That's a tough one. What exactly were you averaging on your last five PTs before the exam, and how many missed in each section? In particular, were your LG and RC scores on the real exam average for you or high?

My next question is, how closely did you mimic test conditions in your PTs? (Five sections, breaks, distractions, analog watch, wooden pencils, no food until break, etc.). If you weren't strict, be strict going forward. If your PTs were really rigorously simulated, then I'd try doing 6-section PTs or even back to back PTs to build your endurance and make yourself an LSAT machine (not just a LG machine or an LR machine or a RC machine, which it seems like you already are). If you felt really confident content-wise, then by process of elimination it's the test-ness of the test that's getting you. So I'd focus on crushing that. Make sitting down to take a half-day test just an ordinary Saturday for you (as grim as that sounds).

Ok, ok, I won't retake! Thanks for the vote of confidence, guys. I appreciate it. @ don't worry, I definitely will be putting every effort into my app!

Thanks, guys! I am leaning toward keeping the score. @ good point about retaking to get off the waitlist. That would be what, the February exam? June?

I had a black and white photo and had no issues getting in. Good luck!

I used to make bubbling errors fairly frequently until I switched to bubbling individually. So, I only stop to bubble after two pages in LR, but I look back and forth (saying "9.C" "10.D" "11.E" individually in my head as I bubble). I don't even mess with memorizing patterns of letters. Maybe that would help you. As others have said, it's worth the time to bubble correctly!

@ I can't take credit...got that out of a quick skim of the Powerscore Logical Reasoning Bible. But glad it's helping! They didn't say to do the conclusion first, so you're right on track. I just happened to find that more intuitive.

@ No problem, good luck!

Thanks, guys! I'll put in employment on my apps (as well as my resume).

@ I'm not Alejandro, but I've found that starting off by matching individual parts of the argument to eliminate answers speeds up the parallel reasoning considerably. I usually start with the conclusion. I mostly scan for mismatches between the level of certainty/proportion. For example, if the stimulus has "most __ are __" and any of the questions has "all __ are __" in the corresponding part of the argument, then that's out automatically. Or if the stimulus says "__ will __" and the answer has "probably" in there, then that's out. Focusing on pieces of the argument can typically eliminate at least two or three answer choices. It also makes the whole thing less overwhelming. Then you can actually read the two or three remaining options and evaluate them more carefully without wasting tons of time.

Hey guys, I misread a direction on a logic game and am trying to figure out if it's the experimental section. I think it might be the oil paintings one, which others have identified as experimental, but I can only really remember the gamepieces. It was Ipex (Ibex?), H something, and G something in one category and S, P, and R in another. Is that the oil paintings one (thus experimental)?

Echoing everyone else's advice but let me add my own experience to put you at ease. I started off with similar scores to you in the beginning of my prep. I had a breakthrough after a few weeks to 174, then a bunch of variation over a couple months before breaking into the high 170s. I averaged 178 on my last 4 tests and am taking the LSAT on Monday with high hopes! So my point is don't worry about a plateau, even a high plateau. You can and will go higher with systematic practice. Logic games are the low hanging fruit, as I'm sure you know. With reading comp and logical reasoning I found it helpful to do a written review after every PT with an explanation of why I missed each question and a summary at the end saying what I needed to change in my approach. Then I'd reread the summary before each PT. If you're bombing RC sporadically, pay attention to what was different on that test (did you lose track of time? misread questions? get misled by tone when the question was about content?) Just my two cents. Good luck!

Thanks for your updated input, everyone. @ you are probably right that I shouldn't assume I'd get a higher score. That's a good point. My thinking was that I'd have three more months to prep, but how much good will that really do when what screwed me up was a bubbling error? It's probably not realistic to expect to improve my testing average substantially from a 177. Anyway, I'm going to mull it over a bit but will probably at least apply and see what happens.

Hey all, I'm reviving this thread to say thanks to you guys! I didn't retake, and I got into Harvard, Stanford, and Chicago, and I got the Hamilton at Columbia. I was waitlisted at Yale, but that's a real crapshoot anyway. So you all were right. Thanks for talking me down when I was at my craziest! I'll be attending Stanford in the fall and can't wait. Good luck to you all! And feel free to message me if I can help with any questions about the application process (for anyone still in it).

Ugh thanks @. But why not just take the September exam if I'm going to retake? I could submit my application in September, let them waitlist me if they want, then have the second score come through in October (if they even get to my application before then). Excuse my ignorance if I'm missing some pieces here...I've had LSAT tunnel vision, so I'm just starting to worry about these logistics.

Thanks, @, good point. And if anyone is still following this thread at all...I just realized I made a bubbling error!!! I went back to erase my answer to godd*mn babbler question (putting the correct answer) and accidentally changed the section over. Which brought me down from a 177 to a 174. Anyone with infinite patience care to update their advice? Still let it ride?