Thanks for replying, everyone!

I was looking at PT43, Section 2, Question 21 about the curator and magazine.

The stimulus refers to "most residents", and the right answer choice appears to paraphrase that as "public opinion". I got confused about that and wanted to hear your insight.

@

Thanks so much for the helpful tips. I will incorporate them into my prep!

@

Looking back I may also be able to give you more specific feedback. Generally speaking, are you struggling with games with few available game boards and big inferences, or games that are wide open that are usually just guess and check over and over again?

Thank you. I struggle with both :(. But I think I struggle with the big inference games more, because when I fail to make those inferences, I freeze through the whole game.

I struggle with wide open games too, because I am usually anxiously wondering if I missed a critical inference that makes that game actually limited, as opposed to open.

I'm aiming for -4 average.

Thank you so much for your advice, guys!

Hey!

I did the question and I agree with you about the questionable assumptions some AC's make.

B,C,D appear to attack a premise (a rare thing too).

A is clearly the best answer but I agree with you that E doesnt really weaken. C seems too weak to be a weakener. "Often not being used" doesnt mean it's unnecessary.

Recent questions don't

usually look like this (Im so glad!!).

But I would say Weaken/Strengthen Except questions even nowadays can have some of the trickiest ACs. Sometimes we have to do our best and pick the best AC.

PT82.4.20 is a tricky LEAST Strengthen question that is logically stronger than this question but nevertheless requires us to compare ACs before choosing our best answer.

Thank you so much, David!

It is super helpful to read about your general approach and I hope to find my groove in logic games too.

Recently, I got so stuck on game 2 (where I spent 14 minutes on that game alone and still missed 3 questions) that I had less than 16 minutes for the last two five-star games (dinosaurs and awards!!).

I should have skipped Game 2 at 8 minute mark, or even earlier. Game 2 is labeled a level 2 game but I couldn't figure out the key inference and the limited scenarios and ended up brute forcing through all answer choices. I made mistakes while brute forcing too. :'( Hopefully in the next PT, I will be wise enough to skip a game if it doesn't click within 5 minutes.

Thank you!!

Hi!

What is your goal score?

I think the consensus in this community is that whether to delay your exam depends in large part on whether your average PT score (last fresh 5 PT's taken timed, under strict test conditions) is at least as high (preferably higher) than your goal score. If it is, take it. If not, consider delaying.

I am a little cautious about giving this advice because you mentioned not wanting to taking an LSAT digital exam. But I still think it is best to take the exam when you are ready (average PT score at least high as your goal score).

You also mentioned that people applying to a T14 school should only take LSAT once. I don't think that's true. Many people take it multiple times. It is best if you can pull off your best score at one try, but the highest score is usually what matters.

Given that you plan on attending law school in 2020 or 2021, you have a pretty flexible timeline. It is okay to take it digitally if you need to, so try not to pressure yourself thinking that June 2019 is the last chance.

I've also pushed back my exam many times (5 times actually). Each delaying felt really bad. My family got worried that I would never take the exam, but I was more than willing to face the test day once I felt comfortable with my PT average.

Hope you found this a little helpful :)

@ said:

For example, in PT55.1.7, a weaken phen/hypo question, answer choice E seems to provide an alternate explanation but is actually consistent with the conclusion, and is thus a trap wrong AC.

What alternative explanation do you think E) provides?

E) is an incomplete answer choice. If it had said, worker safety conditions in all industries improved due to some altnerative event, that would weaken the argument. A correct Weaken AC should clearly point us in the direction of weakening. This answer choice doesn't give us any direction.

But back to PT 61.2.11, AC A is the right AC. But how do we know it's actually an alternate explanation? Can't it also be consistent with the explanation? Can't it be the case that drivers feel possessive of their parking space and are also less quickly able to perform maneuvers with their car?

Yes, possibly it is consistent. Remember that "Weaken" answer choices do not have to completely destroy the original argument. As long as you provide some altnernative explanation to a phenomenon, that would weaken the argument. Notice that this AC clearly points us in the direction of weakening by suggesting another explanation.

You can also compare PT55.1.7's right answer choice with that of PT61.2.11. The correct AC for PT55.1.7 could also be consistent with the argument. A government official defending the effectiveness of the legislation could respond to AC A) by saying, "Yes, sure. Tech innovation has helped improve worker safety conditions in high-risk industries. But remember that it was OUR legislation that provided funding for that innovation". Weaken AC's only have to provide some bit of extra info that could potentially provide an alternative explanation.

In sum, how do you tell the difference between trap wrong AC's that seem to provide "alternate explanations" but are actually consistent with the original hypothesis in the stimulus, and real right AC that are actually alternate explanations that weaken the argument.

Look for the cues for a sense of direction. If an AC can go either way (either strengthen or weaken or do nothing), then that is probably incorrect. Correct Weaken AC's can be consistent with the argument, but they should pose a clear question against the validity of the conclusion.

Hey!

I just wanted to tell you i am in a similar situation as you and want to encourage you to keep hanging in there!

My diagnostic was 153, which was taken February 2017. My PT scores fluctuate, but it's basically at 157. It is very, very disheartening to see very little improvement in the score although Ive been doing nothing but studying for the lsat for the past 13+ months. Some mornings i wake up with a mini panic attack blaming myself for not having made sufficient improvement.

Like you, my BR score is in the 170's. The huge gap is there and like many others who posted above, I think it is a good place to be. We need to be more exposed to the material and be comfortable with the language of the test. BR process is where we become closer friends with the LSAT writers' logic and language. So lets keep BRing in good faith.

Games are my nemesis at the moment. Im foolproofing again to get familiar with the section. Ive been trying to befriend it for many months, but im not there yet. Hopefully i will gain some points here, although its taking me longer than it takes for most people.

The great wisdom in lsat prep is that time follows accuracy. I was so discourged that it wasnt the case for me because i was at a loss for analyzing stimulus under time pressure. The skills I used for the BR process didnt seem to translate into the timed sections where i felt i was solving questions on a whim. But i think we just need to be exposed to more patterns in the exam and flex our brain muscles so that they immediately recognize the logic no matter what content is thrown at us. With practice, i really believe that we will be able to efficiently and systematically attack LR questions in timed sections.

I remember i was so scared by certain recurrent subject matter such as heart disease, economy, paleontology that i even grouped questions by subject matter to review them. There are indeed recurrent topics in LR and to minimize stress and panic, getting familiar with them has helped me with confidence when im doing a timed section or PT.

Im honestly trying everything to get better at this exam lolol.

Lets keep hanging in there! In particular, let's rejoice in gaining small and meaningful victories in LG each day. You can do it!!!!!!!!!

@ said:

I'm kind of in the same position as you, where I've gone -4 LR section 1 and -7 LR section 2 on my last two PTs, and -4/-8 the time before. I have actually put a pause on PTing so that I can tackle the core issues here. I'm working on nailing specific question types, which is going to be more impactful than taking PTs over and over. If I can get one question type down, and that happens to get me another question or two right consistently, why not do that? Did you purchase a 7Sage course? You can use the Analytics page to see where your opportunities are.

Thank you! I'm quite uncomfortable with Parallel Reasoning question types, so I plan on drilling those. I agree that it's a good idea to focus on some core issues instead of taking PT's and PT's. I use the Analytics to check which QTs give me most trouble. Thank you! :)

@ said:

Generally speaking I never find an LR section hard, just individual questions. If I feel the whole section was hard this would indicate that I've badly mistimed the section, which in turn suggests I should have employed a better skipping strategy. To employ a better skipping strategy you need to be honest with yourself when you aren't making progress on a question, which takes confidence.

It makes so much sense to find individual questions, rather than an entire LR section, hard. As you said, the difficulty of an entire section probably stems from mistiming the section that results in rushing and panicking. And the cause of mistiming a section is getting stuck on super tough questions or spending too much time on easier questions. All these minor and major strategic errors in aggregate makes a section challenging overall. Thank you for the tips on overcoming the plateau. I will try to internalize the contemptuous elimination method! ;)

@ said:

On a good section, I'll circle around 6 and review all of them. On a bad section, I'll circle around 8 and get to most/all of them before time ends. Generally it comes down to time at the end though. The more I circle, the more I skip, the more time I have at the end. So when I have only circled a few, I probably have only 5 minutes left, if I circled 8 I probably have about 10 minutes. Have you ever filmed yourself doing a LR section?

Yes, I film my LR sections! Reading your comment, I just realized that one explanation as to why I finish some sections with 5 minutes left and others with 7~8 minutes. It may depend on how many questions I skipped. So having more time at the end of a section doesn't necessarily mean that section was easier; it can mean the opposite, if that was the result of skipping more challenging questions. I will re-watch my LR performances with this in mind. Thank you!

@ said:

I personally don't feel nervous but I am quite often uncertain. I circle around 5 questions by the end of each section that I feel a bit uncertain about. Rarely do I feel like I destroyed a section when I finish and that feeling of uncertainty gets amplified on test day ¯_(ツ)_/¯

That's really neat that feeling uncertain about some questions doesn't lead to nervousness. I should try to be more like you! :)

@ said:

Well, what's your BR score like?

Thank you for your feedback! My BR score ranges from 173~175. I will take your advice and compare the sections that went well to those that went sour. So many things can go wrong under pressure, and it's a good idea to take detailed notes on the differences between good and bad performances.

It gives me some relief to hear that it's okay to feel challenged by the LSAT, no matter how long I've studied for it. Having feelings of difficulty don't necessarily mean that I will never be a proficient test taker. I will try each day to acknowledge that the test is challenging but at the same time not be overwhelmed by it. Thank you for letting me know that! :)

@ said:

After you finish a section, you should have a good sense of how well you did.

Thank you for responding! I should really develop a sense of how the section went, depending on how well the BR round went and how much I was able to pick up easier points and narrow my potential misses to challenging questions. Do you mind sharing how many questions you circle to BR and how many you are able to BR within the 35 minute time-frame?

I usually circle around 7~8 (sometimes even 11) and I have time to to BR around 4~5 of them. Most of the time, however, I either stick stubbornly to the initial answer choice or go from the initial correct AC to a wrong AC. Coming back to circled questions can be counterproductive sometimes. Is this normal, and if so, does BR accuracy improve over time?

This is great! Thanks for this thread!

Last week: I took a PT. Got -8 on LG. Three days later re-took that LG section again without BRing and got -4. Still significant made errors. Misbubbling, forgetting a rule, misreading master gameboards x2 each cost me a point.

Goals for this week:

Continue drilling LG. Two LG sections/day from PT1~35 and foolproof games not under target time or not -0. Focus on not forgetting rules this week

Invest 5 quality hours into LG every day.

Invest at least 1 hour into RC every two days. Invest at least 1 hr into LR every two days

Take a fresh PT and BR.

Thank you @ ! I totally get what you mean by the domain. Thank you for explaining it so thoroughly. I think I understand the question and the AC's now!!

@

Thank you for your response!

You are saying that effective prevention concerns only the number of cases prevented, not the reduced severity of the injury.

The definition of prevention is to stop something from happening, so it does seem to imply that the number of cases is what matters.

Online explanations differ on this point and there doesnt seem to be any consensus on what prevention means on the lsat. :(

I guess I have to depend on POE and if an answer choice is a clear weakener, choose that over the one with "severity" issues.

Thank you!!

@

Thank you Logic Gainz for taking your time to understand my confused state of mind! I was worried no one would comprehend my confusion.

I have a question about the conditional statement representation:

[Illness caused by stress is treatable] => [by the reduction of stress]

If you take the contrapositive of this statement, you get:

[NOT by reduction of stress]--> [Illness caused by stress is NOT treatable]

I am slightly uncertain about this conditional representation because the the conclusion states that "Some cases of HBP must not be caused by stress". It doesn't conclude that some cases of HBP are not treatable. Since the conclusion doesnt match the contrapositive 100%, I went with [Illness caused by stress] => [treatable only by the reduction of stress].

Im not sure though!

Your comment really helped me realize that I actually misunderstood the meaning of "ONLY".

The necessary assumption is actually that "medicine's treatment of HBP does not necessarily reduce stress".

I originally wrote that negating E doesnt wreck the argument because medicine may reduce stress and inhibit hormone production. My logic was that negating E allows for the possibility that medicine could reduce stress AND inhibit hormones.

This is mistaken. I confused what's meant by "requiring stress reduction" with "stress reduction being the ONLY stand-alone method" of treating stress-caused illnesses. I thought that "treatable ONLY by reduction of stress" meant no combination of stress reduction and other method was allowed.

E makes much more sense when I understand it to mean that "Medicine does not necessarily reduce stress while treating HBP". Do I make sense at all?

Thank you for sharing your perspective shift. I've been suffering from focusing too much on the score that studying became too emotional. Every wrong question seemed to tell me how terrible I was at this test which really hurt my morale and motivation.

I'll try to implement your method in my studies!

Yes! They mean the same thing.

They are logical opposites.