Hi, before I wrote the LSAT I was scoring in the 174-178 range. I tried to address some of your concerns below:

Regarding your schedule, I would recommend giving yourself at least one rest day in order to avoid burnout and give your brain time to absorb everything you've learned.

While the test has changed somewhat, I wouldn't worry too much about this. LR and especially RC have gotten harder while LG has gotten easier (generally speaking), but the old tests are still useful for drilling (especially LG). If you're looking to learn more about the test in general (i.e what the new tests have been like, how the test is curved, etc.) I highly recommend the Powerscore LSAT Podcast. Really great resource imo.

If you're worried about running out of new PTs, make a rough schedule of when you plan to complete each one (I used a calendar to do this prior to writing September). You don't need to follow this schedule perfectly by any means - it's just to help you space them out. Personally, I liked mixing up the order of the PTs (i.e. I'd do an 80s PT on Monday then a 60s PT on Thursday), while being sure to leave a few 90s/80s PTs for the final two weeks before test day. In the month before the test I was doing about 2-3 PTs per week.

I think that whether you should take the November test depends on where you're scoring right now. Assuming that a 170+ is your goal, you should be consistently practice-testing in the 170s prior to the test. So, if you're currently scoring in the mid to high 160's then I think signing up for November could be worth it, but if you're scoring in the 150's I would probably wait until January. That said, you know yourself best so do what you feel is right for you.

I hope this helped a little bit, I'm happy elaborate more!

There aren't any, unfortunately. All of the PTs have two scored LR sections except for PTs 90-92 (which have only 1 scored LR section plus 1 experimental LG or LR). But you can simulate what it feels like to take a double RC test by choosing a normal PT and selecting "Simulate Modern," and then creating a problem set that consists of 4 RC passages from a different test. Then do the problem set before starting the PT or in between sections.

After BR, do you review your wrong answers prior to looking at the explanations? If not, I would recommend doing this. While blind review is useful, I found it even more useful to review questions I knew I had got wrong and attack them until I could articulate why the correct answer is right and why the other answers are wrong. I intentionally refrained from looking at explanations until I had figured out the correct answer and could justify it. I feel like doing this is so important because it really helps improve your ability to solve tougher questions. IMO this is probably the most important step in the studying process, and I don't think I would have gotten to 0/-1 on LR without doing it.

A necessary assumption is necessary for the conclusion to be true. If the necessary assumption is false, the conclusion cannot stand. For NA questions, you want to find an assumption that, if false, would prevent the conclusion from being true.

I was averaging around -2 prior to taking the LSAT. I was able to reach this level of accuracy by approaching the passages very methodically (I'm not that familiar with the memory method/low res summaries though, so I can't speak on those). My strategy was to figure out whose viewpoints were represented, what the arguments being made were, how the passage was structured, and what the author's tone was like. While I did use the underline tool (sparingly) to make important information easier to find, I never, ever wrote anything down - I think it takes far too much time. I also allocated a lot more time towards answering the questions than towards reading the passage - I always aimed to finish reading the passage within 2-2.5 minutes, which may seem like short time but is very doable if you don't spend time re-reading. You will have to re-read parts of the passage while answering the questions anyway, so there is little to be gained by re-reading parts of the passage on your first read, in my opinion. Another small tip I personally found helpful is to do Main Point questions last. I found that MP questions were easier to answer once I'd become more familiar with the passage as a result of doing the other questions. Finally, (and you may be aware of this already, but it was key for me) everything you need to answer the questions is IN the passage - all of the inference questions etc. can be answered by consulting information from the passage (RC is actually a lot like LR in this way).

RC was my favourite section and I'm happy to provide more info if needed, good luck!

I think that if one is averaging minus 7-10 per section it points to some lack of understanding, in which case you need to identify areas of weakness. Go through your wrong LR answers and see if you can notice a pattern - is there a certain question type that you struggle with in particular? If yes, review your strategy for that question type and make sure you know exactly what sort of answer to look for. Being able to anticipate what the correct answer will look like is enormously helpful both in terms of timing and accuracy. Before starting a section, I would remind myself of how I was going to approach certain questions (ex: I would say to myself "for sufficient assumption questions, the correct answer will force the conclusion to be true"). I found that doing this really helped the approach become automatic.

You should also be reviewing answers that you got wrong (this is most important). You need to attack the wrong answer and articulate why it is wrong and why the correct answer is right. While you can do this in your head, I would recommend saying it out loud or putting it into writing. Do this on your own first and avoid looking up an explanation until either a) you are confident in your reasoning and want to confirm it's sufficient, or b) you have spent a decent chunk of time on the question and absolutely cannot figure it out yourself. I found that forcing myself to figure out questions aided my understanding a lot more than just reading others' explanations. Lastly, check your timing strategy. If you've been stuck on a question for more than 1-2 minutes, select an answer, flag it, and move on. You can come back to it at the end. Potentially getting that one question right isn't worth running short on time and consequently losing even more points.

I hope this helped a bit, if you have any other questions I'd be happy to try and answer.

Regarding PT 9 S2 Q12, A is correct because of the reason you stated. Even if purebred dogs are more prone to genetically determined abnormalities than non-purebred dogs, that won't affect veterinary costs if such abnormalities are benign and don't need treatment.

B is wrong because even if purebred and non-purebred dogs are indeed both subject to the same diseases, this doesn't change the fact that purebred dogs are much more prone to said diseases than non-purebred dogs and will thus require more medical treatment.

For PT 10 S1 Q16, you want to be looking for an answer that sheds doubt on the asteroid impact theory. Answer choice E does just this. E states that the fossil record in Montana shows a diminution of dinosaur fossils underneath the layer of extraterrestrial dust. According to the asteroid impact theory, however, this layer of dust was laid down at the time of impact. But if the dust fell at the time of impact, why is there evidence of extinct dinosaurs below the dust? They would have had to have died prior to the impact+dust layer, which means that they presumably didn't die from the asteroid. The asteroid impact theory is thus rendered much weaker by this new evidence.

B is correct because it accounts for why businesses are often willing to shoulder higher taxes but won't sacrifice access to resources or markets. Higher taxes come with a more educated workforce and more services, while no such benefits come with sacrificing access to resources and markets. Thus, it makes sense why businesses would be willing forego a lower tax rate but won't forego resource or market access; there's no benefits associated with the latter.

Regarding your explanation for why B is right, I think it's more about the benefits associated with a higher tax rate as opposed to the relative damages you mentioned. But I think you are on the right track in noting that the right answer should address why businesses will sometimes give less weight to the tax consideration, and more weight to the resource + market considerations.

I'm not sure which wrong answer you chose, but since none of the other answers get at the root of the discrepancy, I think your explanation works.

I hope this made sense, I'm happy to clarify further if needed.

Safety expert: Biking on the left side of the road rather than the right side is much more likely to lead to collisions with cars. According to three different studies, the cyclist was riding on the left side in 15-25% of collisions.

The question stem asks us to provide a reason as to why the strength of the expert's claim cannot be evaluated.

Answer choice A states that the statistics cited in support of the expert's conclusion presuppose the truth of that conclusion. The expert's conclusion is that "biking on the left side of the road is more likely to lead to a collision than biking on the right." However, the statistics cited don't assume that that is true. The studies mentioned each examined a series of collisions and found that in 15-25% of collisions the cyclist was biking on the left side of the road. Obtaining this result does not require the expert's conclusion to be true.

Answer choice B states that the statistics cited by the expert do not include the percentage of cycling that took place on the left. This answer identifies a problem with the expert's argument: the expert said that the cyclist was riding on the left in 15-25% of car-bicycle collisions, but they didn't say how often people bike on the left side of the road. If, say, 90% of cyclists bike on the left-side, then the studies indicate that the left side is actually relatively safe (and render the expert's argument weak). However, if only 10% of cyclists bike on the left, that means that 15-25% of collisions involve only 10% of cyclists, which would indicate that the left side is in fact dangerous. Hence, until we know how much biking on the left-side of the road occurs, we can't evaluate the strength of the expert's argument.

Personally, I don't think that being interested in passage content is actually that helpful (I find that when a passage is talking about a topic I'm familiar with, it's almost distracting because I have to actively focus on not thinking about outside knowledge). What matters most, imo, is being able to focus on identifying the main point, the viewpoints presented, the main arguments being made, the author's tone, and the general structure of the passage. As I read science passages, I'm constantly making mental notes regarding the author's attitude (ex: are they receptive of the view that they're presenting, or are they skeptical?), how each paragraph functions (ex: is it presenting a hypothesis or providing evidence?), and what the main arguments are. I find that if I actively do this as I read, I'm able to keep my focus much more easily and am also in a far better position to answer the questions.

According to the stimulus, whenever there is a major scandal prior to an election and voters blame all parties equally, all incumbents running for reelection are returned to office. When voters blame only one party for the scandal, however, incumbents from that party are likely to be voted out.

The question stem asked us to find a principle that would best explain the voters behaviour. Note that this isn't a Resolve the Paradox question - the voters' behaviour isn't seemingly paradoxical. What we are looking for is an answer that provides a general rule that the voters' behaviour can be said to conform to.

Answer choice D (incorrect) says that while major scandals can always be blamed on incumbents, whether or not those incumbents should be voted out of office depends on who their challengers are.

This principle doesn't indicate that voters should vote against incumbents only when their party is blamed for the scandal. It also doesn't address why voters reelect incumbents when the blame is shared. Further, the stimulus never mentioned that the challenging candidate is relevant.

Answer choice E (correct) says that when a scandal is the responsibility of a party more so than its incumbent members, that party should be penalized when possible. This principle account for the voters behaviour. When blame is shared equally amongst parties, voters aren't able to penalize the guilty party by voting out its incumbents (because no party is solely responsible). But when one party is identified as responsible, voters must penalize them. The voters' reactions completely conform to this principle.

The doctor gives two seemingly contradictory reasons for why patients shouldn't have a legal right to access their medical records: 1) medical staff will have to waste time retrieving the records, and 2) patients won't even ask for the records anyway.

If no patient is asking for their records, how is it that medical staff will have to spend lots of time retrieving the records? This is what the question stem is asking you to resolve.

Answer choice A states that the new law would require that during every doctor's visit, doctors must to be prepared to show a patient their medical records at a moment's notice (the doctor can't just be ready to retrieve the records - they would have to have retrieved them already and be prepared to show the patient if asked to).

If true, this answer choice allows both of the doctor's statements to be true at the same time: even if no patient ever asked to see their records, medical staff would still have to spend lots of time retrieving them.

I think you're referring to PT 3 S2 Q06, not PT 2, so I'm going to go off of that question.

In the stimulus, the author states their conclusion (fare must be increased by 40%), and then provides evidence against an alternative course of action (not increasing the fare). In doing so, the author is indirectly supporting the conclusion that the fare must be increased by 40%. The word "indirectly" applies here because the author didn't give evidence that directly supports their exact conclusion - nowhere in the stimulus did the author provide evidence that a fare increase of 40% specifically (rather than, say, 10% or 20%) is needed. What they did do, however, is indirectly support their conclusion by showing that not increasing the fare would have negative consequences. For the author to have directly arrived at their conclusion, they would have needed to address why the fare must be increased by 40%.

I hope this helps, I'm happy to clarify further if needed.

What question type(s) are you trying to diagram? Personally, I mostly only diagram parallel reasoning questions because I find that diagramming generally isn't worth the time on other question types. For diagramming parallel q's, making an accurate diagram of the stimulus is key. To do this, you have to be able to identify the premises+conclusion and represent them symbolically.

It's easiest to show with an example - I'm going to use question 14 from PT 6 section 3.

The stimulus (paraphrased) states that during a recession, overall demand is low. If demand is low, so are interest rates. Therefore, if interest rates aren't low, the economy is not in a recession.

I would diagram this stimulus in the following way:

R --> DL (recession, then demand is low)

DL --> IL (demand is low, then interest rates are low)

IL --> R (interest rates not low, then no recession)

After you've diagrammed the stimulus, it's a matter of finding an ac that mirrors the structure of the stimulus argument.

In the above example, I will be looking for an ac where the antecedent of the first premise is the negated consequent of the conclusion, and the consequent of the second premise is the negated antecedent of the conclusion.

Answer choice B states that if the fish is ready, it is cooked. If the fish is cooked, it will be white. Therefore, if the fish is not white, it is not ready.

This yields the following diagram:

R --> C (ready, then cooked)

C --> W (cooked, then white)

W --> R (not white, then not ready)

Comparing this diagram to the stimulus diagram, it's clear that they mirror each other; they have the exact same structure. B is the correct answer. The other answers won't yield diagrams that exactly match the stimulus like this. If you have specific questions re: diagramming parallel q's I can elaborate more.

Have you been studying/taking PT's since your last LSAT? Unless you are reasonably confident that you can consistently score above 162 by September, I would take the October test (especially if you want to increase your chances at UVic - their median was approximately 166 last year). I'm applying Canadian as well this cycle, and from what I've gathered about the process, it doesn't seem like it matters much whether one applies in October or November.