@ said:

Mate i been studying for months and i think i got worse, idk for others its instant and for most its gradual. at least that's what i hear

Have you gotten any private tutoring? 7sage's strategies are not always the best

The LSAT is ultimately like an IQ test. People who are gifted in the cognitive areas they test will be able to score decently on their initial diagnostic and improve easily and fast-- for these people 3 months is plenty of time to prepare. People who are more average in these areas will need to grind for improvement--but it can definitely happen.

I am luckily gifted in RC and LR--but nonetheless I started with -6 and -4 on them respectively. I am not gifted at all in AR, and I started with a -12. Quickly, I was able to eliminate my wrong scores on RC and LR. Within 3 weeks I'd say, I could pretty safely get 2 or less wrong on each RC and LR section which brought the score to 160-163 or so. Then the slow grind to improve AR began. I can usually go about -4-7 on AR now, which has taken me over the 10 point improvement on my 155 diagnostic (probably a score from 165-169 depending how lucky I get on the curve and the section). Still though, that's not a ton of improvement for the work I've done.

We just have to work with the cognitive skills we are given. Improvement beyond your default ability will be slow and you have to be strategic about how you cultivate it--you're not just going to gain a lot of working memory overnight for AR. I think that, given enough time, anyone could probably score quite highly. Unfortunately, most of us are on a schedule hahaha

This isn't a race mate, delay it and make the year worthwhile, I'm sure you won't look back at it regretfully if you are judicious with your time and improve your life/get some great experiences/make yourself a stronger applicant over that year. Do some volunteer work too--a lot of people I've talked to haven't gotten around to that yet.

@.kinghockey that one seems to have been real from what I can see but not totally sure

@ Same as me. Exact same test it seems like. I felt rushed on the RC compared to usual--but I probably did okay. I wasn't unsatisfied with any answers at a cursory glance. I'd guess I went at least -2/3 though, no chance for a sweep. I have very similar thoughts on our AR section.

Wicker, I found it had a few more tricky ones than I was expecting, but I also know I performed like shit today. I've scored -1,-0,-4 on RC LR AR in practice and there's no shot of that today. I agree that the Sisyphus question was hard, if that's implied in your comment. Don't remember what they had to say about sweden. Is that the imported goods one? I probably went -3,-2 or-1 on it. My problem on the LSAT is I'm borderline useless on AR and it drags my score down like an anchor. I score at like a 130 pace on them sometimes.

@ Me to bro, me too. I almost cancelled my score then and there. I'd be lucky to scrape -12 on the first one i had.

@ your first LR is the real section. I also had the LG with the fencing competition, really hoping that's the real one as I certainly did much better on it

Hello, I just finished. Was the Logic games section with the fencing competition experimental or real?

I work with a tutor who scored 177 and has tutored many people, and he doesn't even believe in blind review like 7sage says to do it. He says to go through it the first time without a time limit, and learn the patterns that are common to these questions. Eventually, once you are cognitively wired for it, the speed will come. Review is helpful, but theres no reason to rush the first one months before your LSAT and then only learn on your review. I went from -12 to -3-6 using that strategy.

It's like learning to play chess. Why would you start by playing 1 minute or 5 minute chess and then analyzing the hell our of your games? It makes no sense. You play 15 minute chess first, analyze those games, and eventually you know the moves well enough to play bullet well too

LR is my best one. When I started I was getting 12 wrong on AR, 6 on RC and 4 on LR for about 155 or so. Right now I get between 0-2 wrong on LR and RC. My overall score depends on my AR section, some are better than others, but I don't feel it's arrogant to think I could score mid 160s to low 170s. In percentile that's high, though many on here are well above that

It's literally different not only for every session but for every individual test taker. They have a huge amount of questions to test. Yours only has a 33% chance of being the same type as mine, and even if it is the same type, it won't have the same questions most likely.

@ said:

LG games are the best, snowflakes ruining the LSAT. They should make a specific exception for blind students instead.

The reasoning in this argument is most vulnerable to the criticism that the argument:

A) is fucking awesome.

They're still going to have an AR section, it just won't require diagramming. No guarantee that people will find this easier, and there's not a wealth of practice tests in whatever new format they will have. The games are easy if you can get the inferences up front, hard if you miss them. Extremely trainable.

And why is the argument vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it is awesome? Wouldn't that "most strongly support"?

I'm feeling pretty confident now. I just want to do it. I hope it's an extra RC or LR but I feel prepared for an extra AR if i have to. I actually sometimes do better on a second AR section. I'm just dreading having to do all the summer work for my honours theses between the 17th and the start of September

most recent = most like the next test