Hey @.l.94

I'm in the exact same boat as you. Scored a 169 on the June test, which was below my PT scores in the 170s. Looking to improve my score on the September test. I also felt like I had a good understanding of the concepts and I somehow missed questions on the test that I normally wouldn't have missed in my PTs so I don't know where to begin studying for the retake.

If you're interested, I would be willing to study together for the September test. I feel your pain though. But we got this!!

I'm sorry in advance because this first part is slightly irrelevant to your question, but I thought PrepTest A was super easy (compared to every other PT I took) and in my opinion, it does not reflect what you should expect to see on a newer test. But I'm sure you plan on taking many more PTs, so no worries! I'm probably just bitter because I got an abnormally great score on PT A and it gave me false hope for a bit:)

I agree with everyone here that the LSAT Trainer is a great resource for logical reasoning. For me, the way I remembered how to look at assumption questions was:

Necessary Assumption: What must be true if the information in the stimulus is true? You can test the answers with the negation test (if you negate an answer choice and it contradicts the argument, then it is a necessary/required assumption)

Sufficient Assumption: What must be true in order for the argument in the stimulus to be valid? The correct answer, if added as a premise to the argument, will make it logically valid.

To be honest though, I didn't know the difference between sufficient and necessary assumption questions until I read the LSAT Trainer. I highly recommend working through it, especially for understanding the different challenges that each question type presents.

Hey thanks for explaining that for me. I think it just tripped me up because it seemed like they were distorting what was actually said in the passage, but I think I might have been overthinking it.

@ Over time, you'll start to see how formulaic RC really is (just like the games).

This is so true! I used to struggle with RC, but after drilling so many passages and focusing on breaking down the right and wrong answers during review, it now seems formulaic like the other sections. Reading the LSAT Trainer helped me very much to understand how I should best focus my attention for each passage:

- ID main point of each paragraph (or at least the purpose of it)

- ID main point of passage

- ID author view/tone & opposing viewpoints

- ID structure of passage (the function of each paragraph as it relates to the entire passage)

I found the Manhattan Prep RC book to be super helpful, too, in terms of being able to identify wrong answer choices more easily. And going through every single PT I've done and re-doing the RC sections with my newfound method helped me start to see the formula/patterns in this section.

@ Panda, you say you are constantly trying to "untangle" the passage - maybe you're trying to focus on too many things at once. What worked for me was simplifying my approach to reading the passages, and thoroughly scrutinizing the answers choices to categorize why each of the 4 wrong choices are wrong. For example, they can be out of scope, exaggerated, unsupported, contradicted - and then suddenly the only answer left is the right answer.

It'll get easier over time as you do more RC passages and start to see the patterns. Good luck!

@ , congratulations!! I got accepted to UVA Law last week and have 7sage to thank for it too :) I'm not certain yet if I'll be attending UVA, but it is definitely one of my top choices and I feel so honored to have been accepted, especially since my LSAT journey was long, arduous, and actually still on-going (re-taking it next week!).

Congrats again - you earned it!

I also got this question correct on the test but remember being stuck between A and D. I just looked at it again and I can kind of make sense of it.

I think A is correct because it correctly restricts the first spot to either Z or W, while restricting W to the first or second spot only.

I think D is incorrect because it doesn't restrict the first spot to Z or W. It says W must be first or second, but doesn't say who must be first if W is second. So it doesn't incorporate the condition of Z into the substitution in a way that would have the same effect in determining the order.

I hope I'm allowed to say that much about the question...

@.Dantes and anyone else who is going to retake in September if your June score isn't what you wanted - how are you planning to study for the retake?

I also plan on retaking in September if my score isn't within my target range.

@ To be precise, your sentence, "If a dog is sick, it will seem tired and lazy", actually expresses the following proposition: Every dog is such that if it's sick, it will seem tired and lazy. The negation of this is: Some dog is such that it's sick and will not seem tired and lazy. Why?

@ Recall that not all is equivalent to some not.

@ Thank you so much for explaining this in more detail!! I totally understand this explanation and understand why my method of negation is incorrect. I guess what works in my head isn't necessarily what I should share with others on here :/ And now I can correct how I approach these questions in my own study. If you have any more basic logical concepts to share that you think are important, please share! I'd be interested in reading more of your explanations.

@ When

@

shows the negation using conditional diagrams, I believe he is simply showing that the negation of a conditional statement results in two conditions NO LONGER having a conditional relationship with each other. In other words, you can have one without the other. The negation of the dog statement using the ~(A > B) method that he showed means that you can have a sick dog and it will not necessarily be tired and lazy. You can have A without having B, whereas previously, if you had A, you necessarily had B.

Also, thanks for this explanation, too @! Definitely makes more sense to me now.

On the one hand, I commiserate with you because not knowing our scores is stressful. But on the other hand - there's so much else we can be focusing on now!

I allowed myself to obsess over the LSAT while I was in study mode, and to do everything I could to put myself in a position to succeed, because at that stage in the process, I still had control over the outcome. But now that the test is over, there is nothing I can do. It's not productive to stress about what I got on the LSAT (even though I'm still going to think about it a lot). I have no control over what my score is, so I'm going to try to divert my focus to admissions essays and things like that until scores are released :)

I felt like the test was easier than I expected. I'm not sure why I expected it to be harder than the billions of preptests I've taken, because it wasn't. Overall, I felt prepared, and I know that if I didn't reach my target score, it's not for lack of trying, which somehow sets my mind at ease.

Did anyone else feel overwhelmed with emotions after the test? After devoting so much time and energy into the test, I felt relieved but also like a significant and enjoyable chapter of my life had come to a close (hopefully). I'm going to miss the grind of studying and constantly striving to improve.

Anyways - congrats to everyone who took the test yesterday!!

@, no hostility implied here, but I don't understand the point of the negation you made. It's definitely possible that I'm wrong, as I often am, but the explanation I gave has worked for me to get the correct answer for every necessary assumption question I've seen since I read the Trainer. For me, it makes more intuitive sense to not break things down into symbolic conditional statements and formulas and just think it through in the context of the sentence's original meaning in the English language, and the sentence you ended up with hardly makes sense to me (A dog is sick and will not seem tired and lazy). Like, the dog IS currently sick, but WILL NOT in the future seem tired and lazy? Why not use "does not seem?" To me it reads as two different tenses and is confusing for no reason.

I just don't understand the point in making this more complicated than it needs to be. The point of the negation test for necessary assumption questions is to check if the original statement is required by the argument. The sentences "A dog is sick and will not seem tired and lazy" and "If a dog is sick, it will NOT seem tired and lazy" mean the same thing in my mind except that the sentence you provided makes little sense and is no longer a conditional statement. It's possible that the correct negation would be "If a dog is sick, it WON'T NECESSARILY seem tired and lazy," but I feel like for the purpose of finding the correct answer to a necessary assumption question it's faster to just think of the opposite of the original sentence. And just personally, I'd rather work with sensical statements than symbolic statements when I only have a minute to figure out the answer to a question. Also, like what @ said, it is also possible to just add "it is not the case" or "it isn't true that" before the statement, but to make the sentence have the opposite meaning, I think you can just add a "not."

If I'm truly wrong here, I'd like to know so that I can stop using this method when I'm studying.

The LSAT Trainer says that the negation test means taking the "exact opposite" of the statement. From the examples you included, I assume that you're having trouble figuring out which part of the statement to negate in If/Then statements. By "exact opposite," I just take this to mean that the negated sentence will imply the opposite meaning/outcome of the original sentence. So for example, if I said "If a dog is sick, it will seem tired and lazy," the negated statement would be "If a dog is sick, it will NOT seem tired and lazy" (not "If a dog is NOT sick, it will seem tired and lazy"). Does that make sense? Then, if the negated statement severely weakens or destroys the argument, then the original statement is a necessary/required assumption.

So, for your 1st statement, I would take "The Fine arts would be more highly developed now if they had been given greater governmental subsidies in the past" and negate it to say "The Fine arts would NOT be more highly developed now if they had been given greater governmental subsidies in the past."

For the 2nd statement, I'd take "If contemporary governments help to maintain and enrich the fine arts, private support for the arts will become necessary" and negate it as "If contemporary governments help to maintain and enrich the fine arts, private support for the arts will NOT become necessary."

For the 4th statement, I'd take "Serving as stewards of cultural heritage requires that contemporary societies help to maintain the fine arts" and negate it as "Serving as stewards of cultural heritage DOES NOT require that contemporary societies help to maintain the fine arts."

For the 5th statement, I'd take "Maintenance, advancement, and enrichment of the fine arts in any era require governmental subsidies" and negate it as "Maintenance, advancement, and enrichment of the fine arts in any era DOES NOT require governmental subsidies."

In your 3rd statement, I think you have the right idea that to negate the statement, you should remove NOT.

I don't know if this will help at all but I hope it does!

@ Get Right, your comment above made me tear up when I read it. It transcended simple advice and was the most encouraging and honest thing I've read in a while. Thanks for that :)

Hey @ L 123

Thanks for responding. I was averaging about 173 on new PTs before I took the June test. RC was my weakest section so I was very surprised to have only missed 2 questions on the actual test (average was about -4). And missing 9 total LR questions was more than I would normally miss. Sometimes I would only miss 2 per test. I think that's a really good idea to do back-to-back PTs - I'm going to try to do that possibly with one fresh test and one re-take test since I don't have that many left to take. Thanks for your insight!

@ - we can definitely team up to study for the September test!

@ - sorry to hear you're in a similar situation. I think I'm going to check out a BR call - it seems like it would be super helpful. And good point about aiming higher. Since I was scoring 175 on some PTs, I know I can score higher than a 171, so I should aim higher for sure.

@ Swanson - the LR section I missed -6 in was my section 3, so my 2nd LR section. I also had an experimental LR section that I believe came before the 2nd scored LR section.I think you might be right about nerves - I'm SMH at the questions I missed because I fell for such trap answers. I like the advice here to take a few PTs in a row to build up endurance. That way, a 5-section test would seem pretty short (I hope!). About your last question...I feel like that's my issue. Some days, I would PT and get a 175, other days I'd get a 169, mainly due to variations in RC scores. I think fine-tuning and re-visiting the question specific approaches is my best bet.

Are you happy with your score from the June test?

@ Not boastful at all, I appreciate you sharing. That gives me hope to try harder. If you don't might would you give me a few pointers? Are you only using 7Sage? What is your study schedule?

I don't mind at all! Hope this isn't too much info...

Prior to the June test, I had studied using The LSAT Trainer and the Powerscore Logic Games Bible, as well as the Cambridge LR and LG question type collections, the 7sage LG videos, and about 30+ PTs. (Personally, I wouldn't recommend the Powerscore Logic Games Bible, since it teaches some methods that directly contradict the methods that I now use.) I never signed up for a 7sage course since I found 7sage well after I had already started studying, but I've only heard great things about the courses. And the LSAT Trainer is great!

I think my mistake with the June test was that I didn't spend enough time with the most recent tests (70+). I had a rigorous study schedule prior to the test and burnt out super hard towards the end, which caused me to neglect the newest tests. Though I think the RC section has remained essentially the same, and the LG sections are typically easier, I feel that the LR on the newest PTs has changed slightly and I should have spent more time with the newest questions.

But, what really changed the game for me was deeply reviewing every LR question I got wrong or was even slightly unsure about. I'd read the Manhattan Prep thread for each of those questions, and think about how I could avoid making the same mistake again. This taught me to be quicker at eliminating wrong answer choices by understanding the patterns of wrong answers, and to recognize how important pre-phrasing is for certain questions. For RC, I would drill by doing lots of passages timed, and then go back untimed and underline the support for each question and write out why the wrong answers were wrong. I kind of naturally understand LGs, but watching the 7sage videos for the more difficult games helped me to improve my speed and techniques.

Also, creating good test-taking habits is essential. Practicing skipping questions and managing my time was super important, since now I finish most sections with enough time to go back and calmly answer the questions I skipped. Keeping track of time sets my mind at ease and helps me stay on track in each section.

That was all before the June test. Now, my main focus is on not burning out :) I read the Manhattan Prep LR and RC books a few weeks ago (highly recommend reading both if you have time) and now I'm retaking sections of tests that I did poorly on many months ago, and targeting my weak areas. When I'm tutoring, I get to practice lots of LGs and LR questions while also having to explain the right approach and why answer choices are wrong/right, which helps to reinforce what I already know or expose what I don't quite understand. I'm trying to only take 1 full timed prep test each week, and am focusing primarily on the newest tests this time (70+). I feel that my test-taking approach is pretty solid, so I'm trying to spend my time thoroughly reviewing. Now, since I thankfully rarely miss questions, I obsess over the questions that I do I miss to make sure that I understand the flawed thinking that lead me to choose the wrong answer.

The #1 LSAT tip I could give is to constantly be aware of and in charge of your thought process by training yourself to think about the right things at the right time (during PTs and when studying). Having the right thought process for each section/question type helps to see the formulaic nature of the test, rather than seeing each question as a unique challenge. On the LSAT, there are only so many types of wrong answers, so many types of reasoning errors, etc. Most LG questions can be answered by looking at the rules and making inferences rather than drawing out diagrams if you know what to be to be thinking about.

Personally, I would suggest maybe trying something different rather than trying "harder." Don't burn yourself out! Try a different approach, or, if you realize you don't have a specific approach, you should work on implementing one. Writing down and memorizing the process for each type of LR question and making sure you use that process every time is a great tool. If you want to take a look at my strategies for each LR question type, let me know.

Good luck! You can totally do this.

@ Congrats! That is amazing... You are going to kill it on game day ;D

@ Dillon A. Wright

Thanks guys! Didn't mean to sound boastful...just realized it may have come off that way :/

@ Next week I'll focus on RC and will try two sections a day with thorough BR. Hopefully the focused approach will result in some improvements. I'm currently averaging -5 to -8 and would love to get it down to a consistent -4.

I don't know if anyone else has recommended this, but for me, this helped immensely: after taking timed RC sections, go back through each passage and identify the exact line(s) that were needed to correctly answer each question. It really helped me to recognize that practically every question can be answered directly from the text, even if it's an inference question. The correct answers to questions in the RC section are ALWAYS supported by the text, even if in an easy-to-overlook way. Then, if you keep this knowledge in your head during the next timed section, it can help you get into a good habit of quickly finding and confirming the support needed to answer each question instead of "spinning your wheels" or selecting another tempting yet unsupported answer choice.

@ What is your GPA? With a high GPA will the the 2 points matter?

GPA is 3.85. Based on mylsn data for one of my target schools, I think even a 2 point increase could increase my chances of acceptance by over 50%, so it's definitely worth it to me!

Since you brought this thread back to life, I guess I'll give a quick update about my retake studying. My boyfriend decided to start studying for the LSAT, so I've been tutoring him in addition to drilling RC and LR. My last two prep test scores were 179 and 178. Though I don't expect to get that high of a score on the September test, I'm feeling pretty good about being able to raise my score at least two points.

Good luck to all of the retakers out there!