Taking a 5 section PT tomorrow and reviewing it. (2 reading comp sections since that's my weakness). Lounge on the couch and enjoy college football season being back the rest of the day.

Sunday: have been my off days since I started studying. Going to the LSU v. Miami game in Dallas. (I'm a huge football nerd if you haven't caught on yet)

Monday: Finish reviewing PT from Saturday. Do my 3rd attempt on the LG section of that test (I incorporated the Pacifico Fool Proof method in to my PT reviews)

Tuesday-Thursday: will all be light studying, drilling weaknesses in LR... going through some older RC passages and practicing active reading. Really just trying to simplify my strategy.

Day before the test i'm going to go for a long run at sunrise, eat a good breakfast, watch some sort of inspirational movie and have a nice dinner.

I've been flirting with burnout with how much i've been doing the last two weeks, so i'm really looking forward to turning it down a notch and enjoying myself the week before the test.

Good luck to you!

@ said:

And, probably, the best time-saving maneuver ever:

Blocked and deleted the numbers/emails of ex-girlfriends who have become psychic vampires

I lost it when I read this text lol. Well done.

26 or 27, depending if I start in January or not. Worked off and on all through out high school and college, and have 4 years of experience running a business I started. Short internship at a law firm last year, all my other work was not law related.

"They can whip it around for mating selection"

I giggled.

Type A.

Been told I look great in a suit.

My relationships have usually ended because I’m always right.

But seriously, I love the aspect of coming up with a strategy to help our fellow man. I’ve shadowed at various firms and find the whole process intellectually stimulating, and felt like I already understood a lot of what was going on without needing explanation.

Some things just click with you and there’s not a great way to put it in words.

I’m not sure exactly what kind of law I want to go in to. Would love to be a sports agent, though becoming successful in that field is becoming much more difficult.

I’ve always had a passion for sports and negotiating a contract sounds like something that would be right up my ally.

But I’m also compassionate for finding justice for those who were wronged. I remember one case a firm I shadowed did with an elderly couple who had been wronged. They didn’t expect a whole lot... just wanted to set their grand kids up a college fund, were so sweet and trusting of the firm through the whole process. Case ended up going to trial and they won really big. I remember the look on their faces and tears of joy in their eyes when the lawyer I was shadowing looked over at them and told them “congrats, y’all are now millionaires”.

Sorry for the novel of a post.

Just feels like it’s the are where I can have the greatest impact with my personality and skill set!

@ said:

does anyone remember the LR question about ants and conifer trees?

F yes I do I must've spent at least 2 minutes on that one and changed my answer 3 times.

Should've just guessed and bubbled D and cut my losses after reading through it for the first time because I left 3 questions on the table that I had to randomly guess on that section.

@ said:

@ said:

I tried a new RC strategy today, and skipped the comparative passage. I figured that if there wasn't a lot of time when I got back to it, I could read at least one of the two sections real quick and have a chance at the questions.

I'm glad I did. That physics passage about the Big Bang was hard. Ironically, I was listening to a Joe Rogan podcast on the way to the test center with a mathematician who was trying to explain the Big Bang. I honestly think both those things saved me for that passage, and all of RC. I know that I would have drowned instead of treading water.

I’d be interested in knowing how that worked out for you. I have an exact opposite strategy. I always do comparative first. For a couple reasons, mainly I can get a rhythm going (hard for me to do that in RC). I always just read Passage A, then do the questions that pertain to that, then B, and the rest. Since I started that strategy, I rarely miss a question in the comparatives. I did multiverses last, and I got to read it and do questions, but I didn’t feel confident in my understanding. I was happy I devoted less time to that one because I felt there were some questions that I maybe just wouldn’t have gotten.

That multiverse passage was brutal. I got through 1/2 the questions are started really wondering if I understood whose side the author was on. I only got to answer 2 questions on the comparative and blind guessed on the other 4. The first two passaged seemed pretty straight forward.

I'm brutally awful at RC, my goal was to go under - 10 on that section-- I feel like I might have accomplished that.

@ said:

It is such a shame that we prepare for months, study so hard, devote our lives to this, and then there’s some joker who comes in from god knows where, who has no respect or understanding for what this is about, who treats it like a joke. My proctor, a nice guy I think, had no clue. He said it was his first time. During the second section, he starts blasting music on his headphones. What made him think that was ok? What did he think we were doing? I immediately called him over and told him to turn if off, that I could hear his music (not Beethoven, by the way, more like EDM). He apologized and turned it off, and that was that. Also, I told his boss what he did, and I never saw him again after the break. All in all, it was fine, but it’s jusr crazy they have essentially no screening process for this. They just pull people from anywhere, yet they have the ability/power to screw this up. There must be a better way.

I'm sorry to hear about your experience. I'm 100% in agreement to everything you've said. It's not that these proctors are bad people, it's generally the complete opposite... but my god it seems like they find some of these people with an ad on craigslist. It's so disappointing because you don't expect to be at the mercy of such human error/incompetence after you've poured every ounce of your mind, heart and soul in to this damn thing for months. It goes beyond affecting just that section when it happened too. It shouldn't even be something that has to cross your mind.

I'm contacting LSAT today and will follow up with you all on here and let you know how it goes.

Does anyone remember how many questions were on the mining game? Thought it was only 5.

Two games sections: one with law firm employees working certain cases the other had a weird game at the end with engineer and headquarters? I think that’s the mines? Second one I mentioned was real?

LR section with PED seemed really difficult compared to the other one. Maybe it was just me.

@ I was rejected. Same GPA/LSAT score but i’m retaking in November. I worked a short internship at a law firm after I applied the first time and have some other things I’ve added to my resume I’ve been involved with. I applied very late with a bad LSAT score last time. Looking back I should’ve just waited to apply until this cycle.

@ @ @. Sounds like we are all in the same ballpark as far as numbers and goals go. Would be happy to get a study group going, I know it always helps me to hear how others go about their PTing and reviewing.

@ @@. Sounds like we are all in the same ballpark as far as numbers and goals go. Would be happy to get a study group going, I know it always helps me to hear how others go about their PTing and reviewing.

This is a great thread and one I can relate to. I experienced the exact same scenario as you did, PTing in the 159-162 range and disaster struck when I sat for the exam last week.

My plan is to go back through some of the fundamentals in the curriculum, especially in the more complex formal logic section. I realized on test day that I had been really heavily relying on “winging it” when it came to problems involving heavy use of logic... during my PT’s it worked most of the time. I trusted my gut instincts and would tell myself that due to the amount of exposure I’ve had to the questions that things were coming naturally to me. On my BRs, I wasn’t critical enough... I got lazy and assumed that I just knew my stuff.

That little voice in your head is not as easy to hear when you’re under the gun during the real thing. It’s like a football team killing it in practice and demonstrating an understanding of the playbook and not being able to translate that to a hostile road game. That road game is exactly what the real test is like and the only way that will become easier for me is to have a deeper understanding of why answers are right and wrong.

So for me, instead of rushing to my next timed section or practice test... im going to spend more time having discussions with myself during my blind reviews and be honest about my understanding regardless of whether or not I got the question right. Strengthening this inner monologue will translate to a better score on the real thing, I’m sure of it.

I also plan on placing a lot more emphasis on RC as this section is what wrecked my test. My goal is to be consistently -7 or less.

Time to saddle up and get this thing done, just like you... November is do or die for me.

WE GOT THIS!!!!!!

Yeah. Put me in the boat with everyone who thinks this question is bullshit. I totally understand why D would be a right answer choice if B did not exist. Like the comment below me said, it's a larger leap to assume de-icing roads doesn't fall under road maintenance than it is to assume that the age gap in vehicles purchased by lower income people is significant enough that they are unproportionatly burdened by the lack of protection these cars provide from rock salt.

That's just one of many jumps B forces you to take. I could go on.

The logic you have to use to get the right answer to this question seems inconsistent with 99% of other questions like it.

@ You are a damn rockstar. Glad to know you.

Do them both timed then do your BR untimed.

For those of you who are pretty good LGers, did anybody else find this section particularly difficult? I made mega improvements in games. Went -0 multiple PT’s and my average was 2 or 3. I didn’t even get to attempt the last game. I don’t know if it was nerves because it was my last section and I felt the need to be perfect to compensate for my train wreck of RC, or if maybe the games were more difficult than I though. Seemed straight forward enough but the infrineces that I can usually just put in my head and roll thorough the questions with seemed to be absent or very tough to find, for me. Appreciate the responses as I’m wondering if I need to put more focus on LG for my next take as I started not drilling it after I was a consistent 0 to 3 5-6 PT’s in a row.

@ said:

Anyone else find the kindness/respect/content question and the fairy ring question to be pretty hard?

YES. I spent way too much time on the kindness question and still think I missed it. Do you remember if this one was in the 26 Q section or 25????

Oh yeah and the worst part... I don’t get to see my score until Monday at the earliest because of the hold they placed on my account for when they “reviewed the incident”. Almost feels like they’re making me pay for acknowledging their shortcomings lol.

Done ranting now. Hope y’all got the scores you wanted!

LG: employees/booths, opening performances with artists, department store sales, forgot the other

LR: I had 3, 26 q w dolphins, 25 and 25.

RC: opera,plate techtonics

Games and RC destroyed me. I’ve been -0~-3 in games and only attempted one question on the last game.

RC killed me I easily missed 11.

LR seemed relatively normal to me, I finish two sections with time left which I rarely do on PTs.

Probably gonna cancel.

#NovemberRetakeGang

Can’t tell if I want to hug someone or run through a brick wall after reading this. Good post either way!

Best of luck tomorrow everyone!

Update:

Well 2 days before gray day and I finally get a response. Pretty much a “We investigated ourselves and found ourselves not responsible for your complaint”.

Only acknowledged the part of calling time early and nothing about the proctors casually chatting amongst themselves through the whole test and particularly during the last 5 minutes of the prematurely called section. Pretty disappointing, I expected better from LSAC.

They said the average score in the whole test center (not just the room I tested in) was not substantially down enough compared to the usual average of that location to justify taking action on my claims. Man I would love to have a few LR descriptive weakening questions using this exact response from them as the stimulus.

Hope that everyone else that submits complaints from here forward has better luck than I did, I feel pretty wronged right now. I don’t really have the luxury of cancelling this score because I need it for my application for January enrollment at the school I’m applying to.

‘Tis life I guess.

The dinosaur game on PT 57 is the hardest one I have done... not so much because of the wording of questions, it was just really tough for me until my 3rd try at it.

This game is a tough one for sure but is manageable. I drew out 3 game boards, one with G (the hour long piece) at 1, at 2, and at 3 and for each one of those a sub game board split with T in the 1/2 hour spots. The key inference on this game is figuring out when the

(W-T)---> WT rule is able to kick . The hour/half hour spots are crucial to establish in this game so splitting your game boards accordingly makes the questions much more manageable.

Chose B under timed conditions because I wrote off A due to the word "ignores" when David said "Even if you're right about..." which I thought was implying he had acknowledged the premises. Rest of the answers were comically wrong, so I chose B. Coming back on my BR I realized the last part of A is a much better description of what David does, which made me get over the "ignore".

This answer would be much easier to choose if instead of "ignores" it said something along the lines of "forgets" or "fails to apply".