I think the first step is recognizing they happen. "Knowing is half the battle" and all that. After you realize an error has been made, try and figure out why it happened. A lot of people chalk it up to a "stupid mistake" and then just ignore it. But for 95% of errors, there's an underlying reason why you made the mistake, and if you don't realize it and try to correct for it, you'll likely make it again.

The best time to do this kind of analytical work is during the BR, or the post-BR (where you check your answers and see what, if anything, went wrong). The more time you spend thinking about the error in review, the more likely you'll be to recognize the trap you're about to fall into during the test itself.

""People" who get 180s are actually robots." Does this only count for the actual test day or did Deckard let my little secret out?

@ Even on the few prep-tests I got a 180 on, errors happened. As JY said, realizing when you've made them and minimizing their recurrence is the name of the game.

Withdrawing is perfectly okay after the "deadline". What you mentioned, losing the opportunity, only happens if you no-show without withdrawing. They do not take too kindly to that, but withdrawing, even late, works for them.

For sure. =) Also, when you see two answer choices that both look correct, slow down a second and make sure the words really say what you think they do. That can help pull you out of this trap.

I know the LSAT caught me once or twice because I read "underLIE" as "underMINE" which, as you may notice, are entirely opposite. Dirty LSAT!

Two weeks is an outlier, but if you get started right now (and have the summer to dedicate to it) 3 months is more than enough time.

That's how much time I spent, and I did pretty okay. =)

What Quinn said sums it up. There's definitely merit to retaking an old test: it lets you reassess your knowledge and attack questions in a different way. Helps with confidence too. The only thing you need to be cautious of is taking the score on it's face value. It's not going to be too far off your actual potential, but it's hard to gauge what an "fresh" test would have given you.

There are a few stems in RC, but most have an LR analogue. For example, "the passage leads to which of the following inferences" is MBT. "The passage most strongly supports" is MSS. There's also Strengthen and Weaken, usually in the form of "Which of the following strengthens the author's argument that..." The difference in RC is that the question types often ask you to target a specific piece. In LR, you strengthen the argument. In RC, you strengthen the *author's* argument, or the critic's or whoever.

Then there's the MP questions, the Argument Part questions ("the author brings up X primarily to..."), or the ever-dreaded Passage Structure questions ("Which of the following best describes the format of the passage?").

Hope that helps!

Hi Divon,

It's because in answer choice B, T doesn't add an additional factor (popular demand, the hose, etc.) that changes things, he just shows that J's second option isn't really all that bad. In the original argument (and also A), the two outcomes are clearly undesirable. Outside of the fact that I'm lazy, what exactly is undesirable about eating vegetables and exercising?

"Even if" isn't so much a sufficient condition as indicating there isn't a conditional relationship there. Basically, D says "We can have A, even if not B," but not B certainly doesn't imply A either, so you cannot call it sufficient. It's not like the garden not contributing causes the merging, it's just not necessary for the merge for the garden to contribute.

You can look at it this way: Justin won't get hungover tomorrow, even if he gets trashed tonight.

So, the relationship between "getting trashed" and "hungover" isn't entirely conditional.

Technically, people scoring high doesn't affect it, since the curve is set before people ever really "see" the test. It's built off how people do on the experimental versions of it. So, theoretically, everyone could get 180 in one sitting. But, math and probabilities being what they are...

The argument says if a violation is routinely unpunished, chaos results. That means at least 50%+1 of the times it's let go. Therefore, we shouldn't ever let people break an explicit rule.

Okay: Speeding. There's an explicit rule against going over 55MPH. If we let people routinely speed and don't punish them, chaos will result. It'll be like Fast and the Furious all up in this bitch. So, we ought never to let anyone speed without punishing them.

Hmm. What about people rushing someone to the hospital? A pregnant wife perhaps? According to this argument, we have to always punish them as well. Seems iffy...

I, for one, think that a giant ant with mastery over the waves sounds quite awesome.

Kevin, try this:

You say that there's no question type that you consistently get wrong, I think that's very likely. However, really look at the ones you did get wrong, not paying attention to question type, but paying attention instead to what type of logic is playing tricks on you.

Are they causation logic? Statistical tricks? Wordplay?

Look for the similarities between the questions you got wrong, beyond the superficial level like question type, and see what type of reasoning you're getting wrong.

Hope that helps!

You can allow for neither more possibilities nor less. So, if the original rule allows for worlds A, B, and C, so too must the new rule. If the new rule restricts out world C, it's not having the same affect on the pieces anymore, is it?

Hope that answers your question.

This was my pre-LSAT song of choice: