Burnout is def a real phenomenon and though it may be terrifying to not study at all the day before, I would advise you to do so! Your brain needs time to relax and regain its strength, as hard as it may be to believe, and I would say that at this point there's nothing you can do to increase your knowledge -- the only thing you can do is practice mindfulness and come in confident as all hell ready to take down the exam haha
Good luck!
I'm not sure if @ is taking students, but I can thoroughly recommend him from firsthand experience. Other than him, there's a list of tutors here: http://classic.7sage.com/forums/discussion/4760/7sages-approved-tutors/p1
I think @ is also currently taking students, and he's great too!
You're basically following the timeline I did last year, and I would definitely say that though reps are important (just doing section after section / PT after PT), critically reviewing is even more important. That is, we already blind review, but you need to go as deep as possible into blind review, and sometimes get a little more abstract. You have to think about the relationships across questions for LR traps/stimuli and LG. I kept a google doc "LSAT Journal" to keep track of the discoveries I was making and also wrote out explanations for every LR question and kept a spreadsheet to revisit them periodically.
Also, eventually you may want to think about recording yourself and creating timing sheets once you have the fundamentals and knowledge down. There's a whole strategy element to pacing yourself on the sections, and thinking about that is another "phase" in your LSAT journey (unless it comes naturally to you, which it definitely didn't for me haha). One more thing is just that the podcasts and webinars on 7sage are probably one of the best study resources aside from the CC on this site!
I also had Shamala and can confirm she was amazing as well!
@ -- For the first question regarding starting the PS before LSAT, I think it is good to start the PS ahead of time if you're planning to apply this cycle, but I'm not sure if you'll be able to truly focus on it while gearing up for the LSAT (I know I sure couldn't lol). I think if you start in late November, you'll still be able to get apps in by Christmas if you really devote yourself to the PS and other essays.
Writing my PS took about a month, and a lot of that was before I used 7sage's editing service. So when you ask how many rounds it took, it's hard to say because by the time I started working with Shamala I had already done the bulk of the work by finding a topic -- it was more refining the draft than coming up with a new one.
Best of luck, and feel free to DM me any questions!
I can rip through a lot of LR questions, and I know that JY likes to call MBTs "freebies," but for the longer, more complicated ones, I just write it out while I'm reading. It's just not worth keeping it all in my head, and it's more accurate and faster to just write it out and see what I'm dealing with. I also draw out circles and overlapping groups of items to see "most" and "some" relationships if the question is difficult. I think if it's anything beyond like 3 relationships, it's just worth writing out! And also, as @ says above, this might mess with your momentum, so definitely skip on round one if that's the case and come back to it later (but prioritize it because it's going to be a pretty straightforward question to get unless you diagrammed wrong).
I think a lot of it is true and verifiable, but I also recall seeing a reddit post by Graeme Blake (the LSATHacks guy) who made a post about how not everything was true. I tried looking for it but couldn't find it, but I remember it was interesting! It was something about the dowsing article and how parts of it were just made up?
Everything @ says is on point -- 1) foolproof, foolproof, foolproof and 2) do work upfront (or realize when doing work upfront isn't required -- what JY calls a "rule-driven" game).
What helped me a lot when my score didn't go up despite foolproofing was stepping back and figuring out the commonalities between games. For example, there are grouping games, but there are grouping games where the number of pieces in each category is given to you and some where they aren't. Sometimes you have grouping games where the pieces can repeat, and sometimes they can't repeat, etc. Figuring these similarities out and then cross-applying strategies will really help you gain a deeper understanding of the games beyond simply going on autopilot!
How should I proceed for each section? I'll assume that I need to wrap up LG foolproofing. Will LR CC repeat yield much? If so, should it be analytics-driven? Is RC CC going to yield anything more than BRing RC sections would?
Sacrifice older PTs below 50 for timed sections?
I agree with those above that you should focus on LG. Just in terms of time required to prepare, it's LG, LR, then RC. There's very little you can do for RC I think, and though you should definitely keep BRing and doing practice sections, I would focus on LG and LR given your score range in order to maximize gains. Definitely foolproof LG as much as possible, and for LR, you want to keep doing full sections but also really drill or figure out what's going wrong on your weakest question types. Also make sure to also foolproof entire LG sections, not just games! Managing a section is different from managing a single game, and you don't want that to throw you off.
In terms of overall last month prep, I really didn't study during the last week. I just did maybe one section a day, or half an LR section, one RC passage, and one or two games. In the last week there's very little you can do, and it's better to get your mental game strong:
https://classic.7sage.com/discussion/#/discussion/18450/7sage-podcast-episode-8-the-week-before-the-lsat-how-to-manage-nerves
Good luck!
The 7sage syllabus and problem sets are all online (which is amazing because then you don't have to lug books around everywhere). But otherwise, many pair 7sage with Mike Kim's LSAT Trainer, and I've also seen some good stuff in Ellen Cassidy's Loophole for LR. I think aside from those two books and 7sage, the practice test exam books are good if you don't already have Ultimate+ (or access to enough on 7sage).
Hi all -- this question just has me stumped altogether. I would really appreciate it if someone could walk me through their thought process! In particular, if there are also tips on how to get through this kind of question faster (it's so fuzzy because it's MSS with a MBT-esque stimulus), that would also be really helpful.
Came back to 7Sage to just post about this -- I was lucky enough to get a good enough score on the July exam, but as I prepared for alternate scenarios of taking the Oct/Nov exams, I was already stressed out because LSAC had basically no test centers near me (or they were all enrolled). And now they've decided to take away resources that have allowed so many to learn about the LSAT before committing to a particular course, which is unbelievably frustrating.
There's so much about this process that is unbearably stupid and at times pretty outrageous, but without a community like 7Sage there would be little to offset the ills of the system. Regardless of what happens, 7Sage is the best option out there for LSAT studying, and even though LSAC may have raised the bar for accessibility, 7Sage still allows way more people to think about law school. Thank you for everything!
To add onto what people have said above, I actually don't look at the clock except for at certain checkpoints. So for the paper exam, I just flipped my watch over and would check in when I hit the end of the second page of LR, to see if I was on track, and I would also check between passages and games for LG and RC. Your attention should be on the task at hand, not the time, as that's kind of wasted focus (unless you're falling behind). You can hide the clock on the digital but it'll be unhidable in the last 5 minutes.
As for test anxiety, I haven't had extreme immobilizing test anxiety, but there was a part of my July exam where I had messed up on game 1 and was freaking out, and could not focus on game 2. I had to just put my pencil down and close my eyes and breath and get it together before moving forward. So doing that really helps calm you down, and doing everything you can to not think about the score or the weight of the exam but just the material itself. Meditation helps train you to push out thoughts, but I think just practicing the mental aspect of the test in PTs and sections is a key part of prep.
For more general advice, I was never a competitive athlete or anything, but I would suggest thinking about ways to channel that nervous energy and anxiety into excitement and confidence. I don't know how best to explain it, but I just tried to get myself really pumped up and on my game the entire day of the exam. I really screwed up on the last LR section before the break, and had to pick myself and come back to play for the last two sections.
Also, if you just do lots and lots and lots of sections repeatedly, you'll eventually come to fear the test a little less, because you know you've seen everything and you've seen it so many times. At least that for me helped get over the mental barrier of "Oh my god I'm gonna get something that's gonna totally screw me and there's nothing I'll be able to do about it."
My LSAT journey has been more or less a year and a half long, and I just wanted to write a very long post that will hopefully be useful to this community, which has given so much to me. I took the June exam and underperformed (plus I don't know if I ever could have figured out that last game in time) with a 165, and then got a 170 on the July exam. I never took a diagnostic, but I think if I did it would have been pretty bad, because I didn't even know you were supposed to draw diagrams for LG and couldn't really finish an RC or LR section. This was pretty shocking to me, because I had done well on the GRE and consider myself pretty "smart," and I don't think I've even come remotely as close to this long in studying for any other exam. So before I go deeper into some obstacles and my tips for conquering them, I wanted to give a huge thanks to @"Cant Get Right" for our few tutoring sessions (cannot recommend him highly enough) and the vast repository of material he has on 7Sage, @"Logic Gainz" and @"Lucas Carter" for moments of support during some dark times of feeling like I would never reach my goal. And, of course, JY Ping sensei for teaching me everything I know.
Logical Reasoning
Wow where do I even begin with LR. It started off as an atrocious section, and then at the end of my prep became my absolute favorite. I think my journey with LR is the longest, and could probably write an entire post about this alone. But here's an attempt to be succinct:
When you're BRing pretty high, you may be wondering why LR isn't improving, or why it's so inconsistent. The reason is that each section tests you on different distributions of LR questions, that cover different flaws, or use different tricks. One game-changing aspect of my BR was drawing connections to previous LR questions. "Where have I seen this flaw before?" "What was another question where they also wrote the stimulus this particular way?" This, coupled with having more time to just drill section and after section (and in particular retake sections) helped me familiarize myself with the patterns. When you do so many timed sections, and especially retakes, it's impossible for you not to notice the easiest of questions (e.g. ad hominem, sufficiency/necessity confusion, etc.) and also how the harder questions are actually kind of similar.
Once you do a deeper dive into BR, a big thing is timing and when you skip. I've probably written on this before, but Josh's many resources on this were key, and actually the only way for the timing strategies to work is if you have what I wrote above absolutely mastered. But basically, you have to keep your momentum, and get to the end so you can come back and work on questions that didn't quite click for you the first time around. Or, you need to learn to skip when you see something that's just not going to be worth the time. At first, adjusting to a new timing strategy feels weird, because you're thinking about whether to skip or not, but eventually it becomes second nature:
https://classic.7sage.com/discussion/#/discussion/13346/confidence-drills
https://classic.7sage.com/webinar/post-core-curriculum-study-strategies/
https://classic.7sage.com/webinar/timing-and-levels-of-certainty/
Basically, same with what I write about RC and LG below, but LR becomes a lot easier when you're not freaking out about time and you just read and try to really understand what the hell the stimulus is telling you. Once you understand what it's saying, and breakdown the components, it's a lot easier to answer the questions. I think earlier in my prep I just ran through the stimulus and tried to engage more with the answers, when the opposite is definitely more important. Practice pre-phrasing and interacting with the stimulus more by covering the answer choices, or writing out answers in BR.
Reading Comprehension
I started doing some of the early RCs and thought things might be fine, but eventually this section killed me. There were several distinct stages for me in terms of coming to understand RC and how to tackle it, and I'm not sure if this is universally applicable, but some of you might resonate with this:
One stage I went through was obviously applying the "memory method" with summaries and low res snapshots. I also wrote out breakdowns of each paragraph and main points in my BR. I feel like this was a learning phase in terms of gaining familiarity with the question types and passage structures which is crucial.
I read this book (https://www.amazon.com/LSAT-Reading-Comprehension-Ultimate-Improvement-ebook/dp/B013KNZ6FM/ref=sr_1_13?keywords=lsat+reading+comprehension&qid=1566494648&s=books&sr=1-13) which emphasizes the importance of understanding how terms of connected, the various author viewpoints, and how the specific subjects don't matter -- you'll often get terms but you don't actually need to understand them so much as just understand when referential phrasing is being used, and who is talking about what.
For this stage, the issue was that I started to annotate way too much, and hold onto way too much information. At the expense of focusing deeply on referential phrasing and breaking down every last aspect of each paragraph (thinking I was "simplifying" it) I ended up missing out on the larger picture (and losing time). Like stage 1, I still think of this as a learning process, but it didn't produce immediate gains.
A corollary to this is that you definitely have time to return to the passage and find key details. It may help to do untimed sections, where you go back to the passage and find where things are mentioned or pointed to before going to the questions (if you don't remember). A lot of RC comes from knowing what the question stem is asking of you (e.g. "What weakens so and so's claim?" -- well, what IS that claim? Where is it? How does it fit into the passage?).
The last thing is that it's okay to go beyond the 8:45 min time for passages. For the July exam I just said I'm going to take as much time as I need, and deal with the consequences at the end. The way it works, if you have enough faith, is that the section is designed to be uneven and finishable -- so you may only have 7 min at the end, but the last passage might be super easy.
Logic Games
This was actually one of my worst sections (or at least very inconsistent) when it came to fresh sections. I fool-proofed almost every game, and definitely all of the ones from PTs 1-35 multiple times, but when it came to new sections I would run out of time, freak out, or just make careless mistakes. I think my biggest advice for this section is that though fool-proofing definitely works, there are a few things that I overlooked while fool-proofing for the longest time:
Don't go into robot mode. Always stop and think upfront and play with the rules -- JY always says this but when you're foolproofing for so long and kind of memorized the games, then you tend to not execute this in practice, and then under the time constraints and pressure on a PT or real exam, you might tend to say "Forget it, I see some 'if' questions, I'm just gonna dive in." So practicing this step while foolproofing is crucial.
You will need to learn how to identify a "rule-driven game" and also know when it's worth playing with the rules even if you don't find any inferences. The latter can feel like a waste of time, but you become more fluent in the rules and then might spot some inferences faster later.
I started a Word document to myself where I would reflect on games and how they're similar to one another, what common mistakes I tend to make, and how the games are basically built. If I ask you, when do you make a chart? You should have a concrete answer for that. This kind of goes with point 1 above, but basically, in the "upfront" time, you need to figure out what you're looking for, and what questions need to be answered. If the distribution of pieces is open ended (typically A must have more members than B or something like that) then you should be asking what the maximum and minimum pieces should be. If the repeatability of pieces is open ended, you need to ask yourself, "Who can/can't repeat?" etc. Deep diving into games like this was crucial, because for the longest time I thought I just needed to keep doing them, and that just doesn't give you the extra mastery you need to conquer totally new games under timed conditions.
Overall Mindset
The theme across all of these sections is that I had a lot of trouble with the timing aspect and pressure of the exam. Focus on mastery, and time will come -- a common mantra, but one that is really, really, hard to believe. You may think you've already reached mastery, or that time will never come naturally, but it really will. And once you reach this point, the next stage is really mentally gearing yourself up for test day. You have to tell yourself that you got this, that you won't lose your cool, and that you have seen everything they can throw at you. What JY says about closing your eyes and taking a few deep breaths does wonders, and a big battle in the LSAT is not just with the questions, but with yourself.
I think this is enough for now, but I will be around on the forums as I work on apps (and maybe think about retaking but probably won't) -- feel free to DM me any questions about anything above, and I will do my best to help you out!
7sage is life (3 will def be using this the summer before 1L!(/p)
@ said:
@
I think either way, you're gonna have to rely on outside resources, like our course or commercial outlines that you can purchase via Amazon. For many students that happens during the summer before 1L and for others, it happens during 1L year.
For me, I was strongly of the opinion that I should enjoy my summer before 1L and not prepare. But during my 1L year, I purchased a lot of commercial outlines (since nothing like our courses existed back then).
Retrospectively, I see that the timing of it matters less. Either way, I would have had to rely on outside resources to help explain what the law is.
@
I would also be interested in any specific commercial outline recommendations and other reading, or maybe it would also be helpful to have a brief lesson on that in the 7Sage Law School course!
Timing is definitely a huge component of the test, and @ 's comment above is really good. For me, I feel like I found my timing for all three sections through lots of individual sections and retaking them (1-2 in the morning and 1-2 in the evening as a drill). Think of it like training wheels --- if you can't even finish a section you've seen before in time, you don't really have much business taking fresh sections and expecting the timing to magically work itself out.
I don't have access to the Webinars anymore (7sage alum lol) but there's one called "Timing and Levels of Uncertainty" for LR. One thing that also helps for all sections is not looking at the clock so much but setting checkmarks for yourself (i.e. check the clock between every passage but don't think about the time when you're doing the passage, or check the clock after ~15 questions on LR or at each page turn but do NOT rush). You also have to accept that timing must be flexible. Some passages are difficult and some are easy; sometimes you'll have 10 minutes at the end of LR to go back for round 2 and sometimes you'll have 5. It's not about the objective number of minutes you have left when you finish, but that you used the time you have an in an effective manner. If it ends up that you ran out of time because a section was really hard, that's just what it is as long as you know you applied your best techniques.
Hope this helps! And on the topic of anxiety, the putting your pencil down and breathing thing is very helpful even if it seems excessive.
Out of curiosity, what is the 7sage wisdom on preparing for 1L? I've heard many conflicting reports -- read "Getting to Maybe," skim the E&Es, do nothing -- and the most popular response seems to be that you can't prepare because classes are more like studying professors rather than a generic set of materials. Definitely plan on chilling out, but I trust the advice here and wanted to know!
(Maybe @ @ @ @ @ @ )
Take my money! Just enrolled and looking forward to more!
Hey! I've recently been trying to make up my mind before deposit deadlines, and definitely agree that through all of my time on 7Sage studying for the exam to now, I never really thought so much about the debt (it was such a remote bridge I'd cross when I got there). Though you may have already thought through it thoroughly, it becomes a lot more complicated when you realize there's more to it than the 300k (various loans with different interest rates, the money you could apply from your 2L summer job, gradual tuition increases, refinancing down the line, etc.).
Thankfully NYU is more recession-proof than other schools, but you also have to ask yourself if you'd want to work in big law for X number of years (depending on how quickly you want to pay it back). This post (among other resources on Reddit) was pretty sobering: https://www.reddit.com/r/lawschooladmissions/comments/fkquc1/big_law_associate_who_paid_off_sticker_debt_in_3/
But in any case, congratulations on your acceptance, and feel free to PM if you'd like to discuss further!
Hi Everyone,
I've been going back to the core curriculum to brush up on a few things, and I realized that I rely more on what JY calls the "carve-out" method of dealing with embedded conditionals rather than the translation. (It just feels more intuitive for me.) But as I was trying to match up my "carve-out" understanding with the translations JY does, I ended up with a few questions.
Here's the link to the CC lesson with the example I'm considering: https://classic.7sage.com/lesson/mastery-embedded-conditional/
"If the seeds are planted in the winter, then flowers will not blossom unless fertilizer is applied."
JY draws these two statements using the "and" translation:
SPW and FB -> FA
SPW and /FA -> /FB
So I like to think about this by relying heavily on the "unless" factor at the end:
My question is, aren't JY's statements (and my own) supposed to be biconditionals? For example:
So together, FA (-) (SPW ->FB)
Because right now, in JY's statements, if I know fertilizer is applied (FA), nothing happens. If I plug in FA, then it fulfills the necessary for the first translation and fails the sufficient for the second. But isn't it true that if FA, then it must be true that if seeds are planted in the winter, that the flowers will blossom?
Hi all,
I was hoping someone might be able to help me with two things here:
[Exposure to heavy metals (correlated with heavy metal poisoning resistance)] presumably causes/correlated with [resistance to antibiotics].
Is that part about resistance to heavy metal poisoning just fluff in cases like this (i.e. does the implied correlation not matter)? I've just never seen it before and was curious what the theory is here.
Thanks!
Admin note: edited title
https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-64-section-1-question-22/
Hi all,
So I'm drilling a lot of LR timed sections using early PTs (10-20s) because I've kind of burned through the 40s and 50s repeatedly and I want to save the 60s onwards for full, fresh tests. Other than the two for one question-stimulus questions, I feel like once or so per section there's a misc. question stem (e.g. 13.4.17, 13.2.25).
I was just wondering, how common are these misc. question stems in the newest tests? I've done a few PTs in the 60s and 70s and remember there being fill in the blank questions, but nothing quite like this? I was just wondering whether or not these have made a comeback in any way, or if I should just ignore them.
My second question for high scorers in LR, what is your mindset like while taking a section? Currently, I'm experimenting with the balance between making myself go faster/stay on task, and staying calm enough to process everything yet not go too slow. Do you guys tend to lean in either direction? I know it's personal, but just curious.
Thanks!
This has come up briefly before on the forums, but I wanted to ask more about chaining biconditionals rather than splitting. On PT 54 game 1, because I wasn't on point with my understanding of biconditionals, I tried to chain up the first two rules with the rest, and it ended up being a total mess. I was super confused, whereas when I came back to it and just split the board and got rid of the biconditional it was a lot easier.
I think there are times where chaining biconditionals is helpful, but my real question is, do we then have to write two versions of it when trying to read the chain? Because biconditionals can be /A (-) B or A (-) /B, (and the other two for "always together"), I find it pretty hard to read the chains. How do you guys go about this / is it ever really THAT helpful? It seems like if a biconditional comes up on an in-out game, it's always better to split it?
Also if you know of any games that use chaining biconditionals, that would be helpful!
Hi All,
I know this question has been asked numerous times, but with only a bit of time left before the June exam, I wanted to ask a question about the older LR questions with specific examples. I've started using the LR sections in the 20s because they're still relatively fresh (might have seen one or two questions but not all per section), but my scores have been declining and in my BR I get a little frustrated with the questions themselves. While at the end of the day, I accept the answers for what they are, my biggest gripe is that they just feel vague in a manner that doesn't fly in the newer exams? I bring this question up because 1) if the consensus is that these questions are good to practice in the PT stage then I'll keep doing them or 2) if these questions are considered a bit dated, then I'll probably use the rest of my time on solely the newer PTs (60+).
Here are a few examples of what I might mean:
28.1.7
The answer here just felt really poorly written?
28.3.15
I understand that "enjoy" here could be understood as "made happy" but again, still doesn't feel as precise to me.
28.3.17
While it's the best answer given, it just feels weird that you're allowed to assume that working for ten years means you don't have anything left to gain from training. It seems like a fair enough assumption, but one I feel would be punished in the newer exams?
I'm not sure if this will be that helpful but for me one big thing I had to get over for RC was second-guessing myself. I was really daunted by the time constraints and material that even though I was a good reader, I found myself freaking out. Take your time with the passage, and let the time bleed a little on harder passages -- you have to trust that the section as a whole will be doable as long as you go fast on the easier passages and take a bit more time on the harder passages. I think I tried to limit myself to 8ish minutes per passage, and the inflexibility made me rush or freak out, leading to a lot of mistakes. For practice, it might help to just set a watch but not look at it until the end of a section, and focus on the material rather than the time. You might be surprised to find that even when you think you're behind, you finish within the limit!
Great comment above!
For MP questions, I think in your BR it helps to think about what is descriptively true or false. The easy answers to knock out are the ones that are just patently wrong, which leaves you with one that is descriptively accurate and gets the right emphasis, and one that does describe the passage accurately but just isn't the "main" point. I think it also helps to really focus on the thrust of the argument as a whole when reading/doing your low resolution summary. You should already have the answer to this question pre-phrased before going into the answer choices.
For analogy questions, these ones I generally sacrificed if I didn't get it because they're kind of time-sinks if you don't have a super clear grasp of the passage. You have to really understand the part they're asking you about and then think about what is analogous to what in the answer choice. Obviously if you didn't understand that part of the passage and you're running out of time, it's probably in your best interest to eliminate a few and just guess.
I think you have three options:
Take the trip ahead of time to not only familiarize yourself with the test-day schedule, but also write down directions on a piece of paper that you can toss
Call the center ahead of time and ask if they might be able to hold your belongings somewhere (I know for my test center there was a coatrack outside where people were allowed to leave stuff, but there's no way of knowing unless you call ahead).
Get a hotel room near your test center, sleep there and leave your stuff in the room while you take the test.
One more is find a friend who can hold onto your stuff for you?
"I thought "D doesn't need to be true, there could be an alternate explanation." However, this explanation, despite the existence of other explanations, does connect the dots between the premises and the conclusion. Now we could say we have more detectors overall, but the proportion of inoperable detectors increased a lot so now the early detection rate is the exact same."
I think you're exactly right here -- this is a sufficient assumption question where all you're trying to do is build the bridge (whether it's an exact fit to the conclusion or more than enough to make it true) to the claim. Sure there can be many other ways to make the conclusion work, and you give a good one in your explanation (all of the newly installed ones don't work) but we just need one of them as an answer choice.
@ I wrote out my tips for RC here a long time ago: https://classic.7sage.com/discussion/#/discussion/20999/thank-you-7sage-all-my-advice
But from what I remember off the top of my head, recording myself taking RC sections helped me see what I was doing with my timing, and also learning to let passages take more time if they required more time was very helpful. That is, I originally started to get really stressed if I was on passage two and I had already passed my quota of ~18 minutes or whatever. Some passages are designed to take longer than others, and you have to believe that the section will balance itself out. That being said, I think skipping comes with experience and knowing whether you'll be able to answer a question, but I usually gave myself two dips back into the passage and after that it was a circle and move on.
I hesitate to make generalizations because a huge part of LG is learning to think on your feet and not go into robot mode (and also because it's been almost a year since I studied for the LSAT), but I think I remember on my exam (July 2019) there was a mostly straightforward in/out game that benefitted a lot from creating multiple boards. In general, it makes sense to split the boards when you see biconditionals because it represents visually what is actually a pretty annoying symbol (a biconditional requires you to keep track of both directions, whereas two boards are two obviously different worlds). Splitting takes away the margin of error of misreading the biconditional.
Sorry for the vagueness haha just trying to post a comment while I'm revisiting the forums due to the recent spam LOL There are logic games about a white/purple/yellow shirt and one about park rangers in the newer tests (probably 70s) that I remember drilling a lot. The best thing to do is keep a google doc or something with games that have biconditionals and examine their similarities and differences!
My local public library had a quiet study room that was rather big and had a lot of people in it. That helped create the kind of random ambient noise to simulate test day conditions, and also I guess taking a PT around strangers was something that helped too. I felt like test day was just another PT because of this, if not even quieter.
If you're taking PTs at home, filming yourself keeps you from cheating yourself on time (unless you're doing digital on the ipad lol) and also always play the ambient noise on 7sage's proctor app to simulate distractions.