My score is in the high 160's....but my goal is to score above 173...

I've pretty much completed my course online, and I've practiced blind review for about a month now. I just took preptest 40...and my score has not budged.

I swear, my score has not budged since February. It's so funny because my score is so predictable. For some people it's a range, but for me, it's usually the same exact number time after time....and it's the same score it's been since February.

I am so disappointed because I've worked so hard and have seen little improvement. I'm starting to think I'm not smart enough...Anyone else feel the same way?

Please, everyone, be extra careful not to get sick the week before you take your test! Take vitamins, take naps if you need to, and don't stress too much about the test! Also, wash your hands constantly.

Unfortunately, I did all the above, but still got sick :(

Non-math major here. So I found out that one of my biggest weaknesses in LR questions is the question type which deals with percentages and averages. I always sucked at math and thinking in terms of percentages and averages does not come naturally to me. Should I break out a math book and review? What do you guys do?

Does anyone have the LSAT Ultimate? Did you find significant help from it, and did you see results in your scores?

Which one should I choose, if I had to choose one? I can only afford one....

The reason why I am upgrading is because I recently I took a really hard hit...I've been working on the most recent prep tests and my score, which was averaging around 168-170, dropped to 160-163...

One thing that I thought was really helpful about 7sage was listening to JY review the tests. When I take the actual tests, I can hear his voice in my head and it actually helps me go faster...

Anyone got any? Aside from BR and perhaps a lot of drilling....

I'm discovering that BR and just simply getting used to the new question types helps me a lot. But I'm still far behind what I was scoring in the 30's and even 50's. On PT 59 I FINALLY broke 170 (almost cried) for the first time ever and then on PT 61 I had a 9 point drop! How discouraging :(. It's like finally reaching the top of a mountain and then finding out that there is still one more mountain to climb..with only 6 weeks left to reach the top (I know, my analogies aren't really original...)

Any help at all would be super appreciated! :)

For four months now, I have been drilling logic games heavily, printing out ten copies, redoing them over and over again.....But although I did improve (went from a minus 16 to a minus 10), I stopped improving after the first month of drilling logic games. I still average a minus 10....so frustrating.

One thing I've been wondering is, do you have to be good at math (or at least have a knack for math) to ace this game? I've sucked at math for the longest time, and when practicing the LSAT logic games I can't help but think back to when I was in the 9th grade and I was looking at a mathematical word problem going blank while everyone else was gettin' it....

So now I've changed my strategy. Not only do I print out 10 copies, redoing them ten times each, but I also spend some time analyzing them, taking notes on how the rules interact with each other and what inferences I should have made from them, playing around with the game board by rearranging the rules etc...

So how long did it take you guys to finally perfect the logic games section? Please tell me I have hope...

So I have no problem with speed....Trust me, I can read the passages in 2 minutes or less....but in one sense I do have a problem with speed, because if I read any faster than 4 minutes then I sacrifice accuracy on the questions...I could get away with reading the passages in 3 or less minutes on the older RC's, but there are a lot harder inference, definition, and analogy questions on the newer RC's that if I don't read closely enough I miss all of them..but obviously I want to comprehend what I am reading even faster...

I have tried spreeder before....honestly, it doesn't work for me. Simply reading words faster doesn't mean I comprehend the passage on the certain level which is required for the newer RC's faster...If I only read for "structure" I miss the main point, or I don't make a key inference which is based upon some sort of detail I might skip over when reading for "structure"...To do all the "push back" I need to do to connect passages and draw out key inferences requires that I comprehend faster...not just read faster

Anyone else have the same problem?

Ok, I am joking about this being the hardest LR question of all time. Of course, there have been harder questions, but for some reason, this one took me days and days to get....

First of all, this is a very unique principle question. Usually, the correct answer to a principle question is a conditional or just look likes a principle-you know, has a "should" or the equivalent of a should in there somewhere....but this problem looks more like a "find the necessary assumption question."

I get why A is the correct answer. It fills in the gap between the premise and conclusion. The premise is that certain factors can increase or undermine a witness' confidence without hurting the accuracy or reliability of identification. Then there is a big jump to a conclusion (which comes out of nowhere!) that states that thus, based on the abovementioned premise, police officers are advised to stop suspect lineups in which witnesses can hear one another identifying suspects...So the big assumption here is that the confidence of witnesses in suspect lineups is affected by hearing other witnesses identifying suspects, and that's how A connects the premise to the conclusion.

But the thing which took me so long to get was, why would this matter?!?! Why would police officers disallow suspect lineups in which witnesses can hear one another identifying suspects because it might affect their confidence levels, if their level of confidence has no effect on the reliability of their accuracy?

So I talked to my dad about it, who is in the military and thinks more like a cop, and he said that if a witness' confidence is lowered, they might not be as forthcoming about what they think, and they might be less willing to cooperate.

What do you guys think?

What are y'all's strategies for attacking them? I finally got the basics down, and if I've seen an exact (or near exact version of the game) before, I can usually kill it with time to spare.

But it's those weird games. Those games which mix it up in a way that I've never seen before. You know what I'm talking about. I'm talking about games which match sequencing with an in and out game. I'm talking about games in which you have to draw a freakin' star to finally figure out how to do the freakin' puzzle (I'm lookin' at you, Preptest 38, Game 4!) I'm talking about unconventional charting games which don't look all that similar to any of the games I've done before (Preptest 39).

So what are you strategies? Appreciate any feedback.....

I suck at weaken questions too, but I suck even more at strengthen questions.

One of the problems is, I tend to try to focus on the error in the passage, so sometimes I fall for the weakening answers which addresses the error(this is especially true for strengthen EXCEPT questions)...

Another problem is, strengthening is so hard to do! Sometimes I think an answer choice blocks a potential assumption and thereby strengthens, but later I learn that apparently the answer was entirely irrelevant. And sometimes I pick an answer choice which I really think strengthens the argument but apparently it's irrelevant too.