I found the LR bible to be a valuable addition to the 7sage curriculum. It does a good job helping you understand the theory behind the question types, and it is a good sort of reference tool when you need to locate something quickly. If you already understand the basics from your intro logic classes, just skip those sections. That's what I did.

In general though, you will probably improve more by doing consistent and intentional practice than by reading a slew of lsat books.

If I were you, I would only take PTs sporadically while you foolproof games again, assuming you have foolproofed games 1-40ish (ignore this suggestion if you need to take the test soon). I did something similar in my prep, where I devoted a few weeks to really getting a feel for games, and I am very glad I did. Eventually, something will probably click in games for you, but you have to put in that leg-work.

You obviously understand the content of the LSAT given your BR score. Outside of games, certainly hone your section timing and your skipping strategy. I think that, outside of general test-taking aptitude, timing is what separates the mid/high 170 scorers from the low 170 scorers.

If you are taking in August, you need to start doing timed tests immediately. Success on the LSAT requires both understanding concepts and using your time efficiently on the exam. Without taking timed tests, you are ignoring one of the most important aspects of the test. Also, unless you are really struggling understanding every stimulus and AC, writing all of that down for every PT does not seem like an efficient use of your time. I would go through all the questions that give you trouble and, since you are on a short timeline, ignore the questions about which you feel confident.

The amount of PTs you need to take will depend on your particular situation and your abilities. You definitely do not want to rush through the CC though, as, by not learning the foundational concepts, it could slow you down or impede your future progress.

If I were you, I would not be set on taking in August if you are not ready, and by "ready" I mean consistently scoring above your goal score on the newer PTs. Applying with a higher LSAT is more important than applying early.

I took out my tv. It's better to be safe than sorry imo. You could also try to cover it if it's really difficult to move.

That's right. As it pertains to the test limit, flex tests (at least right now) are essentially "freebies".

@ said:

Necessary assumption questions ask us to determine what has to be true. The necessary assumption is never explicitly stated, but we have to "fill in the gap” and bridge the premises to the conclusion (with an answer choice that has to be TRUE and which is the necessary assumption) in order for an argument to work.

If a necessary assumption (an answer choice) were discovered to be false (by negating), the argument would fall apart and the conclusion would not follow logically from its premises and that would give you the correct answer choice, so yes, you are correct in your first question.

When negating the truth of an answer choice, if negating causes the argument to be strengthened or to be unaffected, then that answer choice is incorrect.

A necessary assumption is what has to be true, for the argument to follow.

Steps for Necessary Assumption:

Identify and the conclusion in the stimulus and identify the premises.

Accept the conclusion as stated.

Find a necessary assumption (an answer choice) that makes that stimulus argument follow logically from its premises and the conclusion.

You have to bridge those premises (including your answer choice which has to be the necessary assumption) to the conclusion, further showing that with the answer choice (necessary assumption) you choose, proves that conclusion is true.

I hope this post helps.

Be careful not to confuse necessary assumptions for sufficient assumptions. Necessary assumptions do not have to logically guarantee or "prove" the conclusion. A necessary assumption merely keeps the argument afloat (i.e. the necessary assumption being true gives the argument a chance at being valid).

A sufficient assumption is an answer choice that makes the argument valid by, in conjunction with the existing premises, logically guaranteeing the conclusion. Some necessary assumptions are sufficient assumptions, but this is not always (and in fact usually is not) the case.

Consider an example where we want to prove that X is a good basketball player. "X is LeBron James" is a sufficient assumption, but that obviously is not necessary to show that X is good. However "X can hold a basketball" is a necessary assumption, because, without it, X has no chance of being a good basketball player. And, surely, that X can hold a basketball does not guarantee that X is a good basketball player.

It isn't really that important. You should be much more concerned with where you are going than where you are coming from. I would strongly recommend not taking more of the newer tests before starting your prep. Taking tests on a whim is usually not a good idea.

Given your comments, you are probably starting from around a mid 150s/low 160s level. Either way, both are excellent starting points.

That's not quite it. A necessary assumption, if negated, would wreck the argument. A necessary assumption is something that, if negated, would make it such that the premises do not support the conclusion. The conclusion itself could still be true with a negated necessary assumption.

I did all my prep digitally. I think this is extremely important for being comfortable and prepared on test day. However, if you already have mastered the material, as it seems you have, it may not take you too long to adjust.

I was told by ProctorU that I could not use the touchscreen on my surface laptop. But my understanding is that LSAC is sending out Microsoft Go tablets to those without an adequate computer, so who knows.

It depends on the PT. Sometimes both LRs are about the same difficulty. Sometimes LR1 is more difficult and vice versa. You are probably experiencing some test fatigue with those score discrepancies.

If you aren't already, I would recommend doing some 5 section tests to improve your stamina.

Consider holding off on PTs for a bit. Take some timed sections and focus on improving known weaknesses. The last thing you need is to be stressed out over what you get on PTs.

Some of the best advice I ever got was to never take another PT unless you have improved in some way since your last PT. I would strongly recommend taking a week or so to focus on improvement rather than PT score numbers.

There are definitely SA/NA traps, usually where the flaw is stated in the opposite terms. For example, if the argument confuses sufficient for necessary, the trap answer would say the argument confused necessary for sufficient.

So you certainly want to make sure the relevant answer choice is descriptively accurate and that it matches what the argument is actually doing. But at your score range you should be able to do this quickly. However, once you ensure that the answer choice does match the SA/NA flaw, you can confidently move on.

The Flex went smoothly for me in May. As a general rule, those who had a bad experience will be more vocal than those who had a good one. Just follow LSAC's and ProctorU's listed rules and you will probably be fine. If not, then reach out to LSAC and try to sort it out. From what I hear, they have been fairly understanding so far.

I used my laptop webcam, and the proctor definitely could not see my entire sheet of scratch paper. But that was not an issue at all for me. Furthermore, I have not seen a rule that states the scratch paper must be entirely visible at all times, but I could have missed it.

Don't let the horror stories get to you. Let them prepare you to have the mental fortitude to deal with issues, but don't go in dreading something horrible happening to you.

I like making a very short structural outline of the passage on my scratch paper. I find highlighting and underlining entirely too finnicky and not very helpful.

And yes, you are losing time by writing things down, but you may be gaining in understanding. So the trade-off might be worth it for you.

Do you have a skipping strategy for LR? Giving yourself enough time to figure out those tough questions is the key to mastering LR. But having enough time requires that you use your time efficiently on the easier questions and that you don't spend too much time on any one question.

For those author inference questions in RC, it may help to go into the questions with a general prephrase of the author's position. Then, you won't be as likely to get lost in the answer choices.

It wouldn't hurt to try. You should be able to message them before clicking the start test button.

Memorize and drill the common flaws so that you can soundly eliminate them on the harder questions where they often show up as incorrect answer choices. Try not prephrasing the hard flaw questions and see if that helps. I find prephrasing very helpful for easy flaws but often restrictive on the harder ones, where my prephrase might not match what the test writers had in mind. In fact, the test writers can sometimes anticipate prephrases and lay clever traps based on that. For that reason, I have shied away from using prephrases on flaw questions as often.

These questions are tough, but you should be looking for an AC for which you can find direct support in the passage. Consider what the author would say, but do that based on what the author either directly says or indirectly implies.

If something is not directly stated or strongly implied, you simply cannot choose that AC. If you did a good job reading and you don't remember something being stated, then it probably was not. Sometimes you will read over information, but you don't have time to re-read an entire passage just to see if you missed something.

I almost never try to anticipate the answers to weakening questions, because there are a plethora of ways to weaken questions. And, especially on the tough questions, the test writers will craft traps based on an answer many people would anticipate. Anticipating is something I did frequently early on in my prep, but, as I studied more, I noticed it really only harmed me rather than helping me.

Instead, really hone in on how the premises are supposed to support the conclusion. Find something that could make the premises support the conclusion less. Remember that the correct weakening answer only has to weaken the support a little bit. You don't have to completely wreck the argument.

In general, don't do something on the LSAT just because other people do it. If you notice that anticipating answers hurts you, then practice not anticipating.

Yes it's achievable. Use your PT wrong answers to guide you to the areas at which you need to improve. Some of the best advice I got was to not take a new PT until you learned or improved upon something from the last PT. So I found drilling between PTs very helpful.

I have never noticed it to make a difference on the questions. They often use the citation on science passages that may appear out of date.

It's really not that bad. If you are comparing digital to paper, you are trading glancing at a screen for having to bubble in answer choices, which is a trade I would make any day.

For LG, I don't see why you would ever need an "additional description for choices" on your scratch paper. And having the ability to set up your diagram on scratch paper the exact same way every time is very nice. I wouldn't recommend re-using aspects of the "printed" problem anyway.

For RC, I usually try to answer the questions without looking back at my notes or the passage.

For LR, scrolling, when applicable, has never been an issue for me.

Relying on heuristics like "look for weak ACs in NA questions" will only take you so far. Yes, the correct answer for NA questions is often worded weakly, as that makes the AC easier to support. But the test writers know many students rely on this heuristic, so they design clever traps for students based on it.

For instance, arguments with strong conclusions often have strongly worded necessary assumptions. So don't eliminate an AC just because it is strongly worded; pay close attention to the argument and its commitments. Then look for an answer choice whose negation prevents the premises from supporting the conclusion. That's your NA.