Hallelujah!!!! Thank you so much for making this happen. I practically jumped up out of my seat with joy when I noticed the sections and drill sets are live on digital. THANK YOU!

@ said:

Wait can someone help me: I had 2 lg sections. 1st section- something with S is the third; 2nd- assigning colors for the fourth game. Some people with 1 lg section told me they didn’t have colors but some did. Which is the real one??😲

The first one was real. Second experimental.

Guys as someone who was personally victimized by the September logic games section I can’t tell you how happy I am that the second LG section was experimental. I thought it was real and that I had faced a repeat of September (I also had the experimental LG for that exam, which had been easy for me). For whatever reason the real LG section completely clicked for me this time, and I may knocking on every piece of wood I can find be in 170 territory.

Was the LG that had clothing colors experimental?

@ said:

Gosh, 12 hours later and I still want to cry.

I’ve been studying for two years... worked my ass off while working full time to improve significantly in RC and LR, only for all those improvements to be masked by a completely shit LG section. I feel like all my grind was for nothing...

LG, you were supposed to stick with me through it all. It was love at first sight for us— we always had that chemistry. UNTIL TODAY :neutral: You were supposed to be my ride or die. But you abandoned me when I needed you most. I feel so betrayed. How could this happen?!

Yes, it’s 9pm and I’m three glasses of wine deep, but I can’t be the only one who feels so heartbroken by this LSAT (/3(/p)

I feel this so hard. I have also been in this for 2+ years. Scored 165 in Sept 2017, hit it hard studying earlier this year, PTing comfortably and regularly in the low to mid-170s, all destroyed by an effing LG section. It was my first section, to top it off. At best I probably scored a few points higher than my 2017 take. My gpa is not strong so I really needed to apply in October with a 17x score. I’m just so irrationally angry and bummed about it. Having such a hard time getting in the mindset of studying for the November take. #solidarity

I just want to share that I got my goal score! Improved 20 points over two years and this was my third take. I wrote the September exam as well and was devastated to score only a point higher than my first take two years prior. I'm a 29 y.o. mom to a toddler, I spent so much time away from him in order to study, and this just validates all of that work.

If there's one humble piece of advice I can offer to anyone looking to improve their score, it's to study with and tutor others who are below your current level. I'm convinced it made the difference for me between the September and November administrations and only wish I'd done it sooner.

Wishing everyone the best today!

Will be 30 in February. Mom to a 2 year old. Applying this cycle, but unfortunately missed the mark on the September LSAT and need to take for the third time in November. First time was 2017, a few months after my son was born. Took my diagnostic on my due date, and had to pump in the break between sections on test day. Because if you’re not insane, do you even belong in law school?

Anyways, happy to find a thread with my people. And happy to *almost* be done with the LSAT and apps.

I live in DC and I'm taking it in MD. You're good!

Following! Also a parent of a soon-to-be 3yo (hi, @ !) and will be entering in fall 2020. Can’t speak to the rigors of law school, but I began my studies for the LSAT shortly before my son was born in February 2017. Took my diagnostic on my due date - it was a great distraction, LOL - and then studied hard for about 6 months while I was on leave and working part time. I remember bringing him to our local coffee shop and working through the Powerscore Bibles while he slept on me in a sling. I didn’t reach my goal score that September so deferred for another year.. and then another. Here I am heading into the November LSAT and I can tell you that the number one thing that has saved me and allowed me the time to study for the past several months has been the fact that I have a supportive partner. So while I can’t speak to how to balance law school and parenthood yet, I imagine the ability to lean on your spouse/family will be incredibly important.

Congratulations, by the way! You have a lot of joy ahead of you. And I think with a March due date that gives you and your wife time to get out of the haze and sleepless nights of the newborn phase before beginning law school in the fall.

Will you be working as well? Have you determined your child care situation? I know you mentioned you’re unsure of how much family help you may have.

I think of the stimulus as saying:

"Sales don't mean a thing for success. After all - strong sales could mean they're inauthentic. Weak sales could mean they're terrible." What's missing is the link between the first sentence and the last two. We need a statement that says "Of course inauthentic or terrible bands are not successful UG music" to validate the claim that sales are not a good indicator of success. B provides this link.

I chose C, which I can clearly see now doesn't go far enough. It doesn't address the other half of the premises at all, so it ultimately fails to justify the argument as a whole.

A falls into the trap that it's easy to view the argument based around sales. It's not. It's about what makes a successful/unsuccessful UG band, and how sales are not a factor in defining those terms. We want to strengthen the link between the premises and the stimulus by showing that those two things (inauthentic and bad) are marks of unsuccessful UG music, in order to indicates sales are irrelevant.

D - so what? What makes an UG group successful is irrelevant to the argument, and it only addresses half of the premises anyway.

E - does the opposite of what we need it to do. Certainly doesn't justify the argument.

I got suckered into B on this one. Here's why it's wrong: because we know that people who drive in minivans have a lower risk of injury. Why is it? Well, not because the car's made of steel, as the crash test evidence indicates. And if we take B to be true, it's not because minivan drivers get into fewer accidents. Taking B to be true, I'm still left with the question of why people are injured less in minivans. It doesn't address the conclusion that it is due to low-risk drivers, rather than the inherent safety features of the car.

E makes clear that the inherent safety features of the car are, namely features that the DRIVER controls, are lacking in comparison to similar vehicles. If the brakes are poor but injuries are still lower than average, then we can reasonably determine that on average, minivan drivers are more careful.

A would almost weaken the argument. If low risk drivers aren't often choosing minivans (because they don't perform "particularly well" in crash tests), that negates the conclusion of the stimulus.

C doesn't address the argument either. If anything, as JY said in the video, it makes the injuries statistics more impressive. But still doesn't address the "why."

D would also lean toward weakening the argument. The consultant is making the case that it's the driver, not the car, responsible for the good safety record of minivans. D would suggest that the large size of minivans predispose its ability to prevent injuries/protect occupants.

Even after listening to JY's explanation of why D is incorrect, and understanding why the AC was correct, I still had an issue seeing why D was wrong. Yes it is more broad than what the stimulus addresses; "personal correspondence" could mean any number of things beyond "diary."

After reading some of the comments below it clicked for me: it's the fact that D talks about the government's "power to confiscate." The stimulus goes beyond that - it says the government should not use it to prosecute. Under D, if a witness were to provide the diary, the government could still use it as evidence.

C initially threw me off because of the word "remarks." I thought it was a leap beyond what the stimulus was addressing. But it's not - the stimulus equates diaries to speaking to oneself and thinking to oneself - those are all remarks intended for oneself, not other people. C is correct because it reiterates the argument - diaries (or other "remarks") should not be by the government as evidence precisely because they were intended for oneself, not other people.

A - who cares? corporate officials.. interoffice memos.. this is way too specific of a principle to fit the argument in any way.

B - this would potentially weaken the argument, not strengthen it.

E - same things as B; potentially weakens the argument, not strengthens it. Also should have noticed that it falls into one similar trap as D, in that it talks about the government's power, rather than whether or not they "should use" certain pieces of evidence.

A is incorrect because how many cars in the area predate 1980 is irrelevant. We've already established that, regardless of number, their contribution to local pollution totals 30%.

C is correct because if almost none of the cars they purchase are still operational, then they will have very little impact on the local air pollution those cars produce.

B - who cares about the cost? It has nothing to do with reducing air pollution.

D - The argument is comparing the reduction of pollution by buying pre-1980 cars vs. redesigning the plants. It may be more effective to purchase post-1980 cars, but has nothing to do with the argument at hand.

E - Who cares? The number of petitions is no indication of the success of reducing air pollution.

B was attractive to me primarily because it mirrored the premise. I thought - many surveys say X? Ok, well many surveys say Y. They got me good on the attacking the premise trap :)

What should have jumped out at me in AC was that it identifies a difference between "financial rewards" and "high salary." If this were a strengthen question, the AC would likely bridge that divide. That is the primary problem with the argument.

A, D and E all jumped out at me as irrelevant.

@ said:

This is insanely helpful for fool proofing, thank you! Is there a way to see how long it took you to complete the entire problem set (not just each individual question)? I’m using the time accommodation feature but would still like to see my total time. A count up timer would be helpful :)

If you hover over the timing bar on any question it'll also tell you how long it took you to complete the entire game - so you'd just need to add the total times for however many games you're taking. And then you could write your total time for the set in the notes section, if you want to track it.

@ said:

@ said:

First of all - Seamus is my son's name! (He's two) I don't see it often.

Second of all - one of the best pieces of advice I've heard (check out the 7sage podcast, episode 1 to hear for yourself) is that you should only take your next PT when you feel like you've made progress in some way - otherwise, what are you hoping to accomplish with another PT?

That could mean identifying trouble spots with certain question types or sections, and then drilling for those sections. Identify whether it's a timing issue or a problem with understanding concepts (your BR will tell you that), and solve for it as best you can. Generally I know when to take the next PT when I've done all of that as well as fool-proof method each game. Doing all of the above is going to help take you beyond the mid-160s plateau into 170+ territory.

Thanks for your advice and sharing the 7Sage podcast!

The advice that you should only take your next PT when you feel like you've made progress is not often heard of but it really makes sense to me. Is it the same for someone averaging around 160?

And could you explain more about "identify whether it's a timing issue or a problem with understanding concepts"? I've taken around 10 PTs but I'm not very clear of how to understand my BR score.

For sure! I would say that making progress in some way between PTs is critical for just about everyone. If it's a choice between taking a PT every day or taking a few days in between to really review what went wrong, almost everyone (I say almost because there are always exceptions) is going to be better served and see a bigger score increase with the latter approach.

What I mean by waiting until you feel like you've made progress is not necessarily feeling like you've cracked the code to the LSAT - more so that you've identified your weaknesses in that particular PT (could be anything - maybe its inference questions on RC, or double layer sequencing games, or that you're having trouble finishing LR sections on time) and have done something to try to remedy that. For most that means taking anywhere from 2-6 days in between PTs to troubleshoot weaknesses, by drilling, reviewing core curriculum or other materials, using the fool proof LG method, etc. The exact amount of time between PTs really comes down to your schedule and propensity to burn out.

When are you writing the LSAT? If October like OP, since you already have 10 PTs under your belt, you could easily rack up 30-35 PTs total by then while still giving yourself a few days in between to review and drill.

What I mean by timing issue vs. understanding concepts is that if your BR score is consistently -0 to -2 for either a specific section or the entire PT, you're likely facing an issue of not being quick enough vs. you don't understand the concepts in that section. When you have all the time in the world to answer a certain question correctly, do you get it right? Are you able to identify why each wrong answer is wrong? If so, you need to mostly work on getting faster for that question type or section. If you still don't get it right on BR, then you need to go back and review any materials you have on that question type or section.

Congratulations, and well deserved!

I agree with the poster above on timed sections.

The amount of full PTs you take between now and November will vary depending on your schedule and burnout rate. If you work full-time or have other obligations, you may find that 1-2 PTs per week is right for you. If you can take PTs during the week, then I'd suggest 2-3. Some like to do more than that, but 1) I find that increases the likelihood that you burn out, and 2) it doesn't give you a sufficient amount of time to blind review, carefully analyze your weaknesses for each PT and then study/drill to address specific weaknesses (i.e. question types, or timing, or even sections). You need to problem solve for weaknesses between PTs to avoid plateaus.

With the problem sets now live on digital format, you can just create a new problem set for each game that you're fool-proofing, that way your data from each attempt is saved.

I've been there; would you feel less nervous if you wrote in November instead? Are you looking to apply this cycle?

Also, what materials (Powerscore, etc) have you used in your studies? You mention following the core curriculum, but has there been anything else?

I would also analyze what specific game types are giving you issues so you can drill down on specific types.

And I completely agree with the poster above about journaling. At one point I would write down an analysis of every single question I got wrong, and every single question I got right without 100% certainty. I’d time each game and keep record of that accordingly, and then literally write out how I felt about each question and an analysis of why the correct answer was correct, and why each wrong answer was wrong. Takes forever but is invaluable, particularly if you feel you’ve tried everything else.

Is it a timing issue? Or are you finishing sections on time but missing questions?

First of all - Seamus is my son's name! (He's two) I don't see it often.

Second of all - one of the best pieces of advice I've heard (check out the 7sage podcast, episode 1 to hear for yourself) is that you should only take your next PT when you feel like you've made progress in some way - otherwise, what are you hoping to accomplish with another PT?

That could mean identifying trouble spots with certain question types or sections, and then drilling for those sections. Identify whether it's a timing issue or a problem with understanding concepts (your BR will tell you that), and solve for it as best you can. Generally I know when to take the next PT when I've done all of that as well as fool-proof method each game. Doing all of the above is going to help take you beyond the mid-160s plateau into 170+ territory.

There's no shame in postponing. In many cases, it is the smart thing to do. Without knowing your goal score/current PT score, as well as where you're hoping to apply, I can't give a great recommendation. But I will say that with time (likely months) I truly believe that absolutely everyone can master games.

Based on what you've said, I would postpone to November if you are absolutely certain you want to apply this cycle. If you can apply next cycle, then give yourself even more time.

Best of luck in your decision!

@ Does this new feature allow us to add a fifth section to preptests?