It is the key to being able to answering all of the LR sections without having to guess on any due to a time constraint. Especially with Strengthening, Weakening, Flawed methods of reasoning questions. Which by the way take up like 50 percent of the LSAT logical reasoning section. (Including Must Be Trues) :) I just realized this recently. And you are so much more accurate to especially on sufficient assumption questions pre-phasing is key. Sometimes the stimulus is so convoluted with conditional reasoning, and pre-phashing I have noticed helps cool the nerves because it makes you more confident than having to map out conditional reasoning statements within a minute and twenty four seconds. 7Sage you guys really taught me how to scum this test haha.

This passage raped me lol. I guess that will happen once in a while?

@ @ (And also for people with prior game knowledge but still struggle, I would like to help you guys out, because the 7Sage community has only helped me boost my confidence every single day, even when times are tough) What I have noticed just doing this the past two days is just doing the games from exams 1-35 (so far went through the first couple of exams), and already my ability to make inferences is better. I personally believe that drilling the same type of game in one given day, or just doing that in general for a period of time is unrealistic and does not help with game improvement at least not for me. I can only speak for myself that just doing the logic game bundles from each exam is helpful (because I have had prior experience of diagramming rules, making inferences from a previous prep course. Another golden rule I picked up on was memorizing the rules). Memorizing the rules may take a bit longer just by having to read them over a few times, but it only does good. Simplistic diagramming is also very benefitial. From my own personal experience I think seeing the games within a given exam gives you a better sense of strategy, time management, and eases the nerves because usually only 2 out of the 4 are particularly challenging within an exam. LSAC is trying to trick you of course, but in order to see that being able to do all the games within a given exam is possible, then you have to actually look at game sections from actual tests. This is just my strategy which I have noticed has begun to help. The biggest thing with games that I have learned is that everyone should have their own little nuances and strategies which will help with solving a game. The bigger picture of course is that we all get to a positive end result, but lets be realistic we all will have a slight deviation in methodology and that is OK, as long as we are efficient and try to apply as much as we can from JYs explanations.

Ah I see @ so then no sweat lol. By the time I get to 52 which will be in a few months they shouldnt be a problem then lol.

So I am 2 weeks away from finishing the core cirriculum (2 and a half months of cirriculum had to push back pting 2 weeks from january 25th to February 9th) and I have done almost all of the games in the cirriculum even following the fool proof method for games. I can sense that I am getting much better with LR and RC (timing of course not the greatest but I understand that will improve with practice exams). I guess my question is two things. If my timing is not perfect for rc passages and lr sets does that mean I should not start pting? (Even though I understand LR and RC well it is just timing that is an issue).

Lastly with games, are we supposed to be able to do any type of game thrown at us perfectly before we start PTing? I notice that I often spend the whole day going over 4 games (redoing them, reviewing them so the inferences click). I guess I will try your method of doing a game twice in a day, them moving forward and doing it the third time the next day, and a fourth time the week after to make sure I really remember the inferences. I wish there was time to do all the games from pt 1-35 during the cirriculum but it was not possible for me to do that even on a 6 month study plan, there was just no time, and I feel like all the games in the cirriculum were not enough for me to master games. I feel like that would take quite a while? If I start doing 2 practice exams a week and blind review shortly after starting (feb 9th-june 1st around 4 months roughly 2pts a week and maybe 3 a week the last few weeks before test day, around 35-36 total) than would give me time to start working on the LG budle from pt 1-35 on my in between days when I am not testing, as well as extra sharpening of RC and LR since I am only doing two exams a week, so its not like I am burning through them. Therefore starting pts wont be a waste even if I have not mastered games because only doing two a week will give me time to work on weaknesses in between and become assimilated to timing. What do you think? Sorry I know its a lot to respond to, take your time. @

Just to clarify should we be concerned with good/bad argument evaluation with these PM questions? Isn't that more applicable to the parallel flaw method of reasoning questions?

I understand that diagramming it out makes you more confident in your answer choice. But when we are being timed it is difficult to diagram them all. I ended up going with C, but of course I did not have more than 90 percent assurance of my answer choice. So what should I do? Given the fact that there are not many of these on the exam, maybe it is best to pick an answer based on my intuition and training of a correct argument structure, and then come back to it at the end to diagram the answer choice and make sure it mirrors the stimulus?

I guess maybe you can also cancel D out because it uses the word "some" referring to people. We cannot assume that the stimulus was referring to "some" apes because all it said was higher apes (it can be all, or it can be some, but we cannot assume)

I think you can better eliminate C from number 1 by the usage of the word complex. It does not talk about "complex" technologies and we cannot assume that they are complex.

Well cant you say C is wrong because it says appreciate? We are not talking about appreciation here that is not stated within the principle.

I understand your explanation JY but what is confusing to me is if the argument is stating that even if the confidence of the witness is increased or decreased the accuracy of the witnesses information will not be altered/changed. So who cares about the confidence if the two are not correlated and the accuracy will not be effected? Is there some sort of subtle assumption I am missing here? It makes no sense. Wouldn't it make sense to say that the level of confidence one has does alter the accuracy of the information because if they heard someone whisper "oh thats the guy" and they had a different suspect in mind than that will make the witness start second guessing himself.

If anything doesnt D strengthen the argument because the analysts concurred with the results stated in the stimulus

@ I figured them out :) I will be taking exams starting february 8th up to June. I realized that my anxiety was creating a mental block and was not letting me think clearly. I told myself i have to start being confident in myself and and to most importantly be calm when I answer questions. This process changed my whole approach in a matter of 1 day. No joke.

Bullshit weeder question lol. Hate them. Unfair.

The game explanations for all of the games are under "Lsat Game Explanations" under the resources tab. But I had to purchase exams

1-35 in order to have the games to practice from them. I know it's a bummer :/ but worth it in the end!

Thank you so much! @ I guess my last question is why do we have to do the LR practice sets, reading comp practice sets, and game practice under timed conditions 1st? Is that because immediately after we have to blind review anyway which means doing these problems untimed and see where you went wrong timed, and then check the answers? Because it says to do the practice problems timed before the blind review which can get kind of discouraging, but I guess doing them untimed right after in the blind review gives us a second chance to have a crack at the question and see if its possible to answer correctly without looking at the answers first, and be able to explain why each answer is incorrect/correct.

How do you know when you are ready for PTs I mean dont you have to test the water at some point? I mean if you are looking for mastery you can spend years doing this, should I just start the PTs when I am done with the cirriculum? I mean If I am blind reviewing each exam properly I should be able to catch up to something eventually right, especially with 30+ PTs ?

I have a question! I am unfortunately 2 weeks behind on my cirriculum because I got really sick and it slowed me down. But thankfully i have 5 months still left. I made a schedule for myself which still gives me roughly 4 months to take PTs but I will only get up to PT 67 instead of 72 which is what the cirriculum says to accomplish. I plan on staying on track from here on out so I was wondering if I can maybe add 3PTs a week the last few weeks instead of (2 a week for PT taking for 4 months which is what the cirriculum advises). Will taking an extra one especially like the last 3 weeks be bad? If so, then will only getting to PT 67 be detrimental to my overall score?

I also wanted to ask as material piles up each week and you have to keep up with lecture it freaks me out that theres not enough time to review stuff we have learned the previous weeks. Is that something we should be doing? Or will the start PTs help with beginning to practice the material as a whole together? I am assuming that is the case and that is why I was advised to take practice exams for 4 months I am assuming to be able to get better each week and constantly reviewing every question type and so on.

Lastly timing! I have definitely improved with accuracy untimed, but when I do the problem sets of 5 for LR especially for the difficult sets my accuracy sucks, will that come with practicing from PTs? Is it okay to start PTs in a month which is what my cirriculum says even though I have not really mastered timing. @

So correlation does not imply causation, I remember this from lessons really early on lol.

@ Like I said can spend all day doing a set of games from an exam because its so difficult for me to make inferences.

@ Id say I am solid with basic sequencing I can crank those out pretty easily but the rest are really not going in my favor.

@ Here is my concern, I can literally spend all day doing 5-6 games now I feel so slow. If I start PTing around February 16th, do you think if I start the LG bundle today I should be almost done with PT 1-35 by then? How many games should I be cranking out a day? Should I also follow the method of doing each game 4 times. (Two the first day, 3rd in a few days, and 4th the week after?) Does this method really help? I guess going through the cirriculum again probably wont be as beneficial as doing the bundle. But how much of the bundle is sufficient enough to have completed before beginning PTs?

@ of course I understand that, but I cant jump into the logic games bundle like that. It would probably be more effective to revisit the game lectures and then that will help me build a better understanding of the games section, and while I am PTing I can work on the logic game bundle as I do like a couple of PTs a week.

This is a weakening question isn't it? Not a flawed method of reasoning question. It lead me to picking a different answer choice. I swear I would have went with E if I realized it was a weakening problem. I wonder what made me choose A, cognitive ability was not even discussed in the stimulus.

Not really understanding your explanation JY. Do you mean that the definition of the term is being used differently because in the premises it says "exploiting our available resources" and in the conclusion "exploiting workers". So its referring the word exploit, in two different aspects ?