I really dislike this flaw q and I've historically had trouble with it so I'd love some feedback to see if my understanding of the stimulus and the AC is finally correct. Also there's no video explanation for this one.

Stimulus:

In an experiment, researchers ran rats through a maze, some of which were missing one of their five senses--sight, taste, hearing, etc. Regardless of their specific missing characteristic, ALL rats finished the maze in the same amount of time.

Researchers found out that kinesthesia (sensation of body movement) could also be relevant to finishing a maze, in the same way sight, taste and hearing is helpful.

Off of this info, the researcher concludes: kinesthesia is sufficient for maze running.

I had a really hard time understanding the stimulus the first few times I saw this question especially w the double negative sentence, and more so with the unstated idea in the conclusion that the researchers were presuming kinesthesia ALONE is sufficient for maze running. From the language in the conclusion, I didn't see the researchers ruling out the possibility that the other senses in which the rats were not deficient (aka the blind rat using his/her sense of smell) could've helped as well in finishing the maze. So would love to see how people came to this flaw on their own or how I should've better identified it when attempting to prephase.

I got to choice B by process of elimination. Ruled out A because it was descriptively inaccurate with "small deficiencies in proficiency." Ruled out C, D, E, because of the phrase "it can be determined from the data." None of those things can be determined from the data for sure.

Thanks!!

Hi everyone (sorry for the second post in one day),

Just starting my PT grind, and I've noticed I usually fail to get to the last 2-3 questions in LR. I also feel myself spending too much time on the first ~10 questions on LR, which is concerning because everyone tells me these are the "freebies."

So is there a rule for the general amt of time I should be spending on these questions? I want to say I heard someone say 10 min for the first 10 but I'm not sure if I'm making this up.

I'm thinking about taking old PTs and drilling the first 10-15 LR q and forcing myself to get them all right under a certain amount of time so I have more time for the more difficult q at the end of the section.

Thanks!

Hi everyone,

Should I be BR-ing my experimental section of my PTs? My experimental sections are sections from older PT's.

Thanks!

In almost every reading passage I've done, there's always ONE paragraph that gets complex and it requires me to take some extra time to re-read and understand that paragraph. But I hesitate to do this bc I feel this monster breathing down my neck yelling me to GO FASTER. Trust me, I KNOWWWWW it's only going to hurt me if I don't understand the passage, so does anyone have any mental tips on how they allow themselves to take extra time to read something when needed? I'm feeling this especially now as I'm doing the memory method and am trying to meet the 3:30 mark.

Also, any tips on how people have come to craft effective low res main points for paragraphs? I feel like I'm missing the mark sometimes....

Thanks!!

I'm realizing I'm reading the stimulus too quickly and therefore stupidly losing points on fact-based questions (RRE, MSS) and missing key assumptions that are made in the conclusion (scope, subset, etc).

So how do you all read? What do you focus on? Underline? Where do you slow down? When do you pause? What are you looking for?

Right now I'm really focusing on taking in every single word of the conclusion bc that's often where the errors are made, but I would love to know if there's anything else that I can/should be doing.

I know JY advises against moving onto the ACs without coming up with a prephase for flaw questions, but there are unfortunately usually 2-3 flaw questions on PTs that I just can't seem to see the flaw, even after skipping and coming back to it. And as some of you can guess, I get trapped by attractive sounding answers because I'm wading in muddy waters. How have you all overcome this? Do you have a methodical way of approaching flaw questions? (I try to boil down the MP and the MC and see the gap each time.)

Is drilling flaw questions the best way to fundamentally fix this problem? I'm thinking maybe I just haven't been exposed to enough flaw qs to see the patterns.

Thanks :)

If I am forgetting lines in a passage (for example that X rarely occurs or that X percentage of something does something else) that support an AC in a question therefore leading me to getting questions wrong, what larger problem do you think that’s a symptom of? Should I be reading more slowly for nuance and/or is my memory method process faulty?

The scenario that happened more than once in a recent PT is that I thought none of the ACs were supported in a question so I chose “the best” AC begrudgingly even though I recognized the flaws in it. On BR though I ultimately found the part of the passage that supported an AC that I originally thought was unsupported. I realized I had forgotten about a line or part of the passage.

I’m looking at PT 70’s game 2 right now and I’m trying to understand the intuition behind question 12. “Which one of the following is a pair of employees at least one of whom must be on the team?” Would someone mind explaining to me how they know which members must be in in an conditional chain for an in-out game? Is the logic that it’s the friendly variable that doesn’t kick many other variables out?

Any help would be much appreciated!

I used to never really struggle too hard with PSA/SA. Pretty easy to identify the P --> C gap in the ACs. As I've moved onto the newer exams, I'm finding myself missing points on the harder 4/5-level PSA/SA questions. JY has referenced in the videos that the newer exams do require more mental massaging with SA qs especially. I spent some time drilling SA q's from PT 36-58, but still ended up struggling with difficult PSA/SA qs on PT 60.

I'm going for the choices that somewhat match my predetermined P-->C gap. But the issue here, is under time pressure, I go for the AC that has some of the buzzwords aka is only partially right, and unfortunately end up inviting parts of the answer choice that make it completely wrong. In the process, I end up eliminating AC's that are subtle/don't match my prephase, aka are not the formulaic AC's I typically expect.

I'm wondering now if I need to adopt a new PSA/SA methodology... aka be less dependent on the typical identify the P-->C gap. Asking if anyone has noticed this trend as well and how they dealt with it? Did you change your approach to these questions? Do you still depend on the diagram? How do you prephase?

Thanks!

In questions such as these "the author implies that paintings with religious subjects included buildings bc..." or "the author suggests that Venetian paintings were painted by authors who..." or "which of the following can be inferred from the passage about pumps that are currently available" or "it can be inferred that most legal scholars would agree"

I consistently find them more difficult and get them wrong more often than not... does anyone have any tips on how to tackle these questions? Should I be treating them like another kind question type?

Thanks!!

So I took an online Powerscore course from August to September in prep for the December course. Since taking the course, I've decided to push back my test date to February. I've also been foolproofing the LGs from PT 1-35 and and working on LR/LG sections. LG-taking a while but slowly seeing improvement. LR struggling much more than I want to... I inputted the past 11 PTS I've done into analytics and I'm avging -6. My analytics tells me I need to brush up on weaken/strengthen, flaw and assumption questions. I'm at this point where I'm struggling to figure out whether I should enroll in a 7sage minimum course to have access to the core curriculum re LR. Problem is I don't know how different it is from PS's curriculum seeing that I've looked at some excerpts on the 7sage blog. Is it worth it to spend more money? Or will the real improvement come from doing more PTs and BRs?

Would appreciate any and all help. Also would appreciate any tips on how others have made major improvements in LR.

I'm hoping someone wouldn't mind explaining the application cycle to me. Honestly, the minimum that I know is that applications are rolling, so it's best to get your applications in early. But when exactly do all applications open? (or is it different for each school?) And in how far advance do we get access to the essay questions? And is there a general date/month that you should have all your apps in in order to have a good chance for scholarship money?

I apologize if these are really basic questions. If so, I'd appreciate someone showing me a webinar or a site that breaks it all down.

Thanks a lot :)

Deleted

I am consistently getting all #% LR q wrong. Doe anyone have any tips on how to approach these questions? How to improve? What I should be looking for?

Thanks!!

I'm even considering looking at percentage tutorials on khanacademy lol

I graduated from undergrad this past May, did a fulfilling internship abroad, then came home to start studying for my LSAT. I thought I would take it in Dec but my PS course didn't adequately prepare me and I found 7sage too late. Planning to take in Feb, but even considering taking it in June if my scores aren't consistently in the 170s by the Feb date.

I can't help but feel embarrassed that I've taken time off to come home study for this exam while my impressive, high achieving friends are off with their shiny new post-grad jobs. I decided to take time off/study at home because I know personally that I'm pretty anxious with standardized exams and wanted to feel fully prepped. My diagnostic was also much lower than I wanted it to be. I feel lesser telling them "I'm studying for the LSAT."

Now I can't help but feel even more embarrassed with the thought of pushing the date back and them knowing/judging me, etc.

Has anyone been in a similar situation with friends? How did you deal with it? I feel dumb for even typing this out, but it's getting to the point where I think it's affecting my studying bc I feel like I'm doing something wrong.

Hi everyone,

I'm gearing up for June and LG is holding me back from easily scoring in the 170s. Over the last four PTs I'm averaging -6.5 on this section. I've been studying for over half a year, and I already did PT 1-35 FPing. Before the last four PTs I used to go approximately -3 (never -0), but now I'm -6.5. I even took two weeks off from PTing in March to focus on LG--did drilling by type, but on the two PTs afterwards I got -5 and -6 on LG. Worth mentioning that I do the pacifico method with each new weekly PT I take.

As expected, I BR 100% nearly every time. During the exam here's what I think happens: I go too slow (feel this most during my setups; often feel rushed for the last game/or the game I skip and come back to at the end), my setups aren't 100% (sometimes I freeze while diagramming/miss an opportunity to optimally diagram), I make avoidable (in hindsight) mistakes with questions. I've also been running a list of every mistake I've made, if anyone wants more info.

Maybe my procedure is sloppy? (I also wrote up a worddoc describing my ideal procedure, lol I'm trying everything.) Idk what's up. Getting frustrated because this is the section everyone says is easiest to improve on, but it doesn't seem that way for me.

Now I'm at a loss as to how to improve and would appreciate targeted help. I know I need to do more drilling but I want to be efficient about it before June. Should I be doing more sets of LGs from new PTs? Does this sound like time pressure anxiety?

Would really appreciate any words of advice (3(/p)

What does answer choice A mean to you? Coming out of Feb 1996 PT 14 Section 4 Question 10.

Question stem: The therapist's reply to the interviewer is most vulnerable to which one of the following criticisms?"

A) it precludes the possibility of disconfirming evidence

I'm having real difficulty parsing out the meaning. I thought the question showed a circular reasoning flaw, so I hope this describes circular reasoning...

Already have Legally Blonde down :)

Specifically some questions of LR on section 4. Let me know! I'm around this week. We can do a phone call.

Would appreciate it