Look at your LSAT score as a reflection of what your current state of mind is. What I mean is this: All your other application materials (GPA, letters of rec, resume experiences, etc) are phantoms of your past, whether good or bad. The LSAT shows the law school you're applying to WHO YOU ARE RIGHT NOW (approximately, give or take a couple years). The LSAT is your chance to show them that you are a bad ass mother f** RIGHT NOW. Maybe it takes some people 1-3 years of prep in order to hit their LSAT goal on an official test, but a good official score still tells them you're a bad ass RIGHT NOW. It's a huge boost for your application. Of course, applying earlier is always better. You'll do that next time. But are you working on your LSAT score like you should be?
That's a 13 point increase, no?
A 13 point increase in 6 months, especially when starting at below the 10th percentile, could be cause for celebration.
To put it another way:
You're on track to make a 136 ---> 162 in JUST one year. In which case, that seems above average progression to me.
From what I'm gleaning from their language, LSAC could keep the current AR section for non-visually impaired individuals and simply have an alternative section to swap in for the standard AR section for visually impaired people.
I took a look and got the correct answer, although slow (2 min). Here's what I came up with, feel free to disagree with my reasoning, maybe I was right for the wrong reasons:
(things in parenthesis are my internal monolog and shorthand)
Sid's argument is questionable in that it (Sid's idea is funky somehow, why?):
Sid: The sign says "Keep off the grass." (Don't grass)
Micki: I know, but just one person walking across the grass doesn't hurt it. (1 person can grass)
Sid: Your statement is false. If everyone believed as you do, everyone would walk across the grass, and the grass would die. (If everyone is you, then everyone would grass, therefore grass die, therefore you're wrong.)
Breakdown:
(Sid's idea is funky somehow, why?):
Sid: (Don't grass)
Micki: (1 person can grass)
Sid: (If everyone is you, then everyone would grass, therefore grass die, therefore you're wrong.)
Right away, see how Sid talks about everyone. Who is talking about everyone? Just Sid. As a matter of fact, Micki specifically said just 1 person. Why is Sid talking about every.single.person.in.the.world? That's a huge scope shift.
First Pass:
A - Hard to prove as correct or incorrect at a glance. Move on.
B - Hard to prove as correct or incorrect at a glance. Move on.
C - No. The argument is fluid, as in he's not outright contradicting himself.
D - No. There's no overlooking that "don't grass" is ok sometimes.
E - No. There's never any "name calling" here.
Second Pass:
A - No. The "statement about consequences" is Micki's statement. He's using Micki's statement as proof to therefore disprove something in his own argument? No, that is not what is weird about his argument. Sid is not trying to disprove himself with the proof of a statement.
B - Correct. Treats a statement about the consequences of an action as though it were instead about the consequences of everyone believing the statement (turns Micki's statement "1 person can grass" into a statement about everyone). He's basically putting words into Micki's mouth.
In my opinion:
It does not matter, homie. Cut your losses and focus on other problems. I've gone over most published LR questions at least once, and this one is an extreme outlier.
If I'm understanding your question correctly:
RE: When splitting boards, and when you have an MBT question for example... do you choose the answer that is based off of both split boards?
Split boards represent possibilities from the main game (different conditionals for example). If the question does not specify outwardly or by implication that you're supposed to use only 1 board, then you'd look to the commonalities between both (or all) boards to arrive at the MBT you're looking for. For example: Dancer X is always dancing 5th regardless of if you look at split board 1, or split board 2, etc.
The MBT is really dependent on the question stem. It could be asking about an overall truth to the game, or it could be asking an overall truth of a specific circumstance of the game, for example it would ask you what MBT if you ONLY look at your split board # 4.
RE: does this go for every category like CBF and CBT?
Yes. In terms of what you're looking for within the boards, each of CBT MBT MBT ETC are all absolute truths. More or less specifically, they are absolute provable truths. For example, could it be true that dancer x is in spot 3? Yes, that's an absolute truth. Must it be true, that if we put dancer x in spot 5, that dancer y sits out? Yes, that's an absolute truth. They are all absolute truths. You can kind of look at them all as a different side of the same coin.
From my experience:
Could be true questions are about the truth of more than one element going into one spot. Correct answer choice will be the lest obvious of the bunch.
Must be true questions are about the truth of one element being in exactly and only one spot (usually paired with a conditional in question stem). Correct answer choices will be the least obvious of the bunch.
Must be false questions are about the truth of one element being absent from exactly and only one spot. Correct answer choices will be the least obvious of the bunch.
I won't say you're not dyslexic. Maybe you are. However, the LSAT is written in such a way as to actively disrupt your thought patterns regardless of if you're dyslexic or not. You can sure as hell bet that if you get lost or confused within a portion of the test that it was by careful design by people smarter than us. Don't see that as a point of loathing, take pride in the ones you get correct because each problem is difficult in its own way.
It's unintuitive to call SAs SAs, in my opinion. Depending on your internal monolog, it may be easier to make a pet name for SA questions (maybe something like guarantee questions) and totally remove the "assumption" idea completely. In that case, you could use your intuitive, day-to-day understanding of what assumptions are and project it onto NA questions with little to no adjustment on how you reconcile them within yourself when you compare day-to-day usage of assumptions to what NA are within the scope of the LSAT.
Furthermore, I think the hardest part to reconcile regarding SA questions is that they are set in a "the author is 100% correct, but they forgot to mention something that you need to remind them of in order for them to be 100% correct" universe, and our day-to-day understanding of assumptions is mostly never like that. When have you ever been in a situation where you know what someone else says is 100% correct, they fail to mention key aspects of it, and you correct them on the spot solidifying their "argument" to the point of validity? Probably not very often. It's alien compared to normal usages of "assumptions".
In normal, daily assumptions (NAs), someone is either making an unstated assumption (ex: did you just assume my gender by pointing me towards the ladies room!?), or they are literally saying that they are assuming something (ex: let's assume you're right in your idea about how box office sales are tanking, but that doesn't explain why Ben Aflick is out of work). SAs takes this idea and sheds it apart because it makes YOU tell the SPEAKER that they are ABSOLUTLY CORRECT, and furthermore that they FORGOT to mention something (aka the NA).
You ain't gon' be learning anything new enough to make meaningful impact on your test result. But I ate around 5 donuts starting around 9 AM and concluding once I finished my test, making sure to eat one during the break as well. I scored my personal best official test doing this (163). Correlation =/= causation and all that, but I legit think it helped me (helped morale, maybe sugar spikes helped my cognition? I don't know). Donut shop though, not store bought garbage. The official LSAT is a horrible experience by design, whatever you can do (within the rules) to make the experience better or more enjoyable for yourself could end up garnering you more points than an extra week of study time.
In my opinion:
Him dreaming bigger (X)
than (compared)
simply emulating two people (Y)
is not possible. (mutually exclusive)
You're comparing possibilities, one is 100% and the other is 0%.
OR
For the statement to work, I think it would have to read as follows:
He couldn't dream any bigger than THE DREAM of emulating his older brother and cousin.
In which case, it's very simple to see that you're comparing the "bigness" of a dream and what his limitations are. It's stating how big his dream can be by comparing the upper bounds of his dream capabilities.
Also helpful:
THAN definition:
(1) used to introduce the second element in a comparison.
"they go out less than they did when they first moved to Paris"
(2) used in expressions introducing an exception or contrast.
"they observe rather than act"
Rewrite the sentence with rather than.
He couldn't dream any bigger RATHER than emulating his older brother and cousin.
This holds it's meaning and makes more sense. This is not a simple comparison statement, it's an exception statement. Which supports my first idea I wrote about above.
LSAT forums, this one included, generally trend very optimistic and/or very non confrontational in their answers when you ask them these types of questions. Sure, it could be OK. But the short answer is that your plan is probably a very bad idea.
Additionally, you won't get anywhere near an accurate answer if you don't explain your diagnostic score and your goal score. Are you a 152 looking to hit 160 (you'll most probably need more than 4 months while working full time), or a 136 looking to hit 165 (you'll almost certainly need way more than 4 months while working full time)?
Also, my theory (unproven), is that when people answer how long it took them to reach "X" score, the people who do such in an impressive amount of time are more likely to post their experience and the people who take an average timeframe or above average timeframe are less likely to respond (basically atypical, impressive responders are disproportionately represented). Also, the people that quit or gave up are most probably not going to answer at all (why would someone who quit trying keep visiting lsat related sites and report their experiences?).
I think there can be a situation where it's good for someone to register for and take the test even though they think they're not ready (you're allowed multiple attempts after all). Why? Because maybe it could produce some motivation or give you a wakeup call if you take the test and get an even lower score than you imagined. However, if you're prone to bad results giving you discouragement rather than inspiration then definitely never take the official test until you feel very ready. Feeling ready and then scoring bad is another can of worms, but we'll leave that for now because that's not what you asked about lol.
This is the only way I can make this make sense in my mind:
Everything before the 'therefore' is filler. That's where this question's difficulty comes from.
CC: future evals will have distributions of opinion
-E: Dissatisfied students ARE more likely to submit future evals
Yes. Closed laptop. External monitor. External Webcam.
Do not assume the proc will know anything. Download the accom. statement PDF from your LSAC profile (the document that shows what you've been approved for) and have it ready to show the proc. It's your responsibility to advocate for yourself if the proc is ignorant of your accommodations.
I've legit spent a whole day on a single LG. If you're starting out without many of the mental tools for LG then I think taking a long time for each game can be very beneficial. It was for me at least.
Sometimes when you get an answer wrong it's mostly because you don't know the exact definition of a word. I thought fraud could be committed unintentionally, therefore I eliminated D. Now I know better....
Maybe this is a 2 star because the answer choices make elimination easy even when you don't fully understand wtf is going on. With that being said, this easily felt like a 5 star question to me.
Sure, it's possible. Personally, I went from 141 to 158 with the most recent test. HOWEVER, for me, it took longer than 1 month FOR SURE.
5 star NA question.
Is this a triple conclusion passage?
Looking for another opinion on this question regarding the stimulus. This passage strikes me as having a sub sub conclusion, as in 3 conclusions total. Do you see that as well? If not, please let me know.
I see:
Sub conclusion. [Because] Sub Sub conclusion, because sub sub conclusion premise. Thus, main conclusion.
Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-63-section-3-question-11/
Some things that have helped me a little. You could maybe give it a try if you want:
Try doing a blind review in real time. As in, time yourself doing the question, answer the question, stop timer, review your current confidence level of your correct answer, rank best to worst the other answer choices, etc. Then check answer (are they all equally bad, or is there one incorrect answer that is at least a little better). Then re view why it's right or wrong. THEN re start timer, THEN do the next question.
Try re naming question types into something more intuitive to you and less sterile, it only needs to make sense in your own head. For example: NA questions become "connect the dots".
As you're doing a question, do you know when you're getting an answer wrong? As in, do you know when you're guessing? If you do, and if you're doing the "stop timer" blind review method I mentioned above, stop the time immediately and see what is going wrong. Why are you guessing? I call this feeling being "lost in the sauce". Is it because the passage, a certain word in the passage, certain word in the question stem. Like articulate it RIGHT then. I think this "stop the timer after every question blind review method" can be beneficial especially in situations like this.
Thanks for the post. I was just wondering this myself, but I'm in the other boat. My Degree is higher than cumulative.
@kimmelsara198 said:
That’s all looks right except for 1 proceeding 2.
Thanks for your response!
I think I was mixing up "proceed" and "precede".
Would "1 is preceding 2." be correct?
I also added a "proceed" section. Does that look correct?
Thanks a bunch! You're the best!
Great suggestions here. If I could add anything that has not been brought up, I'd suggest to look into getting a diagnosis from a DR and then applying for accommodations if you have not done so already. I understand that may be anxiety inducing in itself, but there's a good chance in my opinion that the DR will take you at your word if you're honest with them, even on the first visit. There's numerous accommodations available, not just time extensions, that could really help you show your true potential on the test if you were to be granted those accommodations.
TOTALLY JUST MY OPINION:
Official 140 scorer two years ago.
Official 163 scorer from this FEB.
Taking into account your score, the fact that we have a sample size of 1 practice test, and the fact that you scored approximately the same in each section, if I were you, then I'd choose the section that feels most natural to me and just hone it in even more. The past consensus seemed to point towards LG being the easiest to improve upon in the least amount of time, but that might not be true for your case since you're basically just trying to nail down the finer details. Furthermore, LGs are seemingly becoming harder, if not at least more unpredictable.
From what I've been reading over the past few months from self reporters who have taken the official test, and furthermore reading forums and listening to podcasts, it seems like LGs sections are seeing changes compared to historical practice tests. From what I've gleaned, recent LG sections seem less reliant on up-front deductions and inferences to therefore bang out the questions with filled or quasi-filled game boards and more reliant on per question scenarios. Basically, fewer upfront deductions and a more "freestyle" type game. Furthermore basically, less of the time spent on particular logic games is done upfront before the questions, and therefore the time is more even split up on a per question basis due to the nature of how the game is formatted. You could call these games more questions-focused rather than more stimulus and deduction-focused games. These questions-focused games can be tricky if you catch yourself in a situation where you're trying to link together inferences or put together split board or filled-in board scenarios that lead to no meaningful information or that won't have a function in answering the questions correctly.
Finally, each practice and official test can either be extremely similar to each other in terms or content, structure, and question types or they can be extremely different. For example, for your individual skillset, perhaps the practice test you took was a poor matchup. As in, maybe that practice test was your hypothetical worst-case scenario, and if you were to have taken any other practice then, then you would have scored 175+. Maybe it's also true that the practice test you took was your ultimate match, and if you were to have taken any other practice test, then you would have scored in the 140s. Some practice tests have 4 LR main conclusion questions, some have 0. If your jam is main conclusion questions, then you can probably expect to underperform on that certain test that has 0 of them.
You did not specify what your grades were on each specific LR section. I'd say, given all the brainstorming and experience I've done thus far, that if one of your LR sections had a -6 or -7, then your efforts are best placed on training LR. If that were to be the case, and time in scarce, then just do practice sections to get a good sample size of what questions you get wrong more frequently and what questions you spend too much time on compared to the rest. With that knowledge in mind, I'd then further hone your studies to doing practice sets with only those question types.
However, if a perfect world, you'd just continue to do practice tests at a healthy pace while reviewing each test while paying closer attention to question types that keep trending as wrong. Rinse and repeat until your practice testing at your goal score or until your time is up and you have to take the real test.