@ I found it to be helpful, as it makes the importance on reasoning structure very apparent. If you can see first hand the lengths LSAT writers go through to structure the passage a certain way, it motivates you to look at the passage as a whole/big picture, vs. reading each paragraph individually, without relating it to the rest of the passage.

Also if anyone is currently in college, your school should have a database pass for you, such as EBSCO, which you can use to access many of the original articles.

That is normal. I've also noticed that if I am feeling a little off, my score drops below my average. Getting some cardio in about an before a pt helps clear the mind.

It really depends on the time and difficulty of the game. I like to scan all the answers first, and then start working on it, and if an inference pops up that looks similar to an answer choice that I scanned over, I check it. As a rule of thumb, start at the begging of the inference chain, if you have had enough practice to the point where you don't loose your train of thought. This will all become automatic at some point.

Thank you guys, really appreciate it. I was unsure about this. This has helped me a lot.

@ said:

I think it is a great starting point for your PS. One of the PS examples that are in the 7sage admissions course began with a girl being made fun of in elementary school for eating sushi at lunch while everyone else was eating PBJs (or some similar foods I don't remember exactly). I think it is a good idea as long as it's brief and leads up to how you have changed as a person/grown/learned from it and you include more present day examples. I didnt get into Harvard or anything but I did get into schools in the top 30 range and my PS was chronological --in middle school: people assumed I couldn't speak English, I had an identity crisis, present day example: I found my own peer group in the US based off of sports, I consider them my American "family", conclusion: I learned to embrace my biculuturalism, I have a more diverse perspective on life, I am more able to adapt to diff groups. Some of the drafts I wrote it may have come off as angry or anti-American so I just made sure to keep it positive and focus on growth and not turn it into a political thing.

Thank you guys, this is what I needed to hear. I feel comfortable using it now.

I was not planning on making it my whole topic, but I wanted to put it in the first paragraph purely for context, to show how and why I developed a certain perspective/attitude. The rest of my personal statesmen would be about the things I did recently to change that perspective/attitude. I agree that an event in high school should take up the whole essay.

Pts in the 30s are absolutley fine to do. There is not that much of a differance. The mechanics are essentially the same. PTs 1 - 15ish is a differant story, but still usefull. Just do the newest ones you have and move backwards to lowerd numbered pts.

I am in the exact same situation as you are - 167 - 170ish on my pts. I can get almost everything in BR for LR and LG, but my BR isn't improving much in RC. How is your RC BR score compared to your timed PT score?

I'm going to wear some chukka boots and will probably have on a polo tucked in, with some khaki type pants. I also don't know if there will be activities after, but if there are, the chukka boots will be comfortable enough I think. I am going to have some ready made questions too, that is a great idea! Thanks everyone.

I can't wait three weeks to get my score. How to cope?

The simplest and most effective thing you can do is to eliminate. Wrong answer choices are made to sound correct and correct answer choices are made to sound wrong. Don't try picking the correct answer, eliminate the wrong ones.

@ said:

Its just SOOOOOOO frustrating. One simple rule may have cost me the entire game.

Its the nerves and anxiety of test day that causes these problems. If you take the test again, at least you will have faced it once already so the nerves will not be as bad.

@ said:

Yes! It was so... anti-climactic. I’ve been studying for over a year and feel pretty good about today. I thought I’d want to celebrate and get wasted... but I just feel empty and kind of tired lol.

That's what lawyers always feel like on the inside.

@ said:

Yep, thats the one!

@ said:

@ said:

I made two stupid stupid stupid STUPID rookie mistakes and caught them both at the last minute, I didn't have time to brute force to ensure I corrected them, but Im still so mad at myself for making them. I even diagramed them correctly but my mind threw them out the window during the questions. There goes over 3 months of fool proofing.

Did you mess up on the man woman game? I also mis-diagrammed on that one and I had no time to fix anything after I caught it.

Your not alone. I'm sure a lot of people made the same mistake.

@ said:

I made two stupid stupid stupid STUPID rookie mistakes and caught them both at the last minute, I didn't have time to brute force to ensure I corrected them, but Im still so mad at myself for making them. I even diagramed them correctly but my mind threw them out the window during the questions. There goes over 3 months of fool proofing.

Did you mess up on the man woman game? I also mis-diagrammed on that one and I had no time to fix anything after I caught it.

@ said:

@ said:

@ said:

2. But in did poorly in the real one and got killed on the experimental

How do you know which is the experimental?

The one with prerequisites n robbery (man woman siren ) is real.

Bc those of us with only 1 lg had that one

Thank you so much. I would have gone crazy if I had to wait three weeks to figure that out.

@ said:

2. But in did poorly in the real one and got killed on the experimental

How do you know which is the experimental?

@ said:

I found the rc to be easier than other pt's I've done, I understood all the passages to a degree where I could comfortably attempt questions, which sometimes isn't the case. I found the first 3 games simple, even though I made an error jotting down the rules on the Economics game(3rd) and had to guess a few questions to have a chance with the 4th game. It was sort of bittersweet, as this was my second attempt and I had fool-proofed games rigorously while not paying as much attention to RC.

on the other hand Logical Reasoning was pretty average in difficulty> @ said:

Yea same Feb2018Taker! I found the reading comp on this one easy and the games kind of difficult at first. I didn't diagram entirely though I should have for some of them... It was a 1L seq w/ twist, 2L seq, 1L basic seq (unknown man/woman), and then true grouping at the end.

Didn't find the LR's too difficult either. Also I had an lr experiemental.

Did you have only one LG section?

I also took the LSAT today. I was able to finish one LG section, but the second LG section was much harder, especially the last game, which I had to bubble in at random. I'm hoping the second LG section is the experimental. I know there is no way to really know which is which but I can't help myself. My score is going to be very different depending on which is which.

Good luck everyone.

Great explanation. Framing this game from the POV of; "When faced with a really tough game they are often (but not always) 5 question games. Our strategy for the toughness of these games should be to get 3 questions correct, " really puts things into perspective for me.

I think the psychological effects of this game is what makes it truly difficult, not just the inferences. Isolating this game from the rest of the section, and looking at it as -2 points vs. how I was looking at it before helps me stick to a timing and score strategy rather than being taken over by a Pavlovian emotional response the LSAT has conditioned in me.

Thank You.

LSAT can wait as long as you need it to. I would take the June or September one. Not worth having to do everything over again for a third time.

I do try to eliminate all wrong answer choices as a general principle. However, there are very few questions in the beginning of the LR set where my confidence level in what the correct AC is at 95 -100%. Here, I just pick the correct answer and move on. These questions tend to be necessary and sufficient assumption questions, because you can mechanically get to the correct AC. Also for some MBT questions as well. Other than that, I always eliminate all the wrong AC, especially so later in the section. Process of elimination is an absolute must in LR and RC. I don't use it as much in LG.

I know many people that have graduated from regional law schools; one works as a chief of staff for a congressman, another holds state office, and many others work for reputable firms. Most CA state senators and assembly members graduated from regional law schools, and some have went on to become US senators and congressmen. You obviously want to take rank into account, but do not do it at the expense of ignoring your own work ethic.

@ said:

@ said:

@ said:

Okay, cool. I haven't seen all the LG videos, so please excuse my ignorance.

What about placing your variables below your game board?

Like this:

https://i.imgur.com/rWs2fbc.jpg

Does JY ever employ this approach or are all universes represented above board and as 'splits'?

I find this relieves a lot of the pressure of whether or not to split, because for me to split all I have to do is make a new row.

I use to do sequencing/liner games like this with the numbers on top and many rows below, and some times it works great and saves a lot of time. However, the problem with this approach is that building in and account for uncertainty (could be true elements) is much more difficult because there is no space to do so as a result of the compact design of the board. In many instances, your frames are not going to be all the way complete, so you will have to represent the uncertainty within each frame to properly symbolize the possibilities. 1 frame may actually represent multiple worlds in fact, and this is the mechanism by which the test derives could be true questions from the moving parts. I would recommend drawing each linear diagram out individually so you can represent the rules, variables, and other uncertainties/moving prats directly on, and around the board. You can create less frames this way too, since you don't have the have a diagram for every possibility, since it is built in.

Yeah, honestly can't say I've ever had that problem. (I'm not entirely sure what you're describing, though tbh.) When I need to, I leave room for internal diagramming. Very few games require internal diagramming, in my experience.

How many games have you done? This is a consistent feature in many of them, especially the more complex/harder ones.

@ said:

Okay, cool. I haven't seen all the LG videos, so please excuse my ignorance.

What about placing your variables below your game board?

Like this:

https://i.imgur.com/rWs2fbc.jpg

Does JY ever employ this approach or are all universes represented above board and as 'splits'?

I find this relieves a lot of the pressure of whether or not to split, because for me to split all I have to do is make a new row.

I use to do sequencing/liner games like this with the numbers on top and many rows below, and some times it works great and saves a lot of time. However, the problem with this approach is that building in and account for uncertainty (could be true elements) is much more difficult because there is no space to do so as a result of the compact design of the board. In many instances, your frames are not going to be all the way complete, so you will have to represent the uncertainty within each frame to properly symbolize the possibilities. 1 frame may actually represent multiple worlds in fact, and this is the mechanism by which the test derives could be true questions from the moving parts. I would recommend drawing each linear diagram out individually so you can represent the rules, variables, and other uncertainties/moving prats directly on, and around the board. You can create less frames this way too, since you don't have the have a diagram for every possibility, since it is built in.