Thanks Matt1234567 and c.janson35! That makes perfect sense now, looks like I need to study my argument forms a little more.

I feel like it may have something to do with switching the necessary and sufficient?

Reading comp is easily my best section, and I always am trying new techniques (sometimes at the expense of my score in PT's) to see what works best. For me, a combination of the Power Score way (noting if there is a list, loaded language, distinguishing between arguments of author, subject and whatever else have you) and JY's method of active reading while summarizing each paragraph, noting referential phrasing help a lot. Now I use a highlighter on this section for definitions/big ideas and I think it is fantastic, but I am a pretty quick reader and have a pretty good short term memory, so if you are both of those I recommend it.

Ehhhhhhh it depends on the amount of questions that you do for your LG's if the ones you are good at are only 6 questions each then you are looking at potentially less than 50% correct. That will not benefit you since you will have to blow out of the water your other scores, I'm talking 80% minimum on each remaining. You are much better shooting for 3 if LG's are hard for you that way you have a better shot. What are your issues with logic games?

Get an analog watch and take it with you, it is more invaluable than you know, trust me. Practice with it, learn to love it and hate it. That watch will be your way of judging how much time you have left and what you need to do, without shifting your focus from the test to much.

Ok so let's go through the answer choices.

A) says that the response gives a point of view that is opposite Ruth's without giving reasons.

Does Ruth say that its enough to have a diversity of experience to be a politician? No, she says it should be "required" aka NECESSARY.

Let's look at Stephanie's argument. "To be worthy of public trust, IT IS NOT ENOUGH, as you suggest, that one simply have varied experience. Such a person would not necessarily be worthy of public trust."

In her argument does she really disagree with Ruth? No, she says that it's "not enough, that one simply have varied experience", therefore she's not really arguing against anything, she misunderstood Ruth's position because Ruth never said that.

B) This is wrong for the reasons you said, S never said it wasn't beneficial.

C) "The response attributes TO RUTH a view that is more vulnerable to criticism than any she actually expresses." This answer choice paraphrased is saying that "S misunderstood R's argument and made it seemed flawed" See the explanation for why answer A is wrong? Is Ruth's argument invalid or flawed? No, it's a fairly decent point as she is talking about something that should be necessary for becoming a politician. That's why this is correct.

D) this is irrelevant.

E) Also irrelevant

Hmmm really, SA and NA questions are definitely my weakest, but I actually found them to be easier in later PT's. But I've been studying the questions stems like crazy because that will always nails me on the test.

Hahah PS doesn't deserve that much hate, I think I actually prefer some of the LR topics with them. I will say that I think the way they do LG's is absolutely terrible and is really counter-productive "hail splitting the game boards and no less than/greater than signs", so damn confusing hahaha.

I was a lot like you and am still taking my test in October, I just started taking an LSAT everyday, BRing it, and then after seeing what I get wrong and what I need to improve on, use flashcards for strategies and question stems, words, whatever, and then do 10-15 logic games a day that came from tests 1-38 (the hard ones, so that you get some really weird games most of the time and it forces your brain to think abstractly and not so cookie cutter) and then recycling games I've already done to make sure I can see the inferences even faster and try to beat J.Y's time. With that method I have finally started consistently getting either at my very worst a -2 at my best 100%. It has been such a massive improvement from how I started out which was sometimes 40% (yikes!!, but @ and @ gave me great advice so I have them to thank for the extremely fast progress that I have made!) To be fair to you, I have the whole day to my advantage and I wake up at 6am so I have more time to prepare than you do.

I think you should be taking Logic Games more seriously and instead of doing individual games and timing them individually (if that's what you are doing), do them as a drill set of 4 for 35 min. That way it is way more realistic and the pressures are like the ones you will face on the LSAT, also definitely have an analog watch, that shit is invaluable. If you do end up having trouble with one game in particular, then rinse and repeat it until it becomes second nature, and reinsert into your testing regimen, its a great confidence boost if you hit a string of hard games and get frustrated.

@.jj @ sorry just saw these! To answer the first question in the new PT's I am getting on avg a -2,(sometimes I can accidentally glaze over a passage and then I panic when answering questions, then kick myself when I do a BR lol) and logic games has replaced RC as my best section. I usually take 3-4 min to read the passage and annotate it, and then 5-6 min to answer the questions. I definitely do not recommend the highlighter anymore. Through consistent practice it just takes way to much time, and the things you highlight and think are important tend to be misleading when it comes to the harder passages. It also makes your eye want to automatically jump to the things you've highlighted. Working on the short term memory is much better for you.

For science passages, I have a slight advantage since I was a pre-med student for two years in undergrad so a lot of the language makes sense to me, but as @ said, it could literally be anything like physics, cosmology, or whatever. They will tell you the definition for a word that you are not expected to know, which are the majority on a science passage (and its a great way to take up space) so in my opinion science passages are easier because they do tend to have a little bit less "testable material" in them. Honestly, the hardest ones could be any one of the section, it just depends on how convoluted they want to make the writing, or how subtle they want the inferences to be. Diversity passages have the advantage of always putting minority groups in a positive light so that mindset is an easier way to approach those, and Law passages will almost always see the law as potentially flawed but always positive.

Thanks, that's perfect! It makes complete sense, and now I finally have a great explanation for sufficient. I really kept struggling with that distinction when it came to logic. By not chronological are you saying that it implies, such as, for example "if i drop my phone, it'll get damaged" 'Last week I hit my phone with a hammer, and then this week I dropped it, therefore my phone was damaged this week"? I know the phrasing of that sentence isn't perfect logic or formed the best way lol.

Whoops, going back through my notes I finally saw the "Groups" lecture that was stuck together, guess I need to get some sleep, but any advice for understanding Lawgic and a practical definition of the difference between sufficient and necessary would be great.