For those struggling with answer E being right, while the passage does not mention mass, this may help:

Question:

Remember, this is a MSS question, meaning we do not need the answer to be stated or 100% valid, just implied/supported.

Passage:

What do we know about the makeup of the sun?

-Looking at the 3rd sentence of the 3rd paragraph:

--90% hydrogen -- "90 percent of the sun is hydrogen"

--Over 5% Helium -- "most of the remainder [ie remaining 10%] is helium"

--Less than 5% of Iron and other (2+) elements -- "while it does indeed contain iron (along with other elements found on Earth)"

Deductions:

-All elements mentioned can be detected by spectroscopy (that's how Payne knows about them)

-At least 4 elements are 10% or less (Helium, Iron, 2+ Other Elements)

-At least 3 elements are less than 5% (Iron, 2+ Others)

-At least 2 elements are less than 2.5% (bc Iron and 2+ elements have to share less than 5%, any single element in the group being 2.5% or larger guarantees the others are less than 2.5%, bc they would have less than 2.5% to split between themselves)

Reasonable Implications:

Given the above deductions, it is reasonable to assume that one of the below is true:

-At least 1 of the 4 elements that are 10% or less have equal or lesser density than hydrogen

-At least 1 of the 3 elements that are less than 5% have equal or lesser density than 2x hydrogen density

-At least 1 of the 3 elements that are less than 2.5% have equal or lesser density than 4x hydrogen density

Conclusion:

While deducing all the above is not realistic during time control, it is realistic to quickly see that at least 4 elements are 10% or less based on the passage, which lends more support to E than anything else lends to the other answers.

@fssilver

Detail on my exact review process below, but here's the core idea: your goal is to answer every question correctly and under time during the actual test, since you're fighting the clock as much as the questions themselves. A recommended BR question almost always means you missed that goal somewhere, whether you got it wrong, weren't confident, or were just too slow, so being quick and accurate enough to leave yourself time to return to flagged questions and BR them live on test day is what actually converts extra time into points. Review exists to figure out why you missed the mark on a given question so you don't miss it for the same reason again, and while you won't hit this goal on every question, a 170 is achievable if you keep pursuing it.

1. Blind Review

Reanswer each question first. Why each category matters:

• Incorrect: self-explanatory.

• Flagged: you weren't confident on your first pass. Flagging and revisiting a few questions is fine, but each flag costs you time at the end that you may not have.

• Changed answer: you landed on the right answer, but your first instinct was wrong. That's a gap to close, and it burns time.

• Spent too long: right answer, but too slow. Needs to get faster.

• Answered too quickly: rare, low value to review, but quick enough that it's not worth skipping.

2. After BR

I log question numbers by category (writing it down instead of clicking in and out of the section):

• Wrong answer either timed or BR: marked with an x (1x means missed Q1). I read/watch the explanation, then write in the 7Sage notes thing why I got it wrong, what I missed, what confused me. I rarely revisit these notes, but writing them cements the lesson.

• Over +30 seconds: marked with a T. I review as needed to figure out why it took too long, and leave a short note.

• Flagged: quick pass only, I dig deeper on maybe 25% of these.

3. After the study session

I write down 1-2 recurring mistakes and reread the list before every session. This surfaces patterns you keep repeating, usually simple fixes that just need reinforcing.

Example: "With two close answers, proactively break each into pieces and test against the prompt/passage." I noticed I was picking the wrong one of two finalists because I skipped this step. Once I focused on it, that specific weakness improved.

My situation is similar. I work full time, and my M-F schedule is 5 AM wakeup, gym, LSAT (1-2 hours a day), work, a little more LSAT if necessary. Avg PT score 171, trending 174

Based off what you said, you may be spending too much time taking questions and not enough time reviewing.

BR may seem redundant when it points out questions you felt good about, but the review is very critical. Generally, the questions you feel confident about can be reviewed/reanswered very quickly. However, through this process, you will see questions that you answered quickly but were wrong on (ie chose wrong, BRed wrong) and these are the questions you really need to focus on, as you missed it both under time control and without time control.

If helpful, I can give more detail on my full review process, which has been very helpful to me in continual score improvement.

It probably depends on how intense you're studying. If you are going every day, blind review, wrong answer journal etc, you'll have enough runway (in my opinion). If you are going weekends/every other day, you may want to delay to Oct (depending on your own feeling on preparedness).

Be ready to commit entirely to a decision though! If you choose Sep, but then spend the 2 months second guessing your choice, you may make the preparation process more difficult for yourself.

I stopped highlighting because of how bad the new (LSAC, not 7Sage) interface is and it actually helped me focus more on the passages. Task failed successfully.

One issue I have with the answer descriptions:

For C:

The difference between 2 and many is cited as the reason this answer is wrong, which conflicts with the LR Lessons regarding the relationship of some/many/most/all, chiefly that some and many should be considered the same (or similar) and some is 2+ (the exact lesson was framed as the LSAT does not expect you to make distinctions on this basis, "I have never seen them do this", etc).

IMO the stronger reason this question is wrong (and how I eliminated it during drill) is the following discrepancy:

-C Premise: Reviewers who ENJOYED novel didn't want sequel

-C Conclusion: Next reviewer won't want sequel

--ie C Premise refers to a subset of reviewers who enjoyed the novel, whereas C Conc. does not put the next reviewer in that subset

Compare this to the Passage:

-P Premise: Pilots who flew plane didn't have difficulty operating

-P Conclusion: Next pilot who flys plane won't have difficulty operating

--ie both Premise and Conc. refer to the same set of pilots

Was the Z. Barbu perspective just thrown in there to trick people into picking E? ie you just read the last sentence and then think its philisophical?

@Ssss One thing that helped me when I was first starting with conditional logic is to map out every single question and answer that uses conditionals.

I would take a practice question under normal time control (ie try to answer efficiently), then on blind review, I would diagram the question, understand from that diagram what piece was missing that I should be looking for, then diagram all the answers, and understand why the wrong answers didn't fit/interact with the diagram of the question.

This will help you actively expose yourself to sufficiency/necessity, and you will soon be able to "diagram" mentally and see the missing pieces without having to put pen to paper.

The Inception of 7Sage LSAT lessons

Another good visualization is combining the venn diagrams from previous some sections with the set & superset visualization from the beginning of foundations:

A and B have overlapping venn diagrams.

--- ( A () B )

B is also a subset of the C superset.

--- ((B) C )

---Where the parentheses are the subset within superset bubbles used in previous videos

This means that A is overlapping with C in the same way that A is overlapping with B

--- ( A ( ( ) B ) C ) [kind of hard to illustrate without the actual circles]

@Kevin_Lin Thank you for the recommendation!