@jenleeva648 Sure--translation drills helped me assess how much of the stimulus I actually processed. After completing an entire section, I compared my translation v. stimulus and wrote over in red parts that I missed (for example, I noticed that I kept missing modifiers like"some" "most" or "likely", so on my next translation drills I focused on remembering those). I especially looked out for instances where I missed parts of the stimulus that are crucial to getting the right answer.

CLIR drill was helpful because it made me read the stimulus more intentionally. I didn't do the actual CLIR drills that much. I only did it once in a while to sharpen my focus. Overtime, I think I developed my own, simplified, automatic version of CLIR. I tried to be very vague with my loophole because I noticed that my loopholes sometimes keep me from noticing the right answer.

I think translation drills helped me more throughout. CLIR drills looking back weren't that helpful by itself. Sorry for the confusion!

@chelseapichor156 I assume people are saying that you shouldn't do RC untimed because it's not a good representation of your actual score and because it's a waste of practice tests. But, if you don't overdo it and if you are cognizant of the fact that it's not your actual score, I think it can be a helpful diagnostic tool. I did RC untimed couple times to diagnose myself (to find out whether the issue was time or understanding the passage/ac), but I didn't do it often. If you score a lot higher untimed, you know you need to work on speed--which rereading passages will help. If you score the same untimed, that probably means you need to spend more time studying how to read and how to select the right answer choice. Note how neither result leads to another untimed RC.

Rereading passages on the other hand, won't really hurt you because you already took the test and you don't get a score that gives you false representation. Just make sure that even though rereading is also "untimed", you are training yourself to comprehend, identify parts that matter, and break down structure as fast as you can. I actually timed myself for every reread, until I could do all the things I listed above under ~90 seconds. On the actual exam, I spent about 3 minutes reading the passage.

Also something that helped me a lot: I thought of RC as similar to LG (reading the passage = diagramming master game board). In LG, if your setup is messed up, you are basically screwed for the rest of the game: while you think you saved time diagramming you actually end up wasting so much more time diagramming each question. Similar in RC, if you don't comprehend/set up the passage well, you end up rereading the passage over and over. Why do we drill setting up familiar LG game boards so much, but not drill setting up familiar reading passages as much?

I hope that was somewhat helpful!

Since you said you don't know what to do next, I'll share some things I did when I hit a slump in the high 160s (I broke into 177 after doing this and scored 173 June 2021 (first take). My diagnostic was 145):

If you struggle with RC, I recommend printing out passages you struggled with and reading it over and over. Read it for structure, scrutinize sentences that confused you (why was it confusing?), identify parts questions asked about (compare with other passages and see if there are any patterns), and become familiar with reading faster with comprehension. I read until I felt like I wanted to puke by just looking at that passage.

If you struggle with LG, obviously drill the way the 7sage curriculum recommends, but if you've already done that, you need to analyze why you are getting questions wrong. If you sufficiently drilled the way 7sage recommends (i.e. being able to do games under 5 minutes-ish), you are most likely making mistakes. If you are making mistakes, you should develop a double checking method that doesn't slow you down. For example, I decided to double check by eliminating AC using the master game board and then actually applying the AC I was left with to a scenario. (only do this if you have like 10 minutes to spare--otherwise come up with a different method)

If you struggle with LR... this one is trickier because methods vary so much depending on what you are struggling with. For me, it helped doing CLIR thing the Loophole (LSAT book) recommends and doing TONS of LR questions. I spent a lot of time doing corrections and specifically identifying why I chose the wrong answer and understanding why that line of reasoning is wrong. For corrections, I physically wrote down abbreviated stimulus + correct answer choice + AC I incorrectly picked. Then I highlighted, underlined, and analyzed each part I wrote down. By doing that, I was usually able to identify what I did wrong and what I should do to not make that mistake ever again. I read my corrections notebook almost everyday before going to sleep and transferred my mistakes/methods for improvement to an excel spreadsheet at the end of the week. With that, I made flashcards for each question type and read it right before taking another exam. If I ever made similiar mistakes, I immediately went back to the similar question I got wrong before and came up with new methods for improvement.

It really sucks when you hit a slump because its so draining mentally. Greatest advice I can give is when you hit a slump, STOP taking bunch of tests and make sure you are taking enough time analyzing methods for improvement and reviewing corrections. I had a lot of anxiety when I hit a slump, but I think I was able to overcome it by coming up with creative strategies and just studying more. I also spent a lot of time with God, reminding myself that He sees my hard work, that He loves me no matter what score I get, and that He made me perfectly capable for whatever I was made to do. Make sure you are taking care of yourself--slumps are real tough emotionally and mentally. I am wishing you all the best!

#help I am still having trouble understanding what this question stem is asking for.

"Which one of the following, if true, most strengthens the grounds presented by the archaeologist for drawing the conclusion above?"

I thought the ground that archaeologist presented was referring to the premise that pits had been subject to erosion over long periods of time. While I know that most (if not all) LSAT questions never ask to strengthen a premise, this question seems to literally ask to strengthen the premise.

Am I misreading the question? Has this question stem come up in a different preptest? Should we always assume that we are strengthening the conclusion no matter what?

Pretty much! Since the stimulus doesn't specify if government standards and common standards are incompatible with each other, D is basically a dormant conditional. It wouldn't strengthen anything because the conditional was not activated in any way.

You may be already doing this, but I try to rephrase the stimulus in very simple wording with multiple check points and immediately eliminate answer choices that doesn't meet any of the check points.

For example, I rephrased this stimulus as: "Two sufficient conditions, one necessary. Both sufficient mentioned; one iffy. Necessary condition concluded."

Check points would be: Conditional statement with two sufficient conditions and one necessary condition. Both sufficient condition mentioned, one sufficient condition iffy (the flaw), necessary condition concluded.

Here is my thought process for each of the answer choices:

A. two sufficient conditions and one necessary. Instead of mentioning the sufficient conditions and concluding necessary condition, it gives a conditional statement. Wrong. (the moment I saw "if" I eliminated this)

B. two necessary conditions. Wrong. (stopped reading after seeing two necessary conditions)

C. two sufficient, one necessary. Both sufficient met exactly. Wrong. (no flaw - wrong)

D. two sufficient, one necessary. both sufficient mentioned but one iffy. conclusion made. Probably right.

E. two sufficient, one necessary. one sufficient met, the other not met at all. mistaken negation. Wrong. (the moment I saw that the conclusion is negation of the necessary condition, I immediately eliminated this)

I only map out the stimulus and check answer choices in my head. At first, I don't even try to understand what the answer choices are saying and eliminate based on structure (for example, for this question, A, B and E can be quickly eliminated because it is so different in structure). If I have contending answer choices, then I go back to check for more detail. I am pretty brutal in eliminating answer choices (crossing them out immediately when I find one small difference) because I know I am short on time.

SDP is a necessary condition, since congenial guests and plentiful supply of good things to eat ensure a successful dinner party.

In other words, if there are congenial guests + plentiful supply of good things to eat, it will always be a successful dinner party. It is a necessary condition that must follow if there are congenial guests + plentiful supply of good things to eat.

There is no guarantee that a scientific community only consists scientists. So even if most scientists are self-interested, we cannot conclude that activities of a scientific community are largely directed toward self-interest. Furthermore, even if it was only scientists in the scientific community, the stimulus concerned activities of "most scientists" but activities of scientific community may be consisted of 1,000 activities by non-self interested scientists and 100 activities by 100 self-interested scientists. But even then, the argument doesn't hold, because argument concludes that the activities are "largely directed", which refers to the degree of self-interest rather than the percentage of self-interested activity out of the whole.

I thought this too, but it cleared up for me when I clarified B and properly identified what they meant by "events" and "occurrence". B is basically saying: "Fear that [nuclear accidents] will occur is well founded if those who have control over the [nuclear accidents] stand to benefit from [nuclear accidents]."

Although the nuclear industry would benefit financially from government's policy of limited financial liability, they would not benefit from nuclear accidents. Limited financial liability does not mean that they have no financial liability, and even if financial liability is so small that it is negligent, we can reasonably assume that a nuclear power plant industry will experience some losses if nuclear accidents were to occur.

After distinguishing this, I realized that I confused "such an occurrence" (which was referring to nuclear accidents) with government limiting nuclear industry's financial liability. I misunderstood answer choice B as: "Fear that nuclear accidents will occur is well founded if those who have control over the nuclear accidents stand to benefit from government's limit on financial liability policy" With this inaccurate translation of B, I think, B would help justify the argument. However, this is not what the answer choice is saying, so D is the only correct answer choice.

But it also says that: "for any social system, the introduction of labor-saving technology that makes certain economic roles obsolete will tend to undermine the values in that social system". Since C concerns a situation in which technology does not eliminate any economic roles, it evades the scenario mentioned in the stimulus.

Another way to read C is "A social system in which technology can eliminate economic roles are susceptible to change (change ~ being undermined)"