Self-study
This is more of a journal entry for myself as I get closer to test day. Hopefully someone can use some of these!
LG - My worst modality. I wish that I had listened to people from the beginning and just drilled it over and over again. I am really coming to appreciate that mastery simply takes time. If you're new, watch the LG core videos, and then just use the dill auto builder to focus on your worst game types. That's what I am doing now, but I am concerned I started a little too late. I know that my worst games are group-types and Misc. (obviously). So I have been doing 5-10 games a day, with at least one timed section. It's definitely helping.
I listen to the Thinking LSAT Podcast when I'm waiting for new episodes of the 7Sage podcast to come out (prioritize 7Sage's podcast- it's much more practical). One of those dudes said that when he does a LG section, he simply takes it one game at a time- he doesn't watch the clock, he doesn't worry about the next game, he doesn't think about a game that he skipped (if he skipped), he simply gets one perfect game, followed by a second perfect game, followed by a third perfect game, and if time allows, he does a fourth perfect game. It sounds a little silly, but I noticed that my biggest LG score shaker is my perception of time. Not time itself, mind you, but how I feel more and more anxious as the clock is ticking down, knowing that I likely have a harder game up next. I stop focusing, which kills my ability to do the basics- understand each rule, choose an appropriate board, split prudently, don't lose track of rules throughout the game. When I take timed drills outside of PTs, I am relaxed and smooth. I get somewhere between -2 to -4, which is acceptable to me based on my goals. But during PTs, I'll see -5+ consistently. That's the equivalent of almost an entire game. If I had taken 33 minutes to do 3 games, and then guessed on the last, I would probably do better. But I leave points on the table throughout the entire section.
The takeaway is this: do one game at a time. When you do a game, that is it. Think about nothing else. Don't think about how this simple sequencing game should take you less time. Just think about the sequencing game. And then spend more time drilling those games that are slowing you down or causing you to miss points.
LR - In one of the 7Sage podcast videos, Henry says that if you want to get better at RC, do LR. In my experience, I would agree. You're strengthening your reading comprehension and critical thinking ability, one bite-sized chunk at a time. The core videos are again very helpful, but what I noticed is that after doing a few of the full courses for the various question types, you start to feel way more comfortable with all of the types. Spend the time to watch those videos and do the accompanying drills, and you'll see increasing returns with every question type you study.
RC - I have always been pretty good at RC. I think I got a -4 on my first diagnostic, and I will regularly see -1. I don't have as much advice to give, because I feel like I haven't really improved much beyond understanding what the LSAT is looking for. I would suggest being able to paraphrase every paragraph to yourself before moving on. If you can't do that, I wouldn't move on.
General wisdom - There was a period of about 3 weeks that I was trying to get in 4+ hours of studying a day in, plus work, plus the gym. Although I was allotting myself time to review PTs, I simply wasn't allowing my brain the time to heal and absorb new concepts. I was taking a PT every 2 days- test, review the next, test again, etc. That pattern was not conducive to my learning. I have backed it off to 1-2 PTs a week, and spending the rest of that time on focused drills.
Thank you for reading my stream-of-consciousness post.
Which did you pick, out of curiosity?
I'm not sure exactly what is tripping you up with the 'was moved through,' but understand that the goal of the process is to determine which waypoints an object hit when being moved in the past. These are fixed points that are relying on local phenomena to identify which waypoint it passed through. If the local phenomena (which are the key to the process) aren't in fact local, then the process is useless.
A says, essentially, that the phenomena weren't local, and is therefore correct.
B says 'the process is complicated.' If the conclusion was that the process was easy, then this would indeed weaken. However, the conclusion is simply 'the process offers a good clue.'
C says many subtypes of the aforementioned phenomena occur throughout the world. This would have been a good answer if the author hadn't accounted for that by saying 'we have only selected those subtypes of the phenomena that aren't like that.' ("known to have been unique"). Therefore this answer doesn't weaken the argument based on the information that we know. It wouldn't be hard to make this the correct answer, but as it stands it requires us to assume that they chose those common types, which would be contrary to what the passage presented.
D says 'we don't know a lot about many of those ancient subtypes,' which doesn't affect those subtypes that we used. Like C, we would have to assume that they are discussing the subtypes that we are concerned with, and even if we did assume that 'scarce' doesn't not equal 'we don't know anything.' Maybe we know enough?
E is kind of like B.