As much as it does not seem like fool proofing a game will work at increasing your LG skills, I know I was skeptical, it will. JY says to print out the games you sucked at and do it 10 times, and it works. When I would suck at a game, I would print out 5 to 10 copies, depending how hard the game was, and add it to a stack of games, and I would do them as warmups or just for more practice. When I got to the point that I could pretty comfortably get all the answers in an LG section correct but timing was an issue, like it would take me 45 or 50 minutes to do a section. I spent 1-week only doing 3 to 4 hours of Logic Games per day, and only doing that, no LR or RC practice. By the end of that LG bootcamp I put myself through, my LG sections were always coming in under 35 minutes, and accuracy will increase with practice. I also still find it helpful, even when I get a -1 or -0 on a section, to watch all the explanation videos in order to make sure I had used the best game board set up for the games and made the proper inferences.

Hardest part of this question for me was that I thought B was too simple of an answer.

Use Lawhub and take a couple tests PTs on there so you know what the actual interface for the LSAT will be, since the Lawhub interface is the same for the real LSAT.

This does not explain why you are ignoring the premise that she would not leave fingerprints if she is the killer, or am I missing something?

#help (Added by Admin)

The Lawhub interface sucks and I was unaware that the Lawhub interface would be the interface for the actual LSAT until the day before I took my test. Also as far as simulating the test, mentally tell yourself that waiting for the proctor to show up, at the start of the test and after the 10-minute intermission, can take 5 to 20 minutes just sitting there waiting just doing nothing.

If you don't add that information and move on, they will at some point make you go and do it anyway, that was what happened to me.

I'm so bad at rc, can't get better than -7

More realistic planning vs. not being maximally realistic seemed too big of a jump for me

I hate these MC questions that to me feel like you almost have to take an inference from the MC to find the correct answer choice, they take me too much time to get the correct answer. For me it felt like I had to infer that the author means "should place more emphasis than present" to be a change in policy as to match the correct answer. Also, I am guessing that "most rational public health strategy" = 'good reason' in the answer choice, but just because he is an expert on public health, who said this guy is the expert on rationality and even more so why should what is considered most rational be the end all be all of a policy change recommendation since who even knows if being rational counts as a good reason.

I hate this horrible argument, this is my translation of it, "You know the environmentalist were correct, but fuck them, the people who were against them are just as correct since economy good"

Worst part is I had AC A then panicked swap to C at the last second because I thought A was too simple.

My thought process for D was a little different. I thought what if all flints start out polished, and then become less polished through hunting? And D filled in that whole for me to weaken the argument since they were used for other everyday things as well, which in my head made me think, oh, so there could have been some flints used for some chores that might not have worn the standard polish down, which then the argument mistakenly takes for them having an aesthetic sense.

I got E correct because it was the only one close to the principle, but all things considered, I think the saying "all is well that ends well" could apply to breaking your leg skiing seeing that breaking your leg and spending some time in a hospital is a much better end than dying in said ski accident.

Damn, my brain really cannot make the jump from "warranted" to "need to be aware of the impact",

These MC questions that feel like you need to make an assumption past the stated text really screw me over. I guess determining to see if something is warranted requires you to look at the outcomes of the event in question. Feels like a NA

Friday will be my first LSAT, I will be doing some studying on Thursday, doing some old LGs and looking over some curve breaker LR questions I have missed on previous prep tests. I know myself and this will help me feel more relaxed than if I were to try and distract myself doing other things.

I didn't know what 'It points up' meant so I was too scared to pick B, even though I should have just gone with it since it describes the contrast aspect of argument.

Whoever wrote this question is factually inaccurate in claiming that black-and-white coloration seems unlikely to provide camo. In WW1 the allies painted black-and-white designs, called Dazzle Camouflage, onto their warships for camouflage from German U Boats, it made ships movements harder to perceive on the horizon. So, I skipped over AC C when I read it since I know that humans do perceive color patterns like black and white in a manner that can induced a camouflage effect, like, if you can't judge the trajectory of something because of its odd black and white stripes, even if you see it, then it has practical camoflauge. So, the answer saying predators do not perceive the colors the same way humans do meant absolutely nothing to me, since humans CAN PERCEIVE black and white as camouflage.

Just so you guys know, unlike me when I took my test, the official break is 10 minutes, but the proctor can take another 10 minutes to restart your test after you hit the ready button to start back up after the break.

My snake of choice was a banana, handful of cashews, and sometimes a few sips of green tea.

What helped me to sort of break the habit of picking the trap answer choice was whenever I got it down to 2 answers like you described I would pick the opposite of what I wanted to pick, and I swear it started getting me the correct more often. Now don't use this strategy on test day, but when there are 2 answers like that on the curve breaker questions the wrong answer is meant to be written to sound good, that is what the LSAT wants. Realizing this can help you see the subtitles of some of the correct answers on curve beakers, and there are always flaw curve breakers.

Also take the descriptive weakening aspect of the questions to heart because it will help you a lot on the newer tests which has more abstract flaw questions. Eventually once you practice enough for about 3/4 of flaw questions you will be able to read them and tell right away what is wrong with the argument and look for your thought in the ACs. For me I was too disorganized to keep a wrong answer so instead I would go into the drill function here and sort the questions by 'taken' and then make drills with the hard questions I had missed before. So I would make like a drill with 15 5-star flaw questions that I had missed in prior PTs. Even if you remember the explanations for the questions treat it like the real thing, go through all the steps in understanding the stimulus and eliminating the wrong ACs.

This is what helped me, hope it can help you too, keep at it.

I missed A because when I had read it, I read it as if it were negating a premise of the argument, so I skipped over it. After watching the explanation, it makes sense that A is not negating the premise, it is saying for the premise of opposing higher taxes = good leadership, that supporting higher taxes actually has no impact on the quality of good leadership, which is not negating the premise. I guess negating the premise, which is what I thought A was doing, would be something like "Opposing higher taxes makes you a bad leader"

I thought B was too simple, so I didn't pick it, darn it.

I am getting so sick of these bs questions, if I ever meet a psychometrician in real life, I have some choice words for them and their profession.

This is a troll question. I conflated Aerobics class and Aerobic exercise when reading this, good job last, so fun.

I feel like E just says "if what the stimulus describes is implemented it will work at least once." When reading E I thought well no shit, it did not come across as an NA to me. But in hindsight it does plug the gap of what if CEOs are just mean and will lower staff pay for fun. Worst part is I had this idea of 'what if the CEOs cut pay for fun' floating in my head and I still picked D.

You are fine doing it after. I did mine 10 days after I took the October test.

highlighting on the real test is a pain in the ass just like on Lawhub, be prepared.