You will never need to know specific terminology to answer a real LSAT question, just vocabulary. This question, fake though it is, also does not require special knowledge.

Near-term means short-term, essentially. Greenhouse gases are gases that contribute to the warming of the earth's atmosphere by trapping heat. Emissions are... you know. Emissions? Things we emit? Truly, if you struggle with vocabulary like this the LSAT will be a struggle.

This part is the important part: "But these facts should not make us forget how crucial near-term limits on the emissions of "greenhouse gases" are to motivate these changes. When the issue was the limitation of ozone-reducing substances, it was short-term emissions limits that quickly brought the needed technologies to the marketplace."

Translated, "We need to remember that short term limits on how much carbon dioxide/methane we put into the atmosphere are important to motivate longer term changes. ANALOGY ALERT!!! When there was a need to stop putting substances that reduce ozone into the atmosphere, that was achieved by limiting short term emissions, which inspired technologies that enabled the long term change."

So the ecologist is saying that just as we did with the ozone problem, we need to do with the greenhouse gas problem. Which is why the answer is C.

Last few tests:

176: LG -3, RC -2, LR -2

177: LG -3, RC -0, LR -2

174: LG -3, RC -4, LR -1

178: LG -2, RC -1, LR -1

LG is a work in Progress - I usually finish with about 1-3 minutes left and am yet to hit a perfect one.

LR I feel very comfortable with. I ususally finish with 10 to 15 minutes spare. This can be an issue though as I have occasionally used that time to convince myself a correct answer is actually wrong. That 177 was a 179 until I changed two LR answers... Grrr.

RC can be extremely frustrating - it's the section I feel least consistent on. I usually finish with about 10 minutes spare, but have occasionally failed to spot glaring errors, even when I re-read the question twice. Hopefully it's a focus problem that will be sharpened on test day. I had the same issue with the SATs but got a perfect score on test day - I think it forced me to concentrate. Fingers crossed.

7sage comes with .pdf files of tests 39-43, and although they are older, they are still very useful. If you are absolutely sure you will have to re take the test in september, I'd use something like 39-40-41 + 71-70-69-68 before June, leaving you 65-66-67+42-43 before September. BUT if you are so sure you will have to rewrite in september, I would focus on working towards that date and cancel June, personally. Why take a test if you know for sure you aren't ready. And, if you are just being pessimistic about your chances, then go all in and study as hard as you can, with all your resources before the June test and stop assuming you will have to retake.

The distributions of answer choices are random. I know some people say that the hard questions have correct answers located in certain places, but it's a completely unreliable at best, and at worst just not true. If you think going E-A helps then by all means go for it, but ultimately people who cannot distinguish between traps and correct answers will still likely encounter the same problems going E-A as they would A-E. I wouldn't put thoughts like that in your head - you'll end up second guessing a correct answer based on where you think traps will be, whereas if you purely focus on figuring them out logically, you can't be led astray.

Honestly dude? Watch it all. They even create a nice study program for you that takes it all in a logical order.

If you don't have time for that (which... why would you be taking the LSAT if you don't have time to study?) then prioritize! I started with curricula directly related to logic games because that was my weak point, and then attacked everything else.

Personally, I don't take notes. I don't know what exactly I would write down - but everyone is different.

The analytics function is great, too - plug in your PT scores and watch the graph hopefully make a nice, steady increase! It even tells you what areas you aren't so good at. That's been very helpful to me at least.

http://classic.7sage.com/discussion/#/discussion/775/top-law-school-admissions-gpa-lsat-statistics

The original (flawed) argument can be broken down into something like this:

"Because a particular way of tackling a problem only stops the effects of that problem, and not the causes, it should not be used at all."

I can see why B was a little bit tempting to you, but do you see that the argument doesn't actually follow the same flawed pattern at all? It's argument is (a) not flawed and (b) goes more like this:

"A particular way of tackling a problem would work against the smaller elements of that problem, but would actually enhance the worst effects of that problem, and thus should not be used."

You can rule out C immediately because the argument does not follow the pattern at all - it ends with the advice that the solution should ALWAYS be undertaken. We are looking for arguments that end with "should not be".

D is perfect - it fits our broken down argument almost word for word.

"But how do I get better at improvising and reacting to completely new setups? I completely suck at that....How do I get better at that? :("

I think this happens as a result of practicing many, many games. I think what is hardest about these unexpected, 'throwback' games is just that if you aren't expecting them - if you've gotten used to being able to plow through the same old games time after time - the shock can upset a lot of people who actually are extremely proficient. It's more of a mindset than anything else.

Also - you absolutely do not suck at logic games. Everybody, including the smartest people I know, struggles with logic games initially. Practice, hard work and an open mind are what's going to set you apart from the people who fail to master logic games, not inherent talent.

Personally, I found 7sage's categorization scheme more useful than anybody else's. Though I think each course/book has something novel to teach us, It's probably easier and less confusing to stick with one scheme. So if I were you, I would just pick one scheme to focus on and ignore the others.

7sage, as you'll quickly learn, makes things really easy for you - the whole website is linked together so that you can input your test results, see which categories you are struggling with, and then view problem sets/videos for that category.

But really, it's important at this early stage not to get too caught up and strung out on the details - it can seem really overwhelming otherwise! But actually, it's pretty simple. Almost all games fit very much into grouping/sequencing. Though there are distinct subcategories within those two, the way you deal with each one follows very logically and rationally once you understand how 7sage teaches you to diagram. If you are anything like me, there will never be a stage where you look at a game, classify it's subcategory in your head, and then apply the correct type of diagram. Rather, once you have drilled the first 30 games or whatever it is they give us here, it will seem clear how to diagram each game as you read the information that is in the stimulus.

Further - I think the LSAT is pushing back a little on the rote-learning, mechanical methods that students might have been able to get away with on the last few years of the test. The last couple have contained games that were, in my opinion anyway, very much aimed at testing our abilities to improvise and react to completely new setups. Thus, if it were me (and who knows - I might have to retake in September with you!) I would work hard on not just learning set reactions to specific game types but also on the kind of thinking that allows you to respond calmly and effectively to setups that you will never have seen before. That, I believe, is the new LG curve-breaker.

TL;DR - don't panic.

Why would you cancel?

a) You won't get any feedback, and you'll never know what you could have got. You;ll always wonder.

b) Everybody always thinks their test went dreadfully. I wrote down what I thought I had received after each PT and was invariably wrong, both ways. The one PT I scored a 180 on, I thought I had had a disastrous RC section. In reality, I had missed one question and it was one I thought was easy.

c) It really doesn't matter. There is no school out there that will rule you out because of a retake. Some claim a holistic view, some look at the higher, whatever. But remember, there is no guarantee whatsoever of a better test next time. Either way, an improvement (which is the only reason you'd benefit from a retake) looks great - you tried, you worked on it, and you came back better.

Canceling a score because of a tough LG that had 5 questions, of which the first Q. was immediately premise based as always and thus presumably didn't throw off anyone who would expect to do well on LGs, seems crazy. So what, you missed maybe 3 or 4 you would expect to get elsewhere? At most?! You don't even know that! You might have got your best ever LR/RC and you don't even know it.

Do what you think is best, but I really think that unless you gave up halfway through a section or something that you are only going to regret it.

JY that just made my evening man.

Mike (or anyone) - was there anything especially crazy about that LG section apart from there being a circular game? I can't find any details about why people were so freaked apart from that, and I can't understand why a circular game would be so incredibly problematic for so many people. It's just a linear game, after all, with a slight alteration.

Cole - that's exactly correct.

Anne summed it up completely. I'd just add that you need to avoid thinking outside the box with the LSAT and focus only on the information that they give you. Doesn't matter if you think the legal reality of the case doesn't make sense, that's completely irrelevant. There's a question in PT 71 (SPOILER) where the correct answer to a 'must be true' question is that for an economy to be successful, communication MUST have occurred between scientists and young people.

Even though I knew it was the right answer, I hesitated for a second because it was such a weird, bold, sweeping statement. But the LSAT does that all the time. I imagine people with medical knowledge especially must find it hard to contain their outside extra knowledge in the face of the odd statements the LSAT makes you mark as correct. But you just have to do it, and remember that the LSAT universe is not yours, but a parallel one where only the text is real.

E.T. - This is a question where you might just want to use elimination to find the answer, if you are having doubts.

A can be eliminated immediately because it is about motivation

B can be eliminated because in typical LSAT trickery, they are trying to make you equate talent with medical competence, but we don't fall for that.

D and E are both eliminated in one blow - they talk about what is 'usually' the case, and the question explicitly says that 100% of specialists are competent.

If you go through that process of 'proving' out the choices, you would be left with C. I can understand your hesitation and thinking there is a grey area between competence and incompetence. But once you have eliminated the other 4, you should start to think to yourself, "actually, competence and incompetence ARE binary, it's just like capable and incapable. Either a doctor is able to do something adequately or not..." and then you circle C. And to be honest, if you can definitively eliminate 4 answers and the last one seems plausible, then circle it and move on anyway.

The LSAT is reliable but its own literature suggests that one single score is more indicative of a slightly broader range of possible outcomes. If you consistently score 162, on any given test you might expect to see somewhere between 159-165.

Furthermore, from my own experience, different eras of LSAT favor different strengths. I personally found LGs from 1-40 much harder than 40-71, and LR+RC from 1-40 much easier than later ones. Given my strengths, I believe I saw a 2/3 point jump on the later LSATs not just from improvement but from test format also.

Finally, state of mind is definitely crucial. You, tired, is not nearly as effective as you on your game.

So any combination of those factors could easily add up to shift you 7 points in any direction.

cshunger - reading is like everything else - practice makes you better at it. If you set yourself serious goals, like reading a novel a week, then by September or whenever you are taking it you will have become faster.

My own improvement was from a different point, but it was still a +10 jump. Hope that counts as valid for giving advice...

People will tell you (or at least, they told me) that the LSAT is something of an IQ test and studying has limited returns over time. I don't believe that at all - I think the limiting factors are more related to how much time you have to learn how to do the test, and how much time you are willing to put into it. If you have 7sage, you are already at stage one.

To make a 20 point improvement, I would imagine you need to radically revamp the way you are approaching the test - you'll notice in the curriculum that 7Sage emphasize logic a great deal. That's because it's the only way to really massively boost your score if you aren't already performing at a high level. If you understand and can apply all the logical concepts that they will teach you in the curriculum, there aren't any LSAT LR questions you can't get correct. If you learn their method of diagramming, and again apply logic, then every LG question can be answered. RC is maybe a bit more intangible - I think it favors strong readers and can be a bit less by-the-numbers, but at it's core it too has strategies that, if consistently applied, will consistently force the correct answer.

None of that is easy, though. Logic comes very naturally for some people, and other people have to learn it like a second language. I'd use this analogy: the LSAT is like being asked to take a 4th grade history quiz, but in French. If you already know French, then awesome, you just need to learn some simple history concepts and off you go. If you don't know any French, you need to spend a year getting fluent or you're doomed to guessing at the easiest questions, and groping through a series of faux ami. And learning French isn't easy! But, it's totally possible. And so is scoring a 170+ on the LSAT from a lower diagnostic.

CFC - I feel your pain.

Al - To be honest, LR and RC have never given me many problems but LG was far from naturally intuitive...

I did a test without timing myself on any section just to see what it was all about and I believe that was a 171. I didn't have a clue what LGs were all about, but given enough time you can muddle through them ok. Then I bought and read my LG bible and tried a test properly timed and that was a 166. I got 7sage right after that...

CFC - yeah I took it yesterday, also got a -5 on the RC but redeemed myself elsewhere and got a 176. But yeah, if an RC section like that combined itself with an LG section that threw me off I would be very unhappy...

What Qs did you get wrong? I missed 7, 13, 15, 16 and 23.

I mean, there's no point pushing yourself to rush beyond what's natural for you - I am an extremely fast reader naturally and that's something I got through a childhood where I wasn't allowed TV, etc etc. It's not going to come in a week.

However, I definitely believe you can speed up through technique - Logic Games, which were a nightmare for me, I now am finishing up with 2/3 minutes spare. If I can do that, you can knock a few minutes off your LR time and give yourself a crucial moment to review at the end.

That time breakdown sounds about right, yes. Throughout the test, but mostly in the beginning there are several questions which take about 20 seconds or less - taking advantage of that is really a matter of being able to physically read the question quickly enough, and then having the confidence to not get hung up on anything.

I don't think I read in a particular way. Having wikipedia'd subvocalization though I would hazard a guess that I do not subvocalize for the simpler questions, and that I manually kick it in on more complex stuff. My tendency to speed read is why I force myself to underline stuff - especially on RC if I don't do that I will miss small details. Again, for RC my strategy is not complex at all. Read the passage, approach the questions. Very possible I could have a better strategy, but I'm tending towards -0 with the occasional screwup, so I don't know necessarily what I would do differently. Some of them are just genuinely very hard for me, though perhaps not for others.

Yep you can cancel immediately after you have done the test, and yes schools will see that. Whether or not they care is open to debate, because they rarely comment on how they view it.

jmkahn579 - Are you a naturally fast reader? If so, I think the key to speed on those sections is a combination of a couple things.

1. Predicting the answer before you look at them. Often, especially in questions 1-15/16 or so, you can tell what the answer is going to be by the stem alone. The flaw will be obvious, etc. Knowing what you might be looking for cuts down on the time it takes to parse the 5 answer choices.

2. Combine that with total confidence - if you know for sure the answer is right, then move on. Why bother crossing out the other 4 if you are certain you got it correct? There is only one right answer. (I stop doing this for the later questions because they get more subtle, and I need the reassurance.)

3. Calm combined with urgency. I like to move fast - I enjoy the 10/15 minutes I have at the end of each LR section to go over the questions I circled as potentially problematic, so I move through them with a sense of urgency. However, I also need to be calm and relaxed about each question or you start doing things like reading without really reading. I underline with my pencil, just long bold strokes of things that look important in the more complex questions - I don't use the highlighting at all, it just keeps my mind utterly on the task.

4. Take advantage of the easy questions. Questions 1- at least 10 take at most 3 or 4 minutes. The next few go a minute each, and then 20-26 are usually more time consuming whether it's because of the length of time it takes to read them, or the subtlety they are written with.

RC varies a lot more. I just finished PT 65, and got a 176 because I dropped 5 questions on the RC, and finished with a minute left. Yesterday I did PT 64 and got a 178 with none wrong on the RC and a solid 10 minutes at the end to review. The latter is more common but I think with RC you/I just need to take a deep breath before hand, and apply that urgency/calm to the passages. I don't know what makes an easy passage vs. a hard one - sometimes the questions just strike me as a lot more obscure, especially when they want parallels - that takes more time to think.

Number 1 thing that jumps out at me is that you can still improve! We have a solid 8 days left, and you still have 4 PTs left... You went from a 164 to a 171 in two weeks and 6 PTs - why not aim for a solid 175 by the 9th?

There's no peaking on the LSAT - my own graph of PT scores just goes up and up with practice. Started at a 166 and 15 PTs later, my last 4 scores are 177, 176, 178, 178. It's been an absolute breakthrough, suddenly they feel easy and relaxed with time to spare. But before these last 5 tests or so, I'd got 4 consecutive 171s and thought that was my limit. In reality, just carrying on drilling my weak points and spending 3 hours each day doing a PT pushed me over that hill and on to a place I never expected to be at, where I'll now be disappointed with anything less than 177.

So keep going! Burnout is a state of mind.