I'm convinced the test makers get so excited for building these kinds of Qs that they laugh maniacally when others pick the wrong answer. <3 that LSAT!

"Depends," "relies," "required" = NA question.

Awesome! (Thanks, J.Y.!)

Ugh shiz.. What bugged me about this Q is that an increase in hospital facilities, in my mind, doesn't have to be related to a decrease in traffic facilities, per se, which makes D way tricky. I mean in the real world, this may be the case (or not really), but in the LSAT world, where we're taught not to assume much, I thought, "So what if there are more hospital facilities? How are those related to just a decline in traffic fatalities? What if Australia's super dangerous and there are lots of drive-by shootings, or attempted murders, etc.?"

WTH LSAT! Ah sorry, just venting. To me E does strengthen the argument (b/c as JY mentioned, it = what the Conc. stated) but D seemed irrelevant, so I had a weird time w/this Q.

The NAs I came up with weren't as basic as the ones J.Y. pointed out, so if anyone can clarify why I could be wrong, that'll be super helpful.

I pretended I didn't know anything about basketball and asked after each SA "So what?". For instance, I'd say, "I was MVP 10 yrs in a row" and my more ignorant self would reply, "So what?" and I'd answer, "You need to be MVP for at least 2/3/9 yrs in a row in order to be among the best players in the world!" Wouldn't that clarification (or in my opinion, more stronger assumption) qualify as an NA?

Along those lines, say I had beaten "Team Awesome." Ignorant Me'd be like "So what?" And then I'd say, "You need to beat at least two of the Team Awesome players before you can be among the best players in the world!" Again, isn't that second statement (which before I said it was an assumption; now it's more of a premise) more of an NA?

I get why just knowing how to dribble is an NA but couldn't ^those^ others be NAs as well (since they're "stronger" and they're needed) or am I missing something?

This Q. stem tricked me :/... I think I was aiming for an answer that "followed logically" even though what I picked didn't seem to, after all. (Wah wah..)

Would the key to solving "Compatible EXCEPT" Qs be that four of the answer choices are completely unrelated to the stimulus and the correct one is the only one that is (at least remotely) related to it--but contradicts it? Or is it more like four choices CBT/CBF but then the right one MBF/is a lie based on the stimulus?

Also: I don't recall seeing Qs like these in the class (or maybe I forgot?). Would anyone mind pointing me to similar ones?

_Samuelrobert.brown88_ is right: Not focusing on time for now is important. Guessing also helps, believe it or not. It reduces some of the stress and allows you to work on more difficult sections first (in LR, Qs 1-10 are generally the least difficult, 20-26 are next, and 11-19 are often the most difficult. In Games, the 3rd one is typically the hardest.).

Additionally, do sections SEPARATELY--either timed or untimed--rather than entire PTs so that you can work on your worst and best areas. Then once you begin improving in one, you move on to another without having to focus on many different sections and ways of thinking at once.

I bought a Traciela LR book with questions grouped by type and it was super helpful (and relatively affordable). There are a bunch to choose from: http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_1?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=traciela

Try to avoid studying from the really early tests as some of them have issues. Maybe do 30-something and above. LSAC has a lot of PT books now w/more recent PTs: https://os.lsac.org/Release/Shop/PublicationDetail.aspx

Lastly, read complex pieces of literature in English (The Economist or The New Yorker magazines are good) and listen to English as much as you can. Take lots of notes from JY's classes. Translate random things you hear/see into Lawgic--that's a cool exercise I enjoy. Look up EVERY word--from the LSAT and elsewhere--you don't understand at first. Get accustomed to the way the LSAT uses language.

English is also my second language but I've been in the States for 12+ years and have even be a Writing Tutor so while I might be more submerged in the language/culture than you, there are still a few moments where I trip up, so I hope my tips help.

This is an AWFUL Q and like everyone below, even after the explanation, I'm going, "Whaaaa?"

I like coming up w/possible answers before reading the choices and at first I thought this Q was easy. Here was my thought process--maybe someone thought similarly or would like to debunk it: The "in relation to avg. individual income" made me think of two pie graphs: In the 25YA one, one quarter (arbitrary choice) went to car price, and in the NOW one, half went to car price.

Then the conclusion said something like, "this means that people now pay more for a car than before," which to me meant it was assuming the pie became smaller or stayed the same size. So I immediately contradicted that and thought no, maybe people now just earn MORE than they did 25YA, meaning the NOW pie > the 25YA pie. Then I started to look for an answer that resembled that....and didn't find one :(. (Not that my prephrases are always perfect but this one seemed so good!)

Instead, I saw C, which said the exact opposite (incomes had declined) of what I needed (incomes had increased). Dang. So I went for A b/c it's the only one that alluded to a possible rise in income--and in doing so I made a big jump assumption-wise but I didn't care b/c neither of the others fit as they dealt mainly w/sales numbers and things that for my purposes had nothing to do with price or friggin' income.

They should at least apologize for this Q.

First things first: There's no "get-rich-quick" schemes when it comes to the LSAT. You either study conscientiously and do well or you mess around and you don't.

My family and I have been meditating for over 30 years combined (me for six+). The method we use is called Transcendental Meditation (tm.org). It's easy: You close your eyes for 20 minutes twice a day and repeat the mantra you're assigned when you learned the technique. It's made me more mindful and less stressed, it's fantastic and I can't praise it enough. (My mom's been doing it for around 20 years and she has even more benefits if you'd like to know).

TM's existed for thousands of years. A lot of important people and celebs do it (if you care for that sort of thing) and also love it (there are even schools that require it--including Oprah's in Africa); there's been documentaries on it and everything. Youtube it if you want.

BUT. I won't try to sell you on it (yes, it costs money to learn TM) because while it's true that everyone would benefit from practicing it, I wouldn't recommend it JUST to improve a score for two reasons: 1) I'm not God and Idk whether it really help your score if you're not already improving yourself in other ways; and 2) I've always been a good student and I don't ever get very stressed, so while I know that TM's contributed to my overall wellbeing (and great school performance), I don't know how much.

(Or to put it in your terms, Idk how much my scores have improved from TM vs. what they could be if I didn't do TM b/c I've been doing it + other beneficial things for so long.)

So your question is a valid one and I think it's admirable to look at outside ways to help your score, but know that just like with anything worthwhile in life, immediate gratification isn't the answer. Exercise, sleep and eat well, study, repeat. Avoid big positive/negative life changes until after you're done prepping. Decrease/eliminate alcohol consumption. Take your time(!). Pray if you already do. Relax YOUR way. Add meditation or yoga if it feels right. Meditating is invaluable but if you start doing it with the sole purpose of helping your scores go up, you're better off not doing it.

Hope that helps and study hard!!

Idk if I'd sign up for a full-blown course and give someone hundreds/thousands of dollars to repeat what 7Sage has taught us for a lot less money.

What I would recommend (and what has helped me*) is buy a couple of the Powerscore books ONLY for the practice questions in the sections you don't excel at. They don't explain concepts as well as JY, so I've only been answering the sample LSAT questions they include while skipping their other confusing mumbo-jumbo.

Have you bought any of the (many) LSAC PrepTest books? Those are awesome and that way you'd have more than just seven tests left. You could either take one/two each week or break some tests up and practice the sections separately. (One day/week: LR, the next, Games, and so on.)

Hope any of that helps and don't give up! Take a few days off to decompress and get a feel for where you didn't do so well at, and then come back again after the holiday ready to kick that LSAT's a$$ :D!

*I haven't taken the LSAT yet, meaning ^that^ is what I've been doing to prep for my first time (also in Sep!).