Ok thank you guys for the input! If I fall short, I'll just shoot for February and cut my losses til the following cycle to apply.
So, I will be taking my first official test this October. If and when I get my score back and I do not feel comfortable with the score, should I still power through practice tests in between the time of the test and the day I get my score back?
A lot of us will probably come out thinking they didn't get the score they anticipate. In other words, should I continue studying after October 3 as if I'm planning on taking the December LSAT?
Both of your input really helped out a lot. Thanks!
Hello all,
Something I'm having a little difficulty with is differentiating "most strongly supported" vs "most helps to justify" questions.
I know that for MSS, we need something that helps validate the premise and/or conclusion. I know it doesn't have to make the conclusion 100% valid (although it can).
For MHTJ, it seems like it's nearly the same. This one is more on the lines of a SA where we need to find the gap between the premise and conclusion. Basically when I see these two types, I tend to attack it the same way.
Can anyone help me clear up some fog? Thanks!
Wow when I read your post, I was like "That's EXACTLY where I'm at, plan, issue and all". @immd0909391 I am also struggling with the how I should go about dealing with RC, whether I should attack 3 or 4 passages. I tend to only have 5-6 minutes left at most when I reach the last passage.
I haven't had any real issues with the logic games, getting on average 0 to -2 wrong. I'm not sure what types of logic games were on that specific PT, but I would definitely drill the ones you bombed on. If you did horribly on a sequence grouping game, for example, I would follow 7sage's approach and just do random sequence grouping games over and over. Get clean copies and just drill, drill, drill. Also, I would suggest drilling some rare games as well.
As for everything else, I would like to know the same!
Princeton review has a book of 400 of the hardest questions on the LSAT.
@connollykev567.janson35
Thank you so much for the tidbits. I totally agree that intuition will take time. As long as I'm in the ballpark, it's a good start for me. Just got to keep on drilling and building that intuition. Thanks guys
Hello 7sagers,
I'm currently finished with the curriculum and have taken 15 PTs with BR and I've plateaued around 157 with my BR as high as 171. One issue I have is the lack of ability to predict one or multiple predictions, or even a general prediction before I reach the answer choices. I want to be able to predict the right answer choice and then be able to find the one I predicted and have it right there glaring in the answer choice.
I noticed reading the stimulus SLOWER has made it slightly easier to predict answers because reading it slower made it easier to grasp the understanding of the stimulus, but more times than not, I still can't predict answers the way I should be.
I've drilled almost all of the Cambridge sets and now just drilling practice LR sections. My goal is a 161 and I'm currently enrolled for the October exam. Any thoughts?
I was in the same boat as you guys, but what better to do then get on a boat and fish to rid the logical fallacies that clouded my mind during burnout!
OK I figured that was the only way about it. Thanks.
I think I might have seen a post somewhere about this but I can't seem to recall where it was. I bought the Cambridge packets by section type and I've been focusing on my weaknesses. I'm taking a break from PTs for a few days to recalibrate some fundamental issues. These packets are so helpful. Im finally seeing a general pattern! Anyways, I want to take it a step further and drill some full length LR practice sections. I saw someone posting how to cut/paste and create individual ones, like the way @974 mentioned. Is there an easy way to go about this? If not, is there a way I can buy old LR sections from prep tests 1-35? Or just redo LR sections from preptests I've already completed. Any thoughts?Side note @974 and @2543.hopkins You guys are awesome
I chose D and I can see SORT of how it's wrong. It baited me to choose D because it mentioned "threat". I learned from Powerscore (the only thing I really learned) is if a 'new' term is presented in the conclusion that's not in the premises, then it must be present in the answer choice. The somewhat convoluted terminology in A that represents "threat" made me gloss over it too quick. Am I right in any of this?
I see. I'm on my 2nd read of the Trainer. Thanks for your help!
Does anyone know why it varies from person to person? Some practice tests I've noticed quite a few miscellaneous questions popping up. Also, on some of the tests, I'll get all of them right and on other PT's, I'll miss quite a few. Is there a proper way of sorting these question types out in greater detail? I think how it's categorized as "Misc." is too broad for me to expand my understanding. Any help would be awesome! @2543.hopkins
Premise: SA m→VCP→GAR
Conclusion: GAR ←s→ F
This was pretty time consuming. However, what was tricky was: "Not all skilled artists are famous". Interpreted as: not (SA →F) To get this to fit, you need to know basic negating conditional statements logic. Keep the sufficient, the arrow is interpreted as "and", which also means "some" then the necessary condition (F) is negated. New statement: SA ←s→ /F or /F←s→SA
Put that into the statements:
/F←s→SA m→VCP→GAR
Conclusion: GAR ←s→ F
Now, as you can see the F and /F dont match and you cant negate "some" statements. This is the key to getting it right: /F←s→SA is the same as SA‑m→F. if not all of the SA are NOT famous, then most of them have to be.
So i take SA‑m→F and I know based on the premises I know SA‑m→GAR (IF you don't get this, you have to go back to basics).
SA‑m→F (Answer choice E)
SA m→GAR
Two most statements in necessary gets this: F←s→GAR (Conclusion)
Hello all,
I tried to post a photo of my idea to save copies, but failed! This really helped me keep track of my progress for the Fool proof method and has been working really well. New games have become a lot easier. Anyways, here's my layout:
Ex. On a full LG section, I drew a chart under each game as follows:
# Date # of Mins. Out of ( )
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
On the last game I expanded my chart:
# Date # of Mins. Out of ( ) Total time (35) Total Out of ( )
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
I then cut scratch paper in half to use as my space for game boards and to place my answers on. If you want to go to great lengths, you can write out answer choices on the scratch sheet, so you can track what you eliminated without writing on the master copy. If someone posted this idea already, oh well! Enjoy
I was having a tough time going through several of the flaw sets on 7sage. It was all over the place. The advice I took from @jy-ping by supplementing them into the course made a drastic improvement. They go hand-in-hand. Don't be stingy and spend the extra $40 on it. It will do wonders to your score. I'm coming from 136 to high 150s now and still working through it. I even decided to cancel my June 2015 to October on the measure of confidence through both courses combined. Thanks J.Y Ping and Mike Kim for the excellent advice so far.
That was a great way of looking at it. The set of answer choices were very tricky and made me think way too much as I was scanning through the answers. By the time I got to E, I lost where the argument went wrong. But E clearly picks out the very obvious flaw. I have to get out of the habit of being persuaded by attracted wrong answer choices.
I felt the same way as you on C. JY is right....all the words used are mixed up and is there to mess with our heads.
Ex. Nucleomorphs came from (originated) an organism (lets say: dinosaurs) who endosymbiotically engulfed (devoured) a chlorarachniophyte.
Does that have to be the case? No..It's too broad and simply misses the point.
@mahdiall408 You can easily boost your score by at least 4 points by using 7sage's approach on LG drill method. Print out all of the different game types (in/out, sequencing, grouping, etc) Do them over and over. Easiest section to improve IMO.
I followed that approach and now I get only -1 or -2 on regular PTs. 7sage's approach to LG improvement really works..
I feel you are pressuring yourself due to limited time til test day. Like many authors on this forum, it's burnout, confidence errors and overstressing as the test is approaching.
Trust me, I feel your pain. If you are not even hitting your goal on PTs and achieving gains in your BR, postpone the test.
How much time are you spending on BR? BR is the only way you can really make considerable gains.
Release your stress on some ice cream.