more rapid. It’s a combination of how much time you are willing and able to expense, and how much practice you personally need to but your target. There is no set formula. Some people need more time to do less work over a span, some can get away with doing less, some can do more work over a shorter period. Everyone’s different. If you are more inclined to progress than anything, work steadily towards your goals regardless of timeline to achieve. Don’t cut your studies short this time around. Be fully prepared and let your progress determine your date.

It wouldn’t look bad...you could defer admissions to hold a slot (if granted any money though it’s unlikely to be held too) or reapply and doing so early in the cycle can be to your advantage.

@ great advice! Thank you so much. RC holds so much weight as a single section I see I cannot neglect it and can’t stand to have fluctuations. I’m working on FPM on the games and am seeing immense improvement.

Thank you so much all for the help! I actually hit my first 160s score in practice this week. I got -2 on the games and about -7 in all other sections. I realize the value of revisiting games. I am taking all of your advise into mind as I charge forward to meet my goal. Thank you so much for all your responses and support. @ @ @

Slow and steady has been what worked for me, depending on your natural aptitude for games, and how fast you learn them may take more or less effort. I have had periods where I studied games for weeks at a time. The number I can knock out in a day depends on my performance. For game sections I have mastered I can do 8-10 sections per day (timed), for others it can be just a few sections if there’s games or whole sections I get stuck on. I repeat over and over again. I wouldn’t say I have had the most concise study plan ever, because surely people can get great results with far less effort, perhaps it’s my perfectionism or just plain ineptitude that I’m trying to combat. My average is -3 at present for the section (timed), my process has been as follows:

Practice games untimed, by type, working in order of level of difficulty (easier and medium level games perfected first), then devoting more time to optimizing miscellaneous/curveball games only after having mastered the easy and medium games with 100% accuracy. Watch videos. Repeat over and over again, without timing. I know 7Sage says 1-35, I did all up to 50, in sets of 10, cycling, keeping a log of my performance.

Introducing timing, doing full individual sections. I have worked through nearly all of the games (save for the remaining fresh ones from full PTs). I do this in digital problem sets, setting incremental goals. If there’s any game I mess up on, I repeat it untimed, watching videos if necessary. Then I reattempt it as a part of a whole section. I believe the unit of time per section functions as a whole unit, doing games isolated wasn’t indicative of my time distribution when 4 games are presented in a timed set.

I keep track of the games that give me the most trouble, revisit a few days later, randomly reattempting the whole section they are in. The goal is to see if how to do the games have stuck after a week, two weeks or a month plus later. This really shows me whether or not I know how to do the game.

I definitely want to master easier and medium games before moving on. Games are all repetitive or some combination of one another, with different variables. Learning how to conquer a few will transfer to subsequent ones, as that same idea is what will allow you to do well on games on test day. I worked on games exclusively for months, as with LR and RC, before cycling timed sections, drills and then full PTs. I have a list of troublesome games that is withering away, I do a couple sections of games per day, equal to the number of other section types I work on. It depends on how long you are studying for, your actual performance/ goals, how far out you are from test day in order to determine whether you want to take a shortcut or a long haul, extensive route.

Only you can know if dedicating more time to study is worth a shot and something you are willing to commit to. Surely, there are absolutely no guarantees, but if it’s worth the potential of getting into a top school & potential scholarship consideration at some lower ranking schools, keeping in mind that it’s a lifelong career investment, a few more months dedicated are nominal when you consider what is valuable to you— even embracing the fact that it might not work out how you want. A few points can make the world of difference in admissions, but some schools take a more holistic approach in accounting for the score relative to other app materials. Did you really feel like you did your absolute best studying? Did you leave no stone unturned? Exhausted resources? Did you work through everything to say you can understand the test on a level where getting your goal is a definite regardless of format variations?

It’s a highly personal decision to make, depending on what compromises you may need to make for the schools you can attend. There are some T-30 schools where you could potentially be admitted to with said score, though the chances may be low, contingent upon things like gpa and other things like a stellar app.

I have underperformed on test day multiple times, forcing me to really dig into how I study, my performance and how I can undeniably hit my target on test day. I have come to realize that score ranges, even when you hit them in the same upper range multiple times, it takes a great deal of practice to consistently perform in that range, accounting for test format variations and test anxiety. Really ensure that you are strictly timing, understanding, and see how you are performing timed on fresh material to assess whether it was a fluke or not. High scorers can have off days, and an average scorer can have a single good day that only represents the upper range of their efforts.

Hi there,

It definitely took me a tremendous amount of time and effort to read better. I’m still working on it, but I have seen tremendous improvement by loads of timed practice. I did problem sets, of full sections (timed) over and over again. I analyze how I spend time, making more of an effort up front whenever possible to try to visualize as I read and predict an answer when I can. There’s no supplement for practice. With time, it will definitely get better, even if it takes a while to adjust.

You could, alternatively plug what you have done into the PT grader sheet by hitting convert so you can do them without having to click through individual questions in the digital tester. Your overall averages may be skewed though for sections of tests you didn’t attempt but if you were only focusing on one section anyway, that may not matter.

I do them as timed sections and not full timed tests. Review each section immediately after completing. Don’t pay attention too much to score but to how many points you score per section.

As a veteran LSAT student, preparing for what I hope to be my final take has been fueled by mere frustration....studying differently than I have in the past, giving it time, and effort is at the core of it. Your review process may need to be more detailed so you have insight into your errors and how to avoid them to be able to hit your target. You need to get to the point where you don’t simply nod your head at the right answer, or even simply think that sort of makes sense, from every error you make in LR/RC you should have a detailed reason of right/wrong and a takeaway to apply to similar questions of that type. Track your thinking as you move through questions, and passages and have a clear understanding of the errors you make, log them and make a plan to fix them. Create a system that works for you, and if you don’t feel that you can do that find a tutor to guide you. I use a system of charts to track my errors. There’s a lot of information and knowing how to allocate time strategically is potentially valuable. I have found value in consulting many foundational resources. Some were hits, some were missed yet they were all used with the intention of trying to “think like the test maker” to have a discerning eye so that I could assess my errors and strengthen my abilities to spot errors I was making, logging them and correcting them.

Studying for a long time has meant the emergence of a new format that has required me to transition to more digital practice. I am doing digital problem sets like crazy and logging my errors. The digital tester is great because it shows you how you spend time. Beyond that, I am doing problem sets of games repeatedly FPM, writing out my own explanations for LR and RC. Having insight as to what exactly goes wrong during timed practice, I feel, is the best way to know how you perform under time constraints, and to establish a natural rhythm so that you can hit your target on test day.

lsatblog.blogspot.com/2018/12/weird-curveball-lsat-logic-games.html

Reviewing old mistakes or reattempting ones you got wrong in the past is great! You need to know if the insights you gained stuck or not and for that I reconsult my error log for old questions I cycle back to. Maybe you could make that practice more strategic. Some say less is more and thorough review is critical to getting and maintaining an increase. It’s just as if not more important than practice.

I am encountering the same exact thing. I have -3,-4 a handful of times untimed and it’s so frustrating when I get -8 a bunch of times thereafter. Sometimes also it’s because there were ones you were shaky on, narrowed down to two potential corrects and picked right but there was still some insights to be picked up on there, meaning your -4 could have easily been a -8 because of not being solid on the nature of certain answer choices.

My goal is also to hit at least 20 points consistently but it has been sooo frustrating! Keep at it. Stay solid on your review. The more insights you gain into how you think and behave and implement them on future sections is all a frustrating albeit necessary process. The insight log for me has been where I’ve gained the most clarity. Having something general you can take away and apply to future questions with the same structure (abstract of stimulus) and answer choice shells (the manipulation tactics).

I’m also having this problem, noticing I’m missing the “harder” and “hardest” questions. Working from earlier tests is perfectly fine, I think. I ended up having to work backwards.

Also struggling to find a solution. I have a wrong answer journal, I write my own explanations first paraphrasing stimulus, then all of the answer choices, my justification for the wrong one, why my justification is wrong, why I overlooked the correct answer why it’s correct. Then I have a separate log where I put insights on what I errors or assumptions I have made, the tracks and tricks in the answer choices. Then I watch videos to see if my rationale aligns with JY’s and I also read the Kaplan explanations. I also write a reflection on how the section went and what points I reasonably could have or should have gotten.

I know that I need to get the more conquerable ones down in less time, to save time so I don’t end up skipping 3-4, and can hit more questions. Reviewing all attempted questions to improve my confidence, working on pacing. I notice there are at least a few questions I spend far too long on...some correct, I review those especially to see what made me take so long, and the most frustrating ones I spent a long time on and got wrong anyway. I employ a skipping method where if the stimulus doesn’t click for me upon first read, I flag and move on.

I’m sorry I don’t have any advice for you specifically because it’s hard to pinpoint what you can do to improve, but trying new methods if you haven’t already done so to dig deeper is the only way. Only you know why you picked the wrong answer or why you ran out of time. 7Sage has a great analytics system to help take some of that confusion out of the guessing game. I do have to note though, as well as I know about myself, your BR scores indicate your potential and level of insight into the exam is strong. If you can align your thoughts to be like the test makers and explain things, you have a great springboard for progress. I think that it takes time to translate to hurried discernments for varied scenarios. I was told that BR with a partner helps, feel free to DM if interested maybe we could go through a couple of sections together.

Not knowing which section was experimental while taking the exam adds a tad of stress to the mix— hoping that when there was a section I felt more confident in would be included in the scored portion, hoping that a section with a dreaded logic game would be the experimental, for example. I feel that I’m stressed about it only depending on how I feel the sections went in the moment, but gauging how things feel like they went on test day is incredibly hard because of all around stress. Test day nerves do different things to different people— for some it heightens senses knowing it’s the real thing and a slight score bump may ensue (rarer...lucky people), nerves make some flustered and make mistakes they normally wouldn’t (maybe they are rushing feeling the pressure of the clock), pacing errors moving slower trying not to make a mistake and hit less questions than they typically do in practice (me!), it can be hard to know what type of test taker you are even based on standardized test experience as the LSAT is more stressful for most and you might not even know until you take the real deal. I would say that if you do enough timed 5 section exams in practice, or even 6 if you really want to push yourself, you will not feel the effects of time. Practice tests tend to pass quickly to me, and test day adrenaline is a variant factor at play. From a purely objective perspective, I would expect score fluctuations due to different curves/ test formats, slight variations in the distribution of question types, familiarity with RC subjects. Maintaining mental stamina is the result of mental training and simulating test conditions as best as possible so you won’t feel fatigued by the length of the entire exam, and simply having the discipline to work on LSAT for multiple consecutive hours on end, without breaks, checking phone, snacking, multitasking, etc. Most people experience test day score drops, though a variety of factors are at play.

Bottom line: don’t stress about the experimental section, but definitely try to include extra sections in practice tests to be prepared. Khan Academy has 5 section digital exams without you knowing which is experiential until you see your score, very much like the real LSAT.

I wish :/. Analytics are only available for Preptests, hoping that going forward that we will have this feature it would be very helpful.