Ugh, yeah, I'm in the same boat...it's really stressful. I'm even considering the international dates (September in Mexico or October in EMEA or Asia)...

But what if there are other factors that influence how effective a hemoglobin molecule is at picking up oxygen molecules? Would (C) still be the case?

But as far as I can tell, the conclusion is not actually saying that the rise in standard of living is the "result of" major investments in infrastructure. The conclusion is indeed confusing the sufficient and the necessary, saying that major investments in infrastructure are necessary (rather than sufficient) for a rise in standard of living. But is that the same thing as saying that the rise in standard of living is "the result of" those investments? Not as far as I can tell. So I'm not sure that answer choice (D) describes the flaw that accurately.

Doesn't the fact that the two flies are genetically identical aside from that one gene already take care of the assumption in answer choice B? In other words, let's say we negate answer choice B: even if another gene is required for the formation of the UV vision cells, the non-UV flies already have all the same genes as the UV-equipped flies. They only had that one gene altered. Doesn't the conclusion still stand?

Hey @gregoryalexanderdevine723 - do you have a group PT schedule that you could share? Is it going to be one PT per week in sequence, starting from PT36, reviewed each Tuesday? (Apologies if you already answered this in the comments above!) And would it be okay if I joined some calls here and there? (I may be working on a slightly different PT schedule since I'm aiming for a first take in Feb).

According to JY's explanation for answer choice (C), the fact that the patients knew that they were undergoing some sort of study -- and the fact that the study wasn't "double-blind" -- could actually weaken the results of the study. So why can't (C) be a correct answer to weaken the argument?

I didn't catch this before, but the Stanford website notes: "Please be aware of the high value Stanford places on school-specific letters of recommendation." Is this true across all of the top schools -- they expect/prefer tailored letters?

Do you all think it would be useful to submit a high GRE score in addition to the LSAT?

@jhaldy10325 - Many thanks! This is super helpful. I just sent you a direct message with a few thoughts.

@jhaldy10325 - Sage Josh? Thanks so much for your detailed explanation. I have indeed watched your webinar; in fact, I've returned to parts of it several times over the past few weeks.

I think I'll try alternating PTs from the 40s, 50s, 60s, and 70s (~one per week) and then I'll really focus on the 70s & 80s as the Feb test gets closer.

I took my second PT (PT40) this weekend, and my score was lower (162 / 173 BR) than what I had on PT36 (164 / 175 BR). It was a bit disappointing. I'd like to work toward a 173 but a 10-11 point increase (post-CC) seems daunting. But I'm prepared to stick to it.

Here are some of the things I'm thinking of doing -- I'd love to get your thoughts, if you don't mind...

Review CC notes daily

For LG: Continue Foolproofing (PTs 15-35) and doing timed section repeats for games I've already Foolproofed

For RC: Drill hard passages. Do untimed & timed sections from PTs 1-39 and previously-taken PTs.

For LR: Over the past couple of weeks, I did the first 5-6 questions of each type from the PTs 20-29 drills in the Ultimate+ course. I might now focus on just the question-types that I'm struggling with. In addition, I think I should also start doing full sections either (1) untimed, (2) timed, or (3) timed with confidence drills. After Blind Reviewing the sections, I'll analyze my mistakes AND also review each question with cookie cutter review (logic), grammar review, and maybe test writer review.

I'll also try to incorporate pacing/video review across all the sections once I set up a camera.

Here are a few specific questions:

-Generally speaking, should I be reviewing and analyzing every question -- including ones I got correct -- after completing a section or a full PT?

-What sections would be best to use for the LR training I've outlined above? PTs 1-39 and previously-taken PTs?

-How are the 7Sage BR / study groups structured, and would it be a good idea to fit those into this plan?

Sorry for the long note! I hope this line of thinking will be useful to others who are recently out of the CC and/or preparing for the Feb exam.

Correction: the PT36 score was a 164, not a 163.

Thanks, @7sagestudentservices!

@gregoryalexanderdevine723 -- re: Foolproofing: do you think there's a difference between doing PTs 15-35 before moving on to the PTs versus doing those games (say, on 3 days per week) while also doing a PT cycle each week? Either way, I definitely plan on finishing the rest of the bundle.

Re: PT36: I got a 163 on the timed attempt and a 175 on BR. (I was pleasantly surprised, but then again, this is just one PT; it's probably not fully representative of where my average score is right now). My target score is the T3 median or above ---172+.

I'm thinking of doing roughly a PT cycle per week till Dec, then 2 PT cycles per week till the Feb exam. And maybe switching it up each week - 40s, 50s, 60s, 70s?

Hi! I'm excited to see this group getting started.

I've taken one PT (#36) post-CC, and am currently working on Foolproofing the games from PTs 1-35 and doing drills for LR and RC. I'm going to mix PTs (maybe one per week, to start with) and this type of drilling beginning this upcoming week. I'm aiming to take the test in Dec or Feb, with June as a backup. @gregoryalexanderdevine723 - do you think I'd still be able to participate in this study group if I take 10-15 PTs by Dec and ~30 PTs by Feb?

I'm based in CA and my schedule is pretty flexible -- I generally study in the 8:30am - 4:30pm PT range. I plan to take PTs on Saturday mornings to simulate the actual exam.

In addition to BR, I might be interested in game-specific drilling and LR question-type drilling.

Like @achen013108, I'm aiming for Dec or Feb, with June as a backup. I'd love to stay updated on this group!

Thank you all! This is very helpful.

I understand why answer choice E is correct, but can someone explain exactly why D is incorrect?

@71888 and @gregoryalexanderdevine723 - Thanks for the responses! I'm just about to get started with LG Foolproofing, after taking PT 36 as a post-CC diagnostic. I'm excited (and nervous).

@cp954 - What I plan on doing is similar to the method that Pacifico outlined in the discussion forum. I'll foolproof each game in the PT individually, and then later (maybe a day later and then again a week later) -- do the full section to make sure I can complete the set of 4 accurately & within 35 mins.

@gregoryalexanderdevine723 - Haha, thanks! (It's a reference to Silicon Valley, where I'm based :)

Is there an advantage to alternating between lower-numbered PTs and PTs in the 30s range (e.g. PT 1 and 35, PT 2 and 34, etc.)? Would that offer a sense of both older Games and modern Games, or would you say that the Games are pretty consistent across the board?

Thanks so much, @gregoryalexanderdevine723! I appreciate the detailed response. I took your recommendation and tuned into @jipthomas635's webinar, as well as a few of the other 7Sage webinars (on BR and how to prep to score in the 170s range). Super informative -- and I've come to understand what you're saying about being flexible in terms of timing. I see that the road ahead is a long one, but I suppose that completing the CC is a good first milestone.

Hope your prep is going well!