So, I broke the cardinal rule. I burned through a decent amount of recent PTs (70-77) because I thought I was going to take the November test. Instead, I'm waiting another cycle due to a new job opportunity (which I think will give me an edge admissions wise), my genuine feeling that I can still improve, and my desire to be an early applicant (aiming for June LSAT to apply for fall 2020).

I still have some PTs from 50-60s untouched along with 78 and up. Would it be a bad idea to alternate my weekly PTs from older to newer? Or just jump around in general ? How signifigant are the differences between the way exams are formulated among these groups ? Will I be hurting/confusing myself? Either way, I feel like this may be my only option. As I like the momentum of taking a PT every week and strcuturing the rest of my study week around BR and question type drills.

After realizing that I've been following a poor study plan, I now think I need to go back to fundamentals. As a side point, I am also going to fool proof games 1-35 while returning to cc because I have a bad habit of focusing on one area and neglecting others. I was wondering how others go about reviewing the cc for a second go. Chronologically, or by jumping around? Do you also do all of the drills within the lessons over again?

Can you guys share your tips for higher accuracy with BR?

I'm PTing in the low-mid 160's and am only seeing a 6-7 point increase on my BR. I really want to aim for 180 BR in order to see improvements with my actual scores. I spend anywhere from 1-3 days going over my PTs slowly but still do not see that much of a difference. I also admittedly input my PT answers to see how I did before beginning my BR, is this not advised?

I dreamed about this day. The day that I would receive my score & post here to give my thanks and express my joy. How badly I wish that was the case for my writing this post .... I graduated in the spring and decided not to work post graduation so I could study full time for the LSAT. Fast forward 6 months of dedicated studying and scoring in the 160's, I open up my email from LSAC to find my score, 151. To say that I am distraught is a grave understatement. I am beginning to convince myself that I simply do not have the type of intelligence that the LSAT tests. I was going to send out my applications once I received my score but now I don't even know where I should go from here. I want to go to law school more than anything. Especially, this cycle. But I don't think I have it in me to put so much of myself into something once more and get nothing in return.

Has this ever happened to anyone else ? I was tired already, worked, went to the gym, and my contacts were really bothering me lol but I figured it would be good to get some practice under my belt of testing when I'm not feelin 100% but boy was I wrong ... Couldn't even finish my first section in time (which was RC, but usually my strong suit), and then finally just decided not to waste anymore of the PT halfway through the second section, (I'll break it up later to drill I guess :/). Just feeling pretty sucky, but I know I would've felt worse once I calculated what I know would've been one of my worst scores yet.

What happens now? What shows on my record ? I was in a car accident 2 days ago and although I've known for some time that I was going to withdraw from November, I stupidly waited and then forgot due to obvious circumstances. Now I'm freaking out.

I've been caping out at around 4 times to go over a single game because I feel like I begin to actually memorize all inferences, I know that this is the point but sometimes I feel like I'm not really thinking too hard to come to my answer choices even though they end up being correct most of the time. Is this the goal with fool proofing? I don't know whether I'm finally breaking through that threshold of understanding where things just "click" or if my memory skills are just carrying me through because I've seen certain games before. Any advice from others who may feel/felt this way towards fool proofing ?

Just wondering why the PTs included here only have 4 sections and what the general consensus is over practicing with 4 or 5 sections. My concern is that the last section could very well be a "real" section. So if I'm only practicing with 4, this runs me the risk of getting burnt out.

At first, it was quite easy for me to identify and correctly label conditional statements. But, now that I am nearly 60% through with the CC (currently working with flaw questions) and questions are no longer in the "identify" phase, but, rather, have increased into the difficult world of description and analyzation ... I find myself getting tripped up with the direction of my statements (confusing necessity for sufficient, and vice versa). I realize that I need to now slow down my progression with the CC until I am able to really drill this concept in my head. Any suggestions/advice/tips/examples (preferably harder examples) would be greatly appreciated!

I'm ripping up old powerscore books but they don't cover the entire first 35 pts. Also, why exactly is 1-35 the range that people use for fool proofing games

Hello All!

I've been a 7sager for nearly 2 years now. I planned to sit for Nov 2018 but due to some unforeseeable life occurrences, have had to adjust my timeline. Since I have been at this for so long, I decided that I needed a well deserved break from all things LSAT but now I am back and feeling refreshed and ready! Only thing is, I'm questioning how I should be adjusting my studying approach to fit the new digital format so I am asking you all to suggest all of your best tips/tricks/forum threads to help me get back in the groove and prep for the digital format!

I've always loved to read. Obsessively, truly. When I was younger I would get in trouble for trying to read under my covers with the lights off. My mother incessantly warned me about the dangers of straining my eyes. I'm now 22 years old sporting thick glasses shamelessly. Needless to say, I never learned my lesson. I also never gave up my love for reading. This is perhaps why RC is the section that leaves me most at ease, except for one very specific question type that always gets me - anything that question's/asks me to analyze the author's point of view. This frustrates me to no end because I understand the text. I can honestly read through a passage once and hold the structure and ideas in my head while minimally actually reverting back to the text. I feel like I engage enough with the text to even be able to argue in it's defense or opposition if someone were to ask me to do so ... but why are these questions so difficult for me to comprehend... Am I not sensitive enough to "cue" words? Do I need to expose myself to more "uninteresting" texts? Any tips at all on how others have overcame this struggle (if it is a common one), would be greatly appreciated. I understand that RC is perhaps the hardest section to improve on, which is why I assume more "high brow" reading exposure is really my best bet.

Despite my long journey of preperation for yesterday, my neurosis is not stopping the "what if's" in my head. So I am strongly considering registering for feb, and not wasting an entire month that I could be studying while waiting for scores to release. I am applying for Fall of next year and I am wondering if anyone knows how I would go about disclosing or not disclosing my choice to take feb in my applications... Do I tell schools that I will be taking feb? Will that mean that they will not yet consider my application until feb scores release? Or do I simply send out apps with December score and approach said schools with my feb score when it releases? Not sure how this exactly works. Sorry this is so convoluted but I'm sure the 7 sage community knows what I'm trying to get at ...