@ Has a good system for this and can probably expound upon it. My understanding is that you basically angle a laptop and/or set a phone on a shelf to be able to see what you're doing, and then watch back to recall what you were thinking as it was happening.

If you're hitting -9 on untimed games, you're not going to benefit from FoolProofing more recent games -- it means you're missing some common fundamentals that the earlier tests can teach you and the later tests can affirm.

Make note of the game types that are giving you trouble and start from the earliest ones available. FoolProofing recent games without a command of the principles that guide the earlier games would be detrimental to your improvement and (at least in my opinion) your ultimate success.

Hope that helps!

@ said:

So, I’ve noticed that I went from -3 or -4 on LR back to -7 because I don’t use the underline/highlight feature on the digital exams. On the paper exams I could quickly underline the P and C which would help me see flaws better before jumping into answers choices…

But now I just try to do it all in my head because I’m afraid of taking more time or messing up.

I’m doing it on my phone tho. Wondering if it’s easier on the tablet? Does anyone else use this feature to help? Or should I just scrap it?

I almost always underline the conclusion at the very least.

I'm not sure how the annotation tools work on a phone, but I'd suggest getting used to using them on the laptop/desktop that you'll be using for the actual exam. There are certain quirks that will pop up depending on your setup, and averaging a few extra seconds per question to "fix" annotation issues is not ideal.

Hope that helps!

@ I agree with @ on the "forcing [yourself] to struggle" before you look at JY's (or any others') setup. I'll sometimes redo a game with a different board that I could also see working (trying to do certain games as grouping v "charts" has been a big one lately). That leads to longer-term progress in recognizing inferences and such on your own.

The other time-saving strategy I've found is the following: if you're not immediately sure how to set up a particular game, click through the questions quickly and find a "local" rule (where it says something like "If X is in 5, then..."). It forces you to write something down, scan the rules, and create a game board that you can use to answer other questions.

Hope that helps!

@ I generally try to answer the question either way and figure out if one of the answers noticeably strengthens/weakens the argument. The questions posted in the answer choice tend to be yes/no answers, so for example, I would read answer choices like this:

A ) Would answering "Yes" strengthen/weaken?... no effect. Would answering "No" strengthen/weaken?... no effect. Eliminate.

B ) Would answering "Yes" strengthen/weaken?... no effect. Would answering "No" strengthen/weaken?... no effect. Eliminate.

C ) Would answering "Yes" strengthen/weaken?... no effect. Would answering "No" strengthen/weaken?... HUGE EFFECT (would either break the argument or offer a ton of support). Choose this.

Hope that makes sense/helps!

@ It's swapping between the concept of calendar date "labels" (e.g. "Dec 31") and weekdays (Sunday-Saturday).

The stimulus is suggesting that, if a year doesn't end on a Saturday, there would be some "unlabeled" weekdays between the weekday the year ends on, and the following Sunday, which would become January 1st.

So if a year ended on a Thursday, there would be two "unlabeled" calendar days in between the year-end calendar date label and the next year's "January 1st".

This would cause issues for people that count days sequentially, since that final week of the year could have more than 7 consecutive days when you include the "phantom" weekdays with no date label attached.

Hope that makes sense/helps!

@ said:

89, 91, and 92 have comparatives. Only one I didn't see is 90 which is certainly an outlier as I believe LSAC is still keeping comparatives on the test.

The third passage in 90+ is comparative. (:

@,

@ said:

You can technically do charts in any grouping games, but really the only one you NEED to do charts on would be grouping games w/ repeating variables. IMO

I second this. I kept switching between the two and found that charts seemed to be most beneficial only when almost all of the variables can repeat.

I would suggest trying to default to grouping if you can, just because there's less time taken to set things up and writing sub-game boards on a per-question basis.

PT 42, Game 4 is a good one to try to do using one setup and then the other. I found it to be more intuitive as a grouping game, but other (170+ scorers) said they immediately set it up as a chart.

I think a less-often specified component of games is that you need to be able to flexible with the setups you use. There is no official category for any game on the LSAT. Most of them can be set up in unique ways and still lead you to the correct answers.

... I was approved but it's not ready for me either yet. ):

@ It looks like RC is your worst section, and it's now technically the highest weighted section on the test. If you have limited time to study, I'd focus on RC. Getting main point / author attitude / inference questions correct is more beneficial than practicing a bunch of LG or LR to improve those scores.

For context, RC used to be my worst section, and now I rarely get more than 2 wrong on that entire section; I can mess up an entire game and still get a 170+ as long as my RC is on point.

Hope that helps!

@ said:

For those of you who had two RCs (I did too): do you think you did significantly worse on the second?

My second RC passage was the one that included a GDP comparative, and it was my last section on the entire test. I actually think I did better on that final RC section than the one I had first (I had RC-LG-LR-RC).

@ said:

Hey y'all! Just finished and had 2 RCs as well! LG-RC-LR-RC

1st RC: Winter's case/Native Americans + Don Quixote + Red light shift + GDP

2nd RC: Sentence reduction + Krauss/Universe from Nothing + Some photographer & apertures + Nigerian languages

Interesting. I had RC-LG-LR-RC, but my first RC was the sentence reduction/etc set, and my second was the one that included a comparative GDP passage. 🤷🏻🤷🏻

@ said:

Thank you

No problem! Glad I could help you. :)

@-1 I've used multiple study sources (including The Loophole) and I've learnt something new from each of them. A fresh take on LR might be more beneficial if you can only choose one option.

Also, you'll only be scored on one LR section on the actual test (the experimental section can be any one of the three categories), so hopefully that puts you a bit at ease!

Good luck!

If you have admin access, you should be fine.

The program for the actual exam is called "Support-LogMeInRescue" (different from the software for the Writing Sample). You might be able to find a way to download it through ProctorU or a quick Google search, to make sure there won't be any issues on test day.

Hope that helps!

I think it’s likely also due to having to “switch gears” during a PT, whereas times sections tend to be focused on one of the three section types (if not even more hyper-focused within those section types).

I’d suggest switching up the problem set categories when you take timed sections (i.e. the improvements you see if you do four LG sets in a row won’t necessarily translate to a full PT, because you’re already in the “LG” mindset when you’re doing them).

Doing full four-section PTs for stamina purposes is also paramount, as others have mentioned.

Hope that helps!

Drilling one specific question type is helpful if you’ve consistently gotten that question type wrong on timed PTs/sections over multiple PTs.

Otherwise, I’d “jump around” more, since you’ll have to constantly switch gears on the real test, and knowing which categor(ies) you’re drilling removes the question-type identification step from the equation.

Hope that helps!

It sounds like that particular study guide isn’t the best resource for you. I wasn’t an English or Philosophy major, either… but I haven’t found it to hold me back from doing well on the exam.

To get a better sense of what you mean, what are some of the “literary devices” that the guide references that you’re unfamiliar with?

@ You should diagram/map it on paper unless you can do it in your head with a nearly perfect score every time.

I diagram less than I used to, but as soon as there’s a bit of doubt on a question, it seems worth the extra few seconds to write it out. Sometimes it just helps me to be sure that I’m actively reading and I don’t actually refer to what I’ve written.

When there are more than three variables in a stimulus, or there are a bunch of double-negatives to keep track of, I start writing things down regardless of how well I think I can keep it all in my head.

Hope that helps!

Found this right before my test and it worked: https://www.switchingtomac.com/tutorials/how-to-permanently-stop-dock-icons-from-bouncing/. (:

Yes, I always recommend doing (at least the RC) in LawHub. The minor changes in the interface can really build up if you've never interacted with it.

@ said:

I seem to remember JY saying in one of his videos that passages with 2 parts in RC (usually labeled part A and B ) are no longer common on the LSAT. Am I remembering this correctly?

There have been comparative passages on every test since 52, I believe.

@ They'll make you re-login regardless, so you don't have to fire up LawHub before you start your test. (:

187 or bust (:

@ said:

not sure if this is what you're looking for, but something that has REALLY helped me not waste time (or energy!) is by doing the first 12/13 questions first and knocking out as many as i can there. If i don't get an answer i am 100% confident in the first pass thru the answers i will skip it and move on until i get to the 12/13th question. Then, i work from the last question all the way back to where i left off. this has helped me get to the harder questions and devote more time to them and also helps in making me keener on wrong AC's when i go back to the place i left off!

I do almost exactly this same thing and it's never let me down. I do the first 7-12 questions, then jump to somewhere in the 17-20 zone. Then I decide which I'd like to conquer and which I'd like to come back to.

For me, it controls for the variability in question difficulty (which on newer tests, seems less predictably distributed than older tests were), so I rarely get "stuck" on a specific question early on, and vice-versa.