I agree with @ and @. Just making sure that what studying I can get in is good quality. I work 60+ hours a week and am so burnt out by the end of the day I don't have enough energy for quality studying after work so I started waking up at 4am to get about an hour and a half of studying in every weekday morning. I PT Sunday mornings and BR in the afternoons. Saturday I take a break (I tried not taking a break one week--it did not go well).

On weekday studying I try to focus on my wrong answer journal and working on getting as specific as I can on what went wrong and how I can fix the problem on future PTs. RC is my weakest section so I've also been working on different approaches to find out what works best. I also video chat with a study partner and a tutor once a week to work on all of this stuff with another person instead of trying to do everything alone, which has been really helpful.

I know it's incredibly frustrating to not have all the time in the world and hear from others reaching their goal scores because they have the privilege of studying full time but studying and working full time is an accomplishment to be proud of! Good luck!

Agree with everything @ said. A lot of it is very similar in terms of what the CC teaches, but some of it she reframes in a way that may or may not make more sense for you. Her memorization practice is also good if you find yourself struggling to process LR stimuli quickly and thoroughly.

Personally, I'd recommend doing the CC first if it's clicking for you and helping you with LR and then use Loophole to supplement LR when you get into practice sets. If you're struggling with the CC though, you'd probably find it helpful to get another teacher's perspective.

This was the warm-up exercise I made for myself before writing the June exam:

60.3.6

60.3.12

61.2.13

74.1.12

77.2.15

80.1.13

82.1.16

87.3.15

M20.3.13

M20.3.23

I picked these questions based on "cookie-cutter" type questions and arguments. But I'd encourage you to make your own, too! I honestly got more out of poring over tons of questions to find the best ones than from doing the exercise itself. Hope this helps!

I agree with @ that recalling your thinking process will be helpful. Remember, getting a question wrong means making two mistakes: thinking the right answer is wrong and thinking a wrong answer is right. I can only think of a few questions where a misreading of the stimulus would make a wrong answer right. Usually, misreading will throw you off the scent of the right answer, but even if your misreading was correct, the tempting wrong AC still wouldn't touch the argument. Basically, if you misread a stim it should seem like there are 5 wrong ACs. So it could be helpful to recall why your misunderstanding of the stim led you to think a wrong AC was right and why it doesn't work, misreading or not.

While there are strategies you can use to improve your focus while reading, there will still be times when you look over something important. But if you can figure out that none of the ACs work, it becomes much easier to see that you probably missed something in the stim.

I agree this would be very helpful! Would it be possible to make the 'target time' an option? It can be frustrating to do a practice game or passage and run out of time, only to find out it was designed to take 9-11 minutes. Or vice versa, think I'm doing well only to see it should've taken only 5-7 minutes.

Thanks for always listening!

The flaw is "confusing one possible solution for the only solution". The premise is that the course doesn't NEED to be taught by a maths professor. Then we jump to the conclusion that the department is unjustified in making it taught by a maths professor. Basically, from the premises we can only conclude that there are other options. We can't justify eliminating certain options solely from the fact that other options exist. A is wrong simply because it doesn't point out this flaw.

Parallel argument: My mom interrupted my video game to make me take out the trash. But my sister was on the couch watching TV at the time. Since my mom could have just as easily interrupted my sister to take out the trash, it was wrong of her to make me do it.

Like you said, there's nothing about who can do it "well". The options are me and my sister. There's nothing in the premises to suggest who is better suited for the job, so there is no justification for concluding whether or not an option should be eliminated.

Hope that helps!

@ said:

They are only saying "try to be more accommodating"?

Since we now have to take LSAT online, why can't we have the same number of test dates as North America? Does anyone know if we can register for Nov from Asia?

I'm pretty sure we can still only take international tests, frustrating as that is.

This is all great advice. Something that helped me that hasn't been mentioned yet is memorizing the 21 common flaws. Know what they're called, what it means, and most importantly: WHY it makes the argument flawed. The vast majority of LR questions deals with understanding what's wrong with an argument whether it's flaw, strengthen, weaken, NA, SA, PSA. If you can read an argument and know immediately what's wrong with it your prephrase game will be unstoppable. Was consistently getting down to -0/-1 this way.

Yeah the language they used in the email was so ambiguous it made me nervous. I guess hope for the best and prepare for the worst... I might try to get in contact with them if I end up with a really inconvenient time slot but they might not even respond before the test.

Congrats that's awesome! I agree with @ that that doesn't happen by chance. I also broke 170+ after taking a break after getting my lowest score on a PT to date. Don't underestimate the power of giving your mind a break. After taking a break, I definitely felt like something 'clicked' and I definitely think it was due to giving my brain time to digest everything I had been learning. I don't get 170+ every time; when just 1 question can be the difference between 169 and 170 it's hard to guarantee 170+ every single time, but you've definitely leveled-up in your studying and how you should be approaching this test.

I think it depends on where you're at. Have you finished the CC yet? If not, I would recommend going through the CC including the problem sets the come with it. Start off untimed and move to timed when you can get through an untimed problem set without missing any questions.

After the CC, take a few PTs before drilling to get a sense of what you should prioritize. I think at this point timed vs. untimed depends on you. I usually do untimed just because 7Sage's standard time is based on answering each question in the same amount of time which isn't how it works. For example, I don't want to do poorly on a RC drill just because I gave myself 8:45 when the passage was designed to take 12 minutes; that just seems like a waste of a drill to me. But if you feel confident in a certain area it can be a great way to challenge yourself and increase your speed.

In general, I found it helpful to use drills to focus on understanding everything and trusting that the speed would come as I improved my understanding. I also think drilling is one of the more personal parts of studying for the LSAT so you have to figure out what works best for you. Good luck! I'm happy to try and tackle any other questions you have^^

Pretty much the same as any other LSAT haha. I took July and October and didn't get any misc games. October was actually 3 grouping games and 1 sequencing. It felt easy but I guess I won't know for sure til Friday TT July was a bit more difficult. I don't really remember it well except that one of the games had a rule that I just did not understand how to interpret RIP

That is so frustrating! But keep in mind that it's the norm to score on the low end of your range your very first time writing the test. The same thing happened to me in July and I felt so defeated but I know it doesn't reflect what I'm truly capable of and I'm hoping for a better outcome in October. It's easy to get discouraged when you see so many posts of people getting the score they wanted, but don't forget that very few people reach their full potential the first try. Don't give up hope!

@ I absolutely agree that LSAC's money-grabbing tactics are just shameful. Having said that, if a few thousand up front saves me hundreds of thousands later, I'll take the up-front investment. I'm not overly concerned with rank, but I'm still holding out hope for a substantial scholarship somewhere, even at the cost of postponing law school a year. And I didn't put all this effort into studying just to be taken out by test anxiety (the reason I'm a reverse splitter lol). So now it's personal haha

I haven't done the LSAT trainer but I did originally start with Khan Academy and Barron's (it was the cheapest lol). Especially since you're preparing for next cycle and not the November Flex or anything, I HIGHLY recommend just starting at the very beginning with 7Sage's CC. This is what I did and I don't regret it at all. Because I already had a rudimentary understanding of the LSAT (I was PTing in the high 150s when I switched) I was able to absorb the CC content pretty quickly and I'd imagine it would be the same for you. It filled in all the holes left from previous studying, made the whole thing seem much more manageable and as @ talked about, provided a great community to find tutors and study buddies. Good luck!

Come on reverse splitters! I'm waiting on my October score and it's killing me haha. Honestly, I've started applications, but if I haven't reached my goal with the October LSAT I'm probably going to take a short break try again next year. I know I can improve if I devote more time to studying and I don't want my GPA to go to waste

Also agree with @ I'm doing the same thing and am down to about 9-11 minutes per passage.

I would also recommend not moving on to another passage until you've thoroughly reviewed the last one. When you look at the questions you got wrong, can you understand why the right answer is right? I found helpful to go through every question I got wrong and highlight where in the passage the answer can be proved, then write out an explanation for why the wrong ACs are wrong (even the ones you eliminated easily) and why the right AC is right. Drilling lots of passages won't help as much if you don't know where you went wrong.

You are not alone! I got a 165 a year ago, 162 in October, and then up to 166 in June. In all my PTs for over a year of studying I never did as badly as a 162. Gun to my head, I still wouldn't be able to tell you what went wrong in October. I think it's important to remember that for all the amazing and inspiring posts on the Internet about 5+ point increases, there's a whole lot more people who aren't posting their less impressive experience. LSAC has even done studies (http://prelaw.umass.edu/uploads/documents/lsat-repeater-data.pdf) that show ~28% of repeat test takers who scored a 166 got a lower score the second time. I'm so sorry, I know how horrible you feel right now, and if you can't figure out what went wrong, there's not much to do but to take a day to be upset about it and then decide if you're going to try again. But for what it's worth, you are absolutely not alone. And don't forget that a 166 is still an amazing score and that's what schools are going to look at. Good luck!

Thank you so much!

Definitely agree about the 1 right answer thing. Try writing out a detailed explanation for why right answers are right and wrong answers are wrong on the questions that gave you trouble. Even write explanations for ACs you easily eliminated. I've found that that helps me mentally lump in the tempting wrong ACs with just flat-out wrong answers.

During timed conditions though, when I'm stuck on a question like this, I try to focus on what's "easier" to prove. If you find yourself deep-diving down a rabbit hole to make an inference, it's probably not the one, and like the comment above said, you may either be bringing in outside knowledge or making unfair assumptions. The correct inference can usually be pushed out from one or two sentences. Example: If an artist is best known for their work with lacquer, we can infer they're NOT best known for their architecture. Or you might find it's just the contrapositive of a conditional statement somewhere in the passage.

Finally, everyone's different, but I think 2 minutes is probably far too much time to be spending on a question up front in RC. If you're down to two or three ACs and you've read each one twice and you still don't know, it's probably time to flag and move on.

I don't know how helpful I can be since MBT has been giving me trouble, too. But I've been drilling 5-star MBT questions recently and a pattern I noticed is that the answer is always much simpler than I expect it to be. Since must be true is such a rigorous standard, the right answer is usually something that seems too simple. I've found that simplifying or visualizing the stimulus to make it make more sense to me has helped a lot. You could also try approaching it like a NA question, if those are easier for you, where if you negate it, the statements no longer work together.

@ said:

I’m taking the October 3rd international exam. I’m a little confused about the writing sample. Will I select the time to do at when I choose my Flex test time? Or do I have to sign up for it separately?

The writing is separate and is not proctored by a live person so you can literally just log onto LSAC and write your sample whenever you feel like it (before the deadline of course).

I have a 2020 MacBook Air and closing all my other tabs seems to work for me. I've seen other people say clearing their cache or something helped too.

I agree with everything @ said. I also struggled with not trusting myself and something that really helped me was a "confidence calibration" exercise. Take a full LR section at normal time, but answer every question according to your intuition. Flag any questions where your intuition didn't help you but DON'T linger or go back to any questions where you relied on intuition. This exercise did two things for me: 1) I now had a reliable, quantifiable indicator of how reliable I was instead of a vague and overwhelming feeling of doubt, and 2) for the questions I did flag, since I knew it was because my intuition wasn't up to it, it was obvious that I had to approach the question mechanically. Flagged an NA? Time to start negating ACs. SA or para? Time to start diagramming.

The first time I did this exercise, I flagged about 4 questions and missed one of them and my intuition was wrong for just 1 5-star question, so -2 on the whole section. Knowing that my intuition was almost always trustworthy did wonders for my LR skills. I used to go about -5 because I did what you did and would change my answer at the last minute, even though I couldn't articulate my reasoning because it was just coming from doubt and nerves. Now that I can take a more objective approach to my doubt I've been averaging -1 on LR.

Even if you do this exercise and confirm that your intuition isn't as trustworthy as you want, it's still helpful because now you can look at yourself objectively and learn where your mechanics haven't become part of your intuition and focus on that.

Good luck!

I would also recommend, if you're not doing this already, to read the whole game before you even pick up your pencil. I used to struggle with setting up the board incorrectly because I was trying to save time and read and write simultaneously. When I forced myself to read the whole thing through without even touching my pencil, it forced me to envision the board as I'm reading and make adjustments in my head. Then when I do draw the board I've already got an idea of where the pieces need to be.

Hope that helps!