I'd like to qualify as a Sage. However, my score is from 2002 and not available from LSAC any more in any way that I know of. How can I verify this? Thanks!

Can you give more specifics as to what you struggle with? Its almost impossible to give an answer that is both one size fits all and useful. Personally I'm not a fan of foolproofing (memorizing one game by doing it 10 times just helps you learn that game; I'd rather you do 5 games a couple of times each) and I treat RC as an open book test, not a test of memory, so I have a different take on things that some of the previous replies (and almost 20 years of LSAT experience). Not saying they are wrong, but I personally approach things differently.

I don't have access to the videos so I can't speak to what was done in this one, but remember there is only one right answer, and you don't need to compare. I think about the test makers making questions harder by including a less obvious flaw as the answer. But you won't have two answer choices, one that is minor and one that is major; the four wrong ones are not flaws in the argument. I also don't stress over predicting; I try, and if I don't see it I move on to the answer choices. On this question I'd say, ok, I've got evidence about the number of accidents caused by lefties vs righties, and a conclusion about how likely a lefty or righty is to cause an accident. The problem is I am going "backwards;" if lefties are 10% of the population but then cause 49% of accidents, they are still pretty dangerous. You know the argument is weak, as almost all arguments on the LSAT are, because there is a flaw question asked, so you know there is a gap.

Do you have a question where you think there are both minor and major flaws in the answer choices? I am a firm believer in almost 20 years of LSAT that there is not a "best" answer, but one right four wrong, and therefore there is ONLY one flaw in the answer choices. But I'd be happy to look at a specific one if you have one!

Where are you losing points? In my experience students lose points because they 1) run out of time, 2) answer from memory instead of going back, 3) go back to the wrong place, or 4) go back to the right place and misread. I definitely support a very high level, quick read for structure - remember RC is an open book test. You should be able to answer globals after the first read, and then to use the question stems to go back and find the answers to other questions, instead of trying to memorize EVERYTHING when only about 15% ever gets tested.

Can you give specifics as to WHY you are missing questions? Go through your most recent test and come back with a list of what you missed and why. It's not one size fits all, any more than going to the doctor and saying "I feel bad, give me medicine" will be effective. Also that diagnostic process helps you to be aware of mistakes you are making; focus on the process, not just the numbers. Big difference for example between "I get down to two and pick the right one over the wrong one" vs "I eliminate the right one and pick the wrong one." The more specific you are with your sticking points the more helpful we can be.

Second the question about your goal score. And, can you really not find an hour or so each day to study during your internship? It's not about cramming 10 hours a day, but being consistent. Or does the January test occur only during times you will have to work and you can't get a day off? I can see it not being ideal but am wondering why you can't do both the internship and a three hour test session.

I always tell students to check the schools they are applying to. It doesn't matter if that date is fine for 99% of the schools if it's too late for the one you want to go to. That being said, it should be OK for the vast majority.

58 - The term "NO causal connection" is a big hint in the conclusion - it will be hard to show NO connection, and the evidence just shows imperfect correlation - that one can occur without the other. This is more of what I call a "structural flaw;" the terms will match up but the relationship is what shifts. So, yes, I think that prediction is spot on. You don't have to have a fancy perfect sentence for the prediction, just a handle on what two things you are connecting.

And 62 is somewhat similar - because THESE people don't get pain, it couldn't cause pain in other people. Like saying "because I can eat peanuts without an allergic reaction, peanuts can't possible cause allergic reactions in anyone."