Hi everyone,

I'd like to share a RC strategy that's been working for me.

PLEASE DO NOT SHARE THIS INFORMATION WITH OTHER SITES/ COMMUNITIES.

I'm just trying to give back to this community that has given me much.

Quick note about me:

When I first began the LSAT prep, I didn't think that I needed to focus on RC much, due to my arrogance.I majored in Political Science (Political Theory) and got a master's degree in humanities. I'm very used to critically reading and analyzing dense, complex materials. I also happened to get a perfect score on GRE verbal. I didn't have much trouble with the GRE RC passages, so I thought that my experience would be the same for the LSAT passages.

I was wrong.

When I first timed myself, I realized that I go over 10 min easily per passage, with 1+ wrong. I'd be missing on average 5 questions wrong per section, way over the allotted time. Since then, I have been studying and researching various RC strategies to help me, such as Nicole's webinar, Corey's active reading webinar and @"Cant Get Right" 's, (they were also super duper helpful. I really highly recommend watching them), some discussion postings from here (the posting from @theforms is also very helpful) , some from TSL, Mike Kim's trainer, etc.

After synthesizing my own strategy and using it, I am now consistently 2~3 min under with 0-2 wrong per section.

Here's my synthesized strategy from the various resources above.

Success to RC = a seamless integration of 1. active reading + 2.reading for structure.

My strategy is on how to INTEGRATE the two. I'm not going to go into details on explaining what is each, because there are many resources out there already.

Before I go over my strategy, I will still briefly mention what active reading and reading for structure are.

What is an active reading? It is engaging with the reading as if one is having a dialogue. Think of it as active listening; it is about being totally present, but mindfully detached. We all know some of the crucial techniques to actively read well. Below are the especially effective techniques for me.

Here's an example sentence. "LSAT passages are like paper tigers: they appear to be formidable at first, but get easier over time."

When you encounter the sentence, think about what question would prompt the above sentence as an answer. My question would be, "how difficult are the LSAT passages?" Here, it helps you to articulate the essence of the sentence: It is about the difficulty of the LSAT passages.

Reading for structure

Like I said, I won't get into the details of reading for structure.

Now here's the crucial integration piece I'd like to share with you- how active reading and reading for structure integrate and feed off from one another.

The key is to

Step 1. find the central theme (the key subject matter that forms a basis for an argument, hypothesis, claim, finding, problem) in the opening paragraph and treat each sentence as revealing the aspects of that central theme. Compile the aspects of the central theme as you are reading, and add them on to the central theme. This is pretty abstruse, so I will use an example (PT 32 Passage 4 opening paragraph) to explain.

sentence 1: something about wine. - (hold this in thought as you are reading. Something about wine is the central theme)

sentence 2: wine - distinct. (Here's an aspect of the central theme, wine: it is distinct. try to utilize the active reading techniques mentioned above. What question would the sentence be answering?

sentence 3: wine- distinct b/c of health benefits (there's another aspect. It is distinct. Why? Because it has health benefits)

sentence 4: wine- distinct health benefits- obscured by the scientists.

Do you see what I am doing? I am simply adding on and connecting the previous information to the new information. Going from simply "wine," the central theme as revealed by sentence 1, I now have a more clear picture about this central theme and its aspects by sentence 4.

The paragraph ends here. What do I have now in sentence 4, the last sentence?

The scientists (who? go back to sentence 1) have obscured the healthful benefits of wine that other alcoholic beverages do not have.

Step 2. Find the structure.

What does this compilation of the central theme + its aspects signify? What does it mean? Why did the author write this?

Simply try to articulate using this mantra, "the author is trying to..." with the compilation that you have at the end of the paragraph.

The author is trying to... 1. suggest that wine has a health benefit that other alcoholic beverages do not have (this is the author's position) 2. counter "the scientists."

So think of having 2 mental columns as you are reading.

The left column: find a central theme--> find the essential aspects of this theme in each subsequent sentence and add on to the central theme found. (like what I did above. wine-> wine is distinct -> wine is distinct in x way -> wine is distinct for x way but that distinction has been obscured by Y)

The right column: after each paragraph, think about the final compilation in the left column and simply ask, "why did the author write this?" Why did the author write that "wine is distinct for x way but t hat distinction has been obscured by Y?" The answer to this question = the purpose of each paragraph.

Repeat this for each paragraph.

Using this strategy, I read the passage in about 4:15 min and answered the questions in 4 min. Total: 8:15 and 30 seconds under the allotted time / passage.

Hi I was just watching JY's video on grouping games set up 1.

https://classic.7sage.com/lesson/grouping-game-1-game-board-setup/

I'm wondering why "neither nor" in rule 3 is interpreted as not both, as in S -> /Y , and W->/Y.

Why can't it be interpreted as biconditional? S (-) /Y as in S and Y are always apart.

Is it because unlike the in-out games, a biconditional in this a grouping game means that if, for example, Y is not in 1,then S must be 1? (which would be an incorrect inference given that there are more group options now)

If that's the case, if this game was an in/out game, could I still interpret the rule as a biconditional?

Many thanks in advance

I believe that brushing up on English grammar is necessary for RC and LR success. JY also mentions the importance of referential phrasing and grammar in general in the CC. However, I think that it is beneficial to go beyond the grammar lessons covered in the CC and independently build a strong foundation on grammar. By a "strong foundation," I mean the ability to effortlessly capture the grammatical structure of a sentence: being so skilled to the point that one no longer needs to consciously "identify" the grammatical structure, but the grammatical structure just reveals itself to one at a quick glance. It is like unconsciously seeing the skeleton first and then filling in the flesh.

https://www.englishgrammar101.com/

This free website covers grammar pretty comprehensively, if anyone wants to check it out.

I personally have benefited a lot after seriously studying the grammar using the above website: my speed, confidence and accuracy in LR and RC have improved.

Below are my speculations on why a strong grammar foundation is critical for RC and LR success.

Reading accuracy. Oftentimes, the difference between the correct and the incorrect AC lies in a single word, modifier, or even a verb tense. It is really difficult to capture these subtle shell games, because they seem so random and negligible. However, if we really understand the grammar structure of a sentence, then these differences no longer appear so random. They are no longer a hard-to-find nitty-gritty detail; rather, they become structurally pronounced. For example, if we can identify not just the verb of a sentence, but also the nature of the verb (is it an action verb? helping verb? Combination of both? etc) , then the subtle differences in the ACs stand out. If we saw a helping verb in the stimulus (for example, a qualifying "may") but don't see it in the AC, we can articulate the difference in a grammatical language. We can even anticipate the wrong ACs based on the identified grammar structure.

Confidence and speed. As we all know, the LSAT purposefully uses convoluted stimulus structure. It is testing whether we can capture the "essence" of the stimulus while getting rid of and paying less attention to unimportant details. Therefore, when we are reading a stimulus, we practice identifying the premise and the conclusion and reorganizing the stimulus in a way that the essence of the stimulus is more pronounced.

Reading a sentence is the same thing; the LSAT purposefully employs convoluted sentences to make active reading difficult. However, reading becomes easier when we understand the grammar well. The essence of each sentence is the subject and the verb; they are like the premise and the conclusion equivalent of a stimulus (in terms of the relative importance). Identifying the subject and the verb, and then reorganizing the sentence in terms of the distilled essence-- "who did what" --improves speed and retention, because we know exactly what happened in each sentence. This in turn helps with confidence in RC and LR, because no matter what kind of complicated sentence or difficult topic is thrown at us, we know that we will be able to distill it down to the core and understand what is going on. No sentence is daunting anymore.

If you are struggling with active reading and accuracy in general, you might want to brush up on grammar b/c of these reasons. I certainly struggled a lot with mindlessly reading a paragraph, not retaining anything, and going back to the beginning completely panicking.

Hi!

I was down to answers C and E and wasn't sure why E would be a better choice than C and vice versa.

I did watch JY's video and still have trouble figuring this out.

C- I thought this was supported by line 2-4. Wouldn't "word processors, spreadsheets, legal research systems" be counted as as legal research tools? I interpreted C as the computerized automated legal reasoning systems not being able to fulfill its original expectations and functions.

E- This is supported by line 55-58. However, I thought that the wording "computer specialists" is too narrow to capture the idea in E. That's why I hesitated.

What makes E better supported by C? Because I see both as textually supported.

Please let me know!

Thanks.

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-51-section-2-passage-4-passage/

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-51-section-2-passage-4-questions/

I know that the fellow 7sagers already know what the answer is, but I just wanted to say it one more time, prob just to tell myself (and get some resonance from others too!) that I made a right decision and nothing's wrong with it.

The answer: however long it takes to master the skills necessary and feel confident walking into the exam room that I have and will realize my potential.

I am saying this because i have a lot of LSAT beast friends around. I have a college friend who studied for a month and scored a 179. Another college friend who studied 4 hours a day for 3 months and got 175+. (He, by the way, told me: "If you study for 4 hours a day for 3 months, you will get the score you want." ) I also have another friend in my church Bible studies group who studied for a month, killed it, and got into Yale. So my Bible studies folks think that the ideal time to study for the LSAT is a month, and they are puzzled when I say I need more time than that. LOL... Yes I admit, they hurt my pride a bit.

But that's great, because I learned that being humble is the best way to conquer the LSAT. (and in general to conquer life). It's ok, because they have their own pace to things in life, and I have my own pace. I know what I am capable and not capable of, and I will not define my pace based on other people's pace.

I do need more time. I wanted to take it in June (and might try to if I progress quicker than what I currently anticipate), but 3 months of full time studying isn't going to be enough for me. I need to work on LG a lot more, to the point that I will feel confident and relaxed even when I see an unusual game thrown at me. I want to realize my potential on all sections.

That's the answer for me.

The end.

Hi! Here is an updated strategy from the below post

https://classic.7sage.com/discussion/#/discussion/10749/my-rc-strategy-that-got-me-to-0

What I've found helpful in addition to the original post is thinking about the range of what the central theme CAN and CANNOT do based on what is known and not known about the central theme. This is especially helpful for those difficult curve-breaker Qs (inference Qs, analogy Qs) , because curve-breaker Qs usually test the MEANING of the passage, rather than what's explicitly stated. You can only draw the meaning of the overall passage/ key theme when you understand the range of what is known and then going one step further, inferring what a certain thing can/ cannot do.

How do we figure out what something can/ cannot do? Let's make a very quick example. Say that the passage says that frogs only swim in the water. This is what we know about the frogs. Then we can infer /water -> frog don't swim. Thinking about this range really helps to understand the key features of the central theme and its importance. (When it fails the requirements it needs, it cannot do its job (contrapositive of S-> N) But obviously, when the sufficient condition is met, we don't know anything about whether necessary condition was/is/will be met (but I think it is less relevant in RC. What's more relevant is thinking about the range of necessary conditions and understanding what would happen when those conditions fail)

Here's the bad news: in the RC section, the LSAT doesn't get this explicit about sufficient and necessary conditions. The curve-breaker Qs are difficult for a reason. If everyone can identify the conditions easily, then it wouldn't be a curve-breaker Q. I repeat, the LSAT doesn't usually give you the typical "conditional indicators" (if, when, any, only when, requires, etc) to figure out the sufficient/necessary conditions easily. Sometimes they do. But most of the time, we have to really infer about the necessary conditions based on what the passage says. The passages only HINT at these necessary conditions by omitting something, or by only stating 1 necessary condition (which, by default, would mean that other conditions won't work without this condition)

The good news: Here's the typical way the LSAT presents a necessary condition.

For example, let's take PT62 passage 1. No worries, I won't spoil too specific details for you.

What we do know about lichenometry is

Think about what's known about lichenometry. From there, infer what it CAN and CANNOT do. According to the passage, lichenometry only does certain things within a specific location only using certain materials. It cannot function when something falls outside that location (not specifically the LOCATION, but certain geographical features necessary; if the certain geographic location is missing the material required, then the necessary condition fails and lichenometry cannot do its job.

But you also have to be extremely careful and identify precisely what the necessary condition is. If you generalize too much, then you might also be susceptible to trap answer choices. What lichenometry needs is a certain material. From this, we can only infer that if it misses the material as a whole, it won't be able to do its job. However, if it has certain qualifying conditions that affects the material, then it might still be able to do its job. We must carefully distinguish what must be true from what can be true)

Again, this is what's hard about the LSAT RC passages: the necessary conditions are nowhere explicitly stated. The LSAT does not explicitly say what lichenometry can or cannot do.You have to combine all those info above (what we know/ don't know about lichenometry) ; it is our job to infer the range of function based on what's known, and IDENTIFY PRECISELY what the necessary condition is.

You can also go backwards. Ask the question what CAN it do to backtrack; asking that question helps to summarize what we do know and what we don't)

Also, this strategy applies when the subject (central theme) involves a human being. It is because a human being is usually a central theme in a diversity passage, and the diversity passages are all about what someone/ some social group couldn't do before and how the social structures/ individual consciousness evolved for them to be able to do something.

For example, PT 63, passage 2. (don't worry, i won't spoil the deets)

It is about Kate Chopin. She is compared to other groups of writers. The key to the passage is all about what those groups did/ didn't do and from that inferring what they could/ couldn't do given the social structures and conventions at the time. Pretty much the same thing with PT 62 passage 4 on Jewett.

(I am using PTs 62 and 63 as examples because they are in Superprep II)

Obviously this strategy can be applied to science/ law passages as well.

Law passages- what the law can/ cannot do, theory can/ cannot do, a material can/ cannot do

Science passages- conditions under which a hypothesis would work, conditions under which the central theme (subject being experimented etc) can function

My theory is that knowing what a subject can/cannot do is especially central to understanding the LSAT passages BECAUSE as lawyers we would be basically doing the same thing. What can we do based on this law? What can't we do? What can this law do for us? What can't it do? It is all about inferring about our agency and the range of usefulness/ restrictiveness of the law based on what's known/ not known about the law.

To summarize:

Important /= necessary. Also, /important and still necessary.

Think about LR necessary assumption Qs. Some assumptions are important, but not necessary. Some assumptions are not important, but necessary.

Hope this helps

Oh yeah PLEASE DO NOT SHARE THIS WITH OTHER COMMUNITIES. I want this info to be limited to 7Sage. Thanks

Hi I got the correct answer A, but only through the process of elimination. I am slightly bothered by the AC's somewhat extreme tone, "best."

Can I say that it is justified because the supporting textual evidence (line 10-11) says "preferred?"

I am just wondering in general: when is the extreme tone in the RC inference AC justified, and when is it not?

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-41-section-4-passage-2-passage/

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-41-section-4-passage-2-questions/

I had been studying part-time for the LSAT since last September (10 hours a week) with the goal of taking it in June this year. My full-time fellowship just ended 3 weeks ago, and since then, I have been studying full-time.

I just got a full-time job offer that is scheduled to start in 2 weeks, if I were to take that job offer.

(The job is supposed to be 9-5, but emotionally draining)

Right now, I think I have a pretty good hang of LR (missing 0 to -1 per section)

RC - I think I need to refine some more strategies, but not sure how long that would take. Currently missing anywhere from -0 to -5. It's inconsistent because I don't think I have a good hang of it yet.

LG- I just started to seriously study LG about 2 weeks ago. I am still in the beginner- intermediate stage.

Basically I feel pretty comfortable with RC and LR, but not LG at this moment.

After beginning to study full-time 2 weeks ago, I have been studying 8 hrs per day for 5~6 days a week.

I am wondering if now till June is plenty of time to master LG. LG is my most troublesome section, mainly because I have focused on LR and RC a lot more. Also, although I didn't take the diagnostics test, LR and RC were sections that I felt comfortable with even from the start; LG not so much. Would 2 and a half months be plenty if I were to just focus on LG every day for 5+ hours? I am utilizing the fool proof method. My goal is to score 175+.

I am asking this because if 2 and a half months is not enough anyways, then I might as well take the job offer and take the LSAT in September. I think the worst case scenario is studying full-time for the LSAT till June, don't feel prepared, and push it back till September without a job.

I am tutoring on the side and am making a living for myself as I am studying full-time right now, but I am a bit fearful of going without a full-time job for 6+ months...

What are your thoughts?

I was only able to answer this Q correctly by process of elimination.

I am still unsure why A is right on its own merit, however.

Isn't it too much of an assumption to say that Chopin thinks that their idealization was "misguided?"

I know that Chopin does not "agree" with them and does not "share" their nostalgia.

But how do you infer from "not sharing" to "misguided?"

I may disagree with someone else's opinion, and can still think that someone's opinion is valid/ worth its own merit etc.

"Misguided" just sounds too strong for me and kind of out of character for the LSAT.

Could anyone explain further? Many thanks.

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-63-section-4-passage-2-passage/

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-63-section-4-passage-2-questions/

I was just drilling SA questions and noticed that a lot of difficult SA Qs have red herrings (distractions) in the stimulus. How do you identify them quickly? Are there (or do you have) any effective strategies? Litmus tests?

For ex) pt 33.3.21, pt 35.1.20 have red herrings.

My PT scores took a hit when I initially moved onto recent PTs (60s and up) from the older PTs.

I wondered why. Below is my theory and I was wondering if anyone can corroborate.

(This is limited to LR and RC)

My theory is that the LSAT is testing more on "meaning" of the text as opposed to "literal" understanding. What I mean by "meaning" is something like the range of valid inferences that can be made from the information, whether that is either from a sentence alone, or in combination with other parts of the stimulus/ passage. In the previous LSATs, they did test the meaning, but the correct answer choices also closely matched what's stated in the text quite literally. The wrong answer choices were more obviously wrong, in that they did not match the "text" in very obvious ways. So what I'm saying is that in the older LSATs, you could afford to NOT understand the meaning and still get the question right most of the times. In the more recent ones, you really have to understand the meaning, or else you are in for trouble.

In the more recent LSATs, they really test whether you've understood the meaning of the text. The "meaning" must be matched, as opposed to literally matching the text.

Attractor answers: They are very similar in wording from the text. It is sometimes just one word, one preposition, or something that's so subtle as to almost imperceptible that makes the answer choice wrong. "They sound right," which means that they contain familiar language.

Correct answers: matches in meaning, but not necessarily the language. It's easy to dismiss as wrong because it contains unfamiliar and "not sounding right" language.

So the litmus test for a correct answer is : Does it match the meaning?

There is nothing new about this. But I find myself needing to be especially more careful in the more recent PTs.

I used to have a very precise pre-phrase and looked for certain wordings. They works alright in PTS before 60s. They began to backfire on me on PTs after 60s.

I sensed a burn out/ slump and took off last Thursday afternoon and the entire weekend. Before taking the time off, I think I was getting emotionally involved with the exam. I was getting anxious just by seeing the questions. I was focusing on getting all the details right and was not in the right mindset to see structures. I think when I get anxious, I tend to want to control everything and understand everything perfectly, which is detrimental to succeeding on the LSAT (and anything in life in general...). Now I am in quite a happy place again. Here's a note to a future self (and also to my current self to ingrain these insights) and to anyone who wants to prevent/ overcome a slump. Please feel free to add any more insights.

Anyways, I think the weekend off helped me to really experience all of the 3 above (these are all quite common wisdom, but really believing in them and acting in accordance with them is a different issue). I'm going to keep this in mind going forward.

Please add any more insights to this if you have them!!

Hi everyone!

I am studying full-time (was studying part time, 10 hours a week from last Sept to Feb, and began studying full time last month). I really hope to write in June.

I feel pretty comfortable with LR and RC, but NOT LG...

I've never taken a timed diagnostic, but when I took it untimed last September, I was about 4-5 wrong/ LR section, 4-5 wrong / RC, but l didn't even measure my performance on LG because I was just so lost. Many questions I couldn't do even untimed.

Right now I am going about 0-2 on LR and RC, timed. I just need to have LG under my belt to feel ready...

I did start prepping for LG quite late; I began fool-proofing about 4 weeks ago, for about 4 hours a day.

I did the CC and foolproofed the entire CC and have moved onto the PT stage for LG for the first time today.

I missed 8 on LG for PT62, timed.

I know that I should be foolproofing from now till June. My goal is to solve one PT section a day, foolproof it, and review/foolproof the section I did the previous day. So about 8 games (4 new, 4 old) per day. Is this reasonable? Are there any more tips on this stage of the prep?

I don't mind moving taking the LSAT in September, but because I already feel pretty comfortable with RC and LR, and have 2 months full-time just for LG, I am hoping to at least take a shot at the June one.

Many thanks in advance!!!

Hi everyone,

When I started to study for the LSAT, I was originally planning on taking the June exam, but I wasn't making enough progress on LG and thought I would postpone to September. Even just 3 weeks ago, I was hitting -8 on LG. I don't know what happened, but I woke up one day and things started to "click" : now I am somehow managing -2 per section. I thought it was a fluke, so I PT-ed about 6 sections and they all average about -2-3.

Now I'm in a dilemma: I only have less than a month left till June but I've only taken 4 full, timed PTs (just here and there in between to evaluate progress.) I was saving PTs 40s up for later. (I've used maybe like 5 PTs past 40s to get myself acquainted with the more recent PTs).

**So my question is: should I start full, timed PTing NOW?**On the one hand, I am scoring only 2~3 points below my target score, and if I want to take the June exam, I guess now is the time to start taking the full, timed PTs. Perhaps, I can reach my target score by June by doing so.

On the other hand, I want to really take the time doing more drills. I am still incorporating some concepts and playing around with some strategies in LR and RC. I definitely know the concepts well, but I haven't mastered them. I don't want to move onto the full, timed PT until I feel extremely comfortable with each section. I recently bought the Manhattan Prep books and am finding them pretty helpful in mastering the concepts and strategies. I originally wanted to finish the books first before full-on PTing. I think I need at least a couple of more weeks to really incorporate the concepts.

I think I can score close to my minimum target score in June, but I don't think I would reach my full potential by then. Or who knows? Maybe I will after a full-month of PTing? It's really hard to predict how much I'd improve in a month. Should I take the risk?

I'd ideally wait till September, but given my sleep cycle and insomnia, June is a much better option for me.

Sleep cycle is brutally hard to change for me. Even if I practice sleeping at 10pm and waking up at 5~6am for 2 months, I sort of already know that I won't be able to fall asleep the night before the exam day. Exercise doesn't work. Melatonin doesn't either, and neither does Nyquil.

I'm a bit wary of waking up at 6am to take the 8:30am exam.

So hard to decide... Only if the September exam were also held at noon...

Today is pretty weird. I am usually quite positive and optimistic when studying the LSAT, but today I'm fraught with anxiety and sheer frustration. I think the reason is that when I was working on PTs in 20-30s range, I was doing very well and established all my strategies based on them. Now I started to solve PTs in 60s-70s, and I noticed a score drop and having to rearrange and rethink some of my strategies. Now I am redoing some problems in PTs in 20-30s (the ones I usually do well in) and I notice a time lag and anxiety as well. My mind is not focusing at all. LOL...

Right now when I am reading, I have this urge / anxiety to comprehend every single thing I am reading, to be in control of everything. I don't think I've been this frustrated with the LSAT before. Usually, when I am frustrated, I don't mind much and I still keep a positive attitude. Today is just a disaster.

Anyone know a way to get out of this slump?

Hi, I haven't taken the exam yet, (my first time will be December), so please take this post with a grain of salt.

I know that many of the September takers under-performed. Although I haven't taken the LSAT myself, I know that my PT scores used to drop dramatically when I get nervous. I've been developing strategies for a while now to address this universal question: how can one be nervous/anxious/feel pressured and still perform well?

I think there are many outside resources, like meditation, exercising, positive thinking. But these are to set up one's mindset for the test day; but what if something goes wrong during the actual exam? What if meditating for 10 seconds during the exam doesn't help?

So I developed some strategies that I can fall back on.

Let's first think about what happens when we get nervous. From the fight or flight perspective, if we are in the "fight" mode, I think we develop an urge to move as fast as we can, to CONTROL the situation as quickly and much as we can. This is absolutely detrimental to performing well, especially for the LSAT, because LSAT rewards picking up on subtleties that can only be noticed when we are completely engaged and immersed with the text. Engaging, and not controlling, is the key. Similarly, if we are in the "flight" mode, we are probably panicking, not knowing what the next step should be. This is also detrimental, because LSAT tests what we can infer out amidst of uncertainty.

Regardless of whether we are in the "fight" or "flight" mode, we stop engaging with the text, which I think is the biggest reason for under-performing.

So the question becomes how to engage with the text when we are nervous. I think this is such a crucial question to performing well, but no one really discusses about it. The key is to internalize a consistent process that would force us to engage, so there is no room for your urge for control (or panic) to take over. The urge or panic will be there when we are nervous; This is out of our control. What is within our control is how we respond.

I'm sure that many of us normally engage with the writer, but lose the focus when we get nervous, because being nervous means that the attention is shifted back to us ( and how we are feeling). Below strategies help me to do shift my attention back to the author on a consistent basis.

For LR:

For example, if it is a scientist speaking, I take a moment to imagine a scientist talking about some study and hypothesis. If it is a mayor, it is probably something about a city policy and its effects. This is a part of prepping myself to listen and immerse with the speaker. This is helpful because as I am reading the stimulus, I can quickly identify and predict the function of the sentences. Oh, here is the study. So where is the hypothesis? So on and so forth.

When I start a new LR question, I slow down, doing the following:

Doing this might be counter-intuitive in the beginning, but with practice, this becomes second-nature. I can usually do all four in a couple of seconds (it's really more like a spark of thought), as they are not really a separate task. It's literally just stopping for a moment to orient myself. These strategies help me because I force myself to focus on the author and engage with the text and prepare my mind to be that way for every single question. I imagine a scene that the author created for me, give a personal response, think about why s/he wrote it, and capture it in my mind. The strategies also help me to manage the stimulus. I am not trying to control it; I am trying to break down the complicated information and sort it out into manageable pieces.

That way, I don't answer 10 questions mindlessly only to realize too late that I was going too fast.

I have similar strategies for RC and LG as well, but the philosophy is the same. It is finding the way to consistently engage with the text, so that the immersion beats and prevents nervousness.

The above strategy is just an example of what works for me. I am sure that everyone's strategies look different.

But I am writing this because I think we are overlooking that the half of the battle is psychological, and finding a way to be present and engage with the writer is probably the solution.

Also, please share any insights you have, too!

Thanks :)

I registered for the June exam long time ago and was planning on postponing till September, but it seems like I'd be 90% ready by June. I'm scoring about 3 points below my target score. I know that ideally speaking, I should be pt-ing 3 scores above my target score to be "ready." Realistically speaking,

I don't think I will arrive there by June, because the last bit of the improvement usually takes the longest. ( like being on a diet; it is always the last 5 pounds that's the hardest to shed...and takes equally much time as shedding 20 pounds in the beginning... Lol)

But I am kinda worried about the Sept exam because I have a chronic insomnia and I feel nervous taking the morning exam. I know for a fact that I won't fall asleep. No amount of exercise, sleeping cycle correction will help me. I just know that much about myself. Nyquil is out of option, because I feel dizzy and foggy the day after.

Should I take the June exam just in case, since it is in the afternoon and I'd likely to have slept better? And maybe taking it in June will give me some perspective/insight for Sept?

Hi!

I noticed that if I miss a Q in RC, then the Q missed is an Infer Perspective type Q - Inferring either Author's opinion/attitude or that of others. This is kinda odd, because I do well with LR MSS type questions.

I must be doing something wrong with these RC inferring questions. Does anyone have a good strategy/methodology in approaching inferring perspectives type Qs?

Much appreciated!

What are some of your strategies to get excited for this section?

I enjoy the process of studying for LR and RC, but not LG.

I think I naturally enjoy anything that has to do with literary comprehension, but LG reminds me too much of algebra and math, which I've hated all throughout my life.. haha

I also think a part of it is my pride: I've excelled in humanities but not really in math, relatively speaking. So I would work extra hard, if need be, to maintain my self identity that I am good at critical reading. With LG, I have no such existential motivation.

any way to change this preconceived notion?

When I open up the page to fool-proof for LG, I think ... "Uh....it's that time again..."

Any tips?

I wanted to share a strategy that's been working for me.

When I do BR, my question isn't "am I comfortable with this question?". My question is rather, "did I tackle this question in the most efficient way possible?" Because in a lot of cases, I might be comfortable with a question, have gotten it right, but have spent way more time than needed. Also, there's usually a reason why I spent more time than needed: I might be lacking some crucial skills.

I time myself not just the overall time spent on a section, but the time I took for each question. If I thought a question was easy, but spent over 1:25+, I didn't solve that question as efficiently as possible. If the reason, for example, is because I didn't identify the conclusion in the most precise way and had to go back to the stimulus, that tells me that I still need to work on identifying the conclusion precisely. I need to improve on that skill.

So here's what I do.

Repeat

I think this helps me to

GRANTED, there are still some questions that I have absolutely NO IDEA about even after BR.

Those require the most analysis.

But usually my actual and BR scores are pretty similar.

FYI tho, this strategy takes A LONG TIME in the beginning. Sometimes I take 3~4 hours BRing a single section. But I think it's worth it.

Many logic games utilize alphabet orders to differentiate a variable set (ex) say, variable set 1 consists of JKLM and 2, NOP...etc) but I often confuse which alphabet belongs to which variable set. For example, when I think of the variable N, I have to look back and forth my main diagram and the variable to see where N belongs. This is an incredible waste of time.

I am trying to memorize the alphabetical order so well to the point that, when I see a variable, I know exactly where in the variable set it belongs. To add to my dismay, I've learned Russian in college, and I sometimes confuse Russian with English alphabet. For example, in Russian, "r" is pronounced similarly to "g." Sometimes, without even being aware of it, I would write down g in the main diagram instead of r...

Anyways, does anyone have tips for quickly categorizing and memorizing which alphabet belongs to which variable set? (other than memorizing the alphabetical order again)

I was retaking a 171 I got on the June, 2018 LSAT for better scholarship opportunities and also to at least meet LSAT median at HYS. I was telling myself that I’d stop retaking if I meet 173, and that is the score I got!

I’d like to thank 7Sage, and also personally JY because attending JY’s BR sessions for PT85 (September 2018 exam) was really helpful to me.

I went by the username “TP” by the way. Haha.

For the November exam, I went -1 on RC and -3 combined on LR.

I actually went -2 on RC and -4 combined LR when I took the September exam as a PT the week before the November exam.

I really think that attending JY’s BR sessions contributed to reducing the mistakes by 2. I volunteered to answer the questions as much as I could during the sessions, and that really paid off! I felt like I knew all the tricks in the books and walked in to the test center very confidently.

I highly recommend attending JY’s BR sessions (of the most recent LSAT administration) the week before your real LSAT.

Ok, I might be exaggerating when I say "punish prephrases," but I noticed that the prephrases, especially for the flaw/ assumption type questions, don't work as well in the recent PTs ( 70s up) compared to the older ones (the ones we used for CC). Also, prephrases make me to be a bit inflexible in considering answer choices (I am too quick to eliminate those that do not fit my prephrase), which hurts me as a result.

Most of the prephrases I used for older PT flaw Qs/ assumption Qs were right on, so I just picked the right answer quickly and moved on. With the newer PTs, I see that my prephrases attract me to trap answers. It seems better to leave the AC that matches my prephrase well as a contender (as opposed to choosing it and moving on) and REALLY carefully consider every other answer choice. I found that I do better in the recent PTs when I don't prephrase at all. Rather, I focus on EXACTLY what the conclusion is and stay open minded. Then, I see if the answer choice weakens/ negates the conclusion (in case if the Q type is flaw/ weaken for example).

Maybe prephrasing isn't to fault at all; maybe the recent PTs just punish those who are inflexible and expect the answer choice to have a certain form. Or maybe I don't have a solid prephrasing skill, but wasn't punished at all in older PTs, but am in newer ones.

Either way, does anyone else perceive a similar trend? What do you think about the utility of prephrasing in general?

Hi, I BR-ed this question, read the explanations from various websites and sources, and this question is still not making much sense to me.

The correct choice D has "probably" in it, which when negated is "not likely." Doesn't "not likely" still leave room for the support in the stimulus to stand? I know that it weakens the support, but is merely weakening it the same as being "necessary?"

If the AC had the word "some" instead of "probably," I would have chosen D in a heartbeat.

If negating the assumption still renders the support possible, I am wondering what makes it "necessary."

How is this AC different from, for example,

Stimulus: Kofi is a cat. Therefore, she is happy.

Here, an assumption "all cats are happy" would be an SA, but not a NA, because even if we were to negate "all cats are happy," we are left with "some cats are happy," which still makes the support plausible.

Here's my guess at the difference, but please critique me:

15 is directly targeting the author's interpretation (the conditional statement directly applies to the author's interpretation in this case)

However, in the above cat example, we wouldn't know if the particular cat "Kofi" would belong to the "some cats" group and therefore the effect of the negated assumption is unclear & doesn't weaken?

If that is the case, if answer choice D were to be worded as "Behaviors common to people of widely disparate culture probably have genetic predisposition to those behaviors" also be necessary? why or why not?

I would really appreciate any advice!

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-68-section-2-question-15/

I am thoroughly confused by this question.

The correct answer just explains why TI remains ordinary. But why does that even need an explanation?

I thought the discrepancy is why TI is more popular than M despite TI being ordinary. Hence, wouldn’t the correct answer have to strengthen the mitigating reason for why TI is more popular?

The premise only talks about how TI’s location attracks customers, but it doesn’t address if that makes TI more popular than M. So I was looking for an answer that would suggest that the location is a significant factor in determining TI’s popularity, significant enough to render its ordinary food less relevant.

Admin note: edited title

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-82-section-4-question-21/