Major congrats. You obviously worked super hard and earned every point. Best of luck with admissions!

@ I totally understand the struggle of figuring out how to approach LR questions. I experimented with a bunch of approaches before settling on one.

To answer your question, before I go into the answer choices, I do a couple of things. First, I just try to identify any assumptions or weak points in the argument. I try to think of literally anything in the argument that's not airtight and take notice of it. Second, I gauge how aggressively I want to hazard a prephrase. On question types like sufficient assumptions, where the correct answer choice has to connect some very specific dots, I try to figure out what those dots are before going into the answer choices. That means I usually try to come up with as accurate of a prephrase as possible, where I'm confident that the correct answer choice will have to look similar to my prephrase. For question types likes strengthen or weaken, however, I don't spend much time thinking about prephrases, if at all. My reasoning is that there's about a million different ways you could strengthen or weaken an argument. Trying to precisely guess the approach the correct answer will take seems pretty futile to me. Sometimes before going into the ACs I'll quickly think of one or two possible ways to attack or support the argument, but I don't let myself become attached to my prephrase, as I know it's highly unlikely the correct AC will match it. And on some questions, particularly those that are denser, I don't even attempt to prephrase. I just try to let the answer choices "feed me," as JY often puts it.

On a side note, to consistently get below -4 on LR, I found it largely centered around improving my time/section management. Personally, when I was around -4, I found I could usually go -0 or -1 in BR. This indicated to me that I was capable of getting below -4 but just wasn't spending my time wisely. If that sounds at all like your situations, you may also want to look into different ways to "time" the section.

Again, I'm not an expert by any means, but these are just a few things I've found useful.

I think you should accept the premises as true, as it will pay off 99% of the time. I've done probably 50+ PTs worth of LR questions, and I can only think of maybe two or three instances where I've heard JY and other commenters on explanation videos consider the possibility that the correct answer choice attacked a premise. Even in those cases, there was usually a way to interpret the correct AC in a way that it didn't attack the premise.

I don't think that accepting the premises as true prevents you from prephrasing, however. It's absolutely reasonable to say to yourself something along the lines of, "Okay, while the premises may be 100% true, they still lend very little support to the conclusion." Additionally, you can accept the premises as true and still question how "powerful" they are. For example, in a Must Be True question, the argument may say something like, "the apple the scientists grew is the largest in recorded history." Then, an incorrect answer choice may say "there has never been a larger apple than the one the scientists grew." It would be incorrect because the premise simply isn't "powerful" enough to prove it. While the scientist's apple may very well be the largest in "recorded history," that doesn't mean it's the largest apple ever. Just the largest apple that we know about.

Sorry for the long-winded response but I hope this helps some!

It's possible to struggle with many parts of the LR section. Before I, or anyone else, can help, I think it would be helpful for you to answer a few questions. Do you typically run out of time on LR before completing the last question? Do you typically miss more questions at the beginning or end of the section? Have you noticed any particular question types you struggle with? While there are other questions to ask, I think answering those would give someone a good starting point to help you from.

I haven't applied with cancelled tests or spoken to any admissions folks, but my gut tells me cancelling probably wouldn't be that helpful in your situation. I imagine that anyone in admissions would just assume your cancelled score is lower than a 165, so they're going to assume you scored no higher than a 164. I think it's totally possible, however, that they'd assume your cancelled score was significantly lower than a 164 (like something in the 150s or lower). I don't know if that perception would hurt you much, but I can't imagine that it would help. If I was reading your score records and you kept your score, I'd think that the 163 shows you didn't score significantly lower than 165, obviously, but also that your 165 wasn't a fluke. You've proven you can repeatedly score in that area and that you didn't just get lucky on an attempt.

Again, though, I'm just speaking from my gut, so definitely seek out the opinion of others. Good luck with everything admissions!

I completed the 7Sage core curriculum in its entirety and drilled the logic games from PTs 1-35 before I began taking weekly PTs. I often drilled problem sets or entire sections from older tests while I completed the curriculum, but I didn't see much value in taking full practice tests when I hadn't even exposed myself to all of the LSAT's concepts yet. While I understand the argument that getting used to taking PTs early in your studies can be beneficial because you'll build stamina and get more comfortable with taking PTs, I always figured I'd take enough full tests after completing the CC and drilling logic games for it not to matter much by the time I sat for the real thing.

I don't think it would hurt, and could probably help some, for you to take occasional practice tests while learning the "ins and outs" of the test. As I mentioned above, though I chose not to, I see the value in it. I don't think you need to do it weekly, though. I think biweekly would be more than frequent enough, especially since blind reviewing will probably take up a good amount of time while you're still learning the test. Additionally, I'd advise against you taking the newest PTs while you're in the early stages of PTing. They're the most useful resources you have, and I don't think you'd be able to extract their full value while you're still learning the test. I'd stick with older tests, as they're still useful, and since your main focus will be on getting a feel for the test, they'll do just as well as newer PTs.

My opinion is by no means authoritative, of course, but I hope this helps some!

Way to show those Reddit folks who's boss haha. Seriously, though, congratulations!

Congratulations! You earned it!

Which question?

If it's a consistent trend it's likely fatigue or not being used to having to transition back to easier questions at the beginning of a new LR section. If you notice that your scores drop on 4th sections of tests, regardless of section type, it's probably fatigue. The solution, typically, is to just keep taking 4 section tests until the last section doesn't wear you out.

If you're only noticing the trend when you have two LR sections, though, I think it's likely you struggling to transition into a new section. I found that when I first began taking PTs, I struggled with doing two LR sections because I behave a bit differently on the back end of sections (questions 16-25/26) than on the front end (questions 1-15). Typically I go much quicker on the front end and don't pay as strict attention to the nuances of stimulus wordings. On the back end I go slower and re-read questions more often. When I went through the first LR section, I'd get into the "second half" mindset, then struggle to get out of that mindset at the beginning of the next LR section. Though I can't swear by its usefulness, as I don't know if it would help others, I found repeatedly taking back-to-back LR sections helped me overcome this. It forced me to get used to switching mindsets quickly.

Which passage?

As you allude to, according to the 7Sage predictor, your odds are pretty similar for both. Seeing as predictors can never give definitive odds, it's hard to say whether the thirteen-percentage point difference between your odds at the two schools is consequential. So, personally, I don't think applying based on those odds is the wisest choice.

I think it's far more important to consider your personal aspirations. You said you're "not necessarily super set on going to law school." Are you saying you'd only like to go if you get into a top program? Or that you're not sure you'd like to go to law school at all? If it's the latter, I'd do some deep thinking before applying ED anywhere, regardless of prestige. If you apply ED to one of those places and get accepted, you'll be in a binding contract to attend a program for 3 years of your life that'll probably cost north of 250k when it's all said and done. I think it would be wise to do as much as you can to verify your desire to go into law before shooting off those applications. If it's the former, I think you should probably ask yourself which campus you like more, which school is more highly regarded for whichever areas of law you're interested in, how debt-adverse you are, etc. Both schools are great, and I'm sure you'd get an awesome education and a valuable degree from either, so I'd base my decision on some of my personal preferences.

I just think there are a lot of highly personal factors that go into making a decision like the one you're contemplating, and strangers on this forum couldn't possibly know you well enough to give you sound advice. Apologies if I'm assuming too many things about you and your thought process, though!

Which question?

I don't have any concrete evidence to back my claim, but I assume that if you cancel your score most admissions folks will just assume you scored lower than 165 on your second attempt. After all, what would be the point in cancelling your score if you scored higher or even the same? If anything, I think it's possible they'd assume you scored a good amount (like 2+ points) lower, because if you scored, say, a 164, it would pretty much just mirror your performance on your first attempt. So I don't have advice for whether or not to buy score preview, but I'm taking a stab at what may be assumed if you buy score preview and decide to cancel your score.

Which question?

@ Yeah, I don't think you can go wrong with a binder or multiple binders. They're easy to organize. I haven't used a binder to foolproof so I'm not sure exactly how I'd set one up, but I'm sure you could put together something neat pretty quickly.

If you're going to be taking the test with pencil and paper, then I think the binder approach would be wise. If you're not receiving the pencil and paper accommodation, however, I'd advise you begin attempting the problems in their virtual form as presented on 7Sage. You could track your progress in an Excel spreadsheet.

If you'd like any elaboration please just let me know and I'm happy to try to help!

@-1-1-1-1 Sorry to see your question went unanswered. I remember when I first saw that sentence about being unable to edit institutions in the future I was shocked. I was positive that I knew which institutions I'd attended, for how long, and how many credits I had received from each, however, so I never bothered to make sure I couldn't edit my institutions in the future. Because you're in a stickier situation, I'd advise that you just call LSAC directly. I seriously doubt many people on this forum can confidently give you a 100% correct answer, as most people on this forum probably aren't highly familiar with LSAC's policies. Even if someone tries to answer your questions, I'd be skeptical of their answer. If the respondent was a verified admissions consultant from 7Sage I'd probably feel okay about it, but if it was anybody else I frankly wouldn't listen. It's not worth the risk of them being wrong and your application getting messed up.

The only advice I can confidently give you is that you can likely call the institution you took classes with in high school and verify the number of courses you took, the timeframe you were enrolled in the courses, the number of credits you received, etc. I'm confident in this advice because I took a couple of classes at a community college in high school and didn't have to request the transcript from the community college for LSAC until about four years later, and when I called the community college they told me it was legally required for them to keep records on every student until (I believe) five years after they'd left the institution. That window of time could certainly vary by state and institution, however, so I'd say just call the dean of students' office/the front desk of the institution you attended in high school and explain to them your situation. I guarantee they'll know how to help you.

Sorry I couldn't directly answer your questions but I hope this helps some!

For what it's worth, in-out games are actually a type of grouping game. They're just grouping games with two groups. Additionally, all of the logic game "categories" are totally arbitrary. Teachers and teaching programs just group similar games to help teach lessons. Some teaching programs categorize games differently than 7Sage.

To answer your question, though, you never know what variety of games you'll see on any given test. You may have 3 grouping games and a miscellaneous game, 2 sequencing and 2 grouping, 3 sequencing and 1 grouping, etc. You never know what you'll get. I've actually seen a couple of older games sections that consisted of 4 sequencing games or 3 sequencing games and 1 game that had sequencing elements.

I'm almost positive LSAC stated that people retesting will have the same score release date. I saw it in a communication they released addressing the proctoring troubles. I can't remember the exact statement, though, so don't take what I'm saying as gospel!

Since you're still struggling with the questions in review when you're not timing yourself, it sounds like difficulty may be the only factor affecting your performance, aside from any possible mental block or anxiety you may have with the last few questions.

Assuming difficulty is the main concern, I've found a few things have really helped me with improving on tougher questions.

First, I force myself to have a strong grasp on the question's stimulus before looking at the answer choices. Often, tougher questions are tough purely because the answer choices are worded in confusing or abstract ways that prey on you not fully grasping the stimulus. If you proceed to the answer choices before you're confident that you understand the stimulus, they'll typically only increase your confusion. In practice, this usually looks like me reading the stimulus slowly, often re-reading sentences multiple times, and sometimes re-reading the entire stimulus once or twice before going into the answer choices. I'll happily spend 1-1.5 minutes on a denser stimulus if it means I fully grasp what it's saying, as it often makes navigating the answer choices feel much more like you feel on easier questions.

Second, I look for every reason possible to eliminate answer choices. For example, sometimes with tougher questions, wrong answer choices are wrong purely because of one word. The word may be inaccurate, too strong, or too weak, but it won't characterize something in the argument correctly. This method causes me to sometimes arrive at the right answer on harder questions through eliminating the four wrong answers and being unable to find an issue with the correct answer. While I don't always feel 100% comfortable with the answer I select, this method helps to increase accuracy.

Third, I thoroughly review how JY reads and understands the stimulus of any questions I missed or struggled with. Often when listening to his commentary, I'll realize I misunderstood something in the stimulus or didn't consider some possibilities. This helps you not make the same mistake on similar stimuli in the future and, after watching his thought process repeatedly, helps you to approach stimuli more tactfully.

Last, I look for how JY justifies or dismisses answer choices. A wrong answer choice for one question often commits a similar error to a wrong answer choice for another question. Conversely, a correct answer choice may answer the question in a subtle way that is similar to a correct answer choice in another question. Studying why an answer choice is right or wrong will help you identify similar answer choices in the future.

This list is by no means exhaustive, but it's just some of the main things I've found helpful. I hope this helps you a bit!

I like to take tests in the modern format then add a random section from a different PT as a fourth section. That way, I still take a 4 section test, which is what we'll have on test day, but only 1 LR section is scored. If you don't simulate modern, 2 LR sections will be scored, which is unrepresentative of how your test will be scored on the real thing.

I generally like to attempt a game, watch the explanation video (unless I easily completed it under the target time and with 100% percent accuracy), immediately attempt the game again, attempt it again the next day, and the attempt it one more time a week later. If on my last couple of attempts of the game I felt totally comfortable, made all the important inferences, completed it under the target time, and didn't miss any questions, I pretty much consider the game completed. If I felt shaky or didn't complete it under the target time and with 100% accuracy, though, I'll make a note of which game it was and state that I need to revisit it for review. I keep a running list of these games and I'll go to the list and attempt some of them every now and then. I don't typically have a specific amount of time I like to let pass before returning to those types of games, but I'd say it's usually at least 3 weeks or so. I figure if I can still crush a game after 3+ weeks of not seeing it I'm probably in a good spot.

My issue with returning to every game you've ever attempted is that you will have eventually completed a ton of games and it'll just take too long to return to all of them. So for games that I'm absolutely nailing without any struggle, I don't note them as a game I need to redo. The return on investment eventually becomes too low, in my opinion.

I hope this helps!

Yes, speed certainly comes as you get more comfortable with the way the LSAT is written and the things questions typically expect you to pay attention to. Additionally, it's normal to feel anxious at the start of timed sections and, as a result, possibly perform worse than you perform when you're practicing untimed/feel like there's no pressure. I've found that, though this feeling may never totally go away, it gets much better as you do more timed sections. Eventually, you get used to the timer, you get a sense of what pace you need to be going to complete a section on time, you see good results that encourage you and build your confidence, etc.

As for specific strategies to speed up in LR, I've found that really pushing myself to move quickly through the first 15 questions has helped a lot. Typically, the first 10 questions are the easiest, questions 11-15 are easier with some medium-difficulty questions sprinkled in, and questions 16-25/26 are more difficult. While there are certainly some exceptions to this rule, as you'll occasionally see one or two difficult questions put towards the front of the section, LR sections have always followed the trend of starting easier and ending harder. It's been like that since the very first released prep test. Therefore, I've found that trying to get through the first 15 questions quickly usually gives me valuable time to spend on the last 10 questions. Just as an example, you could try to complete the first 15 questions in ~15 minutes, which would give you ~2 minutes for each of the last 10 questions.

To be clear, I don't think it's advisable to always force yourself to finish the first 15 in 15 minutes. That's just an arbitrary time goal I came up with. Some sections have harder 1st halves than others, and 15 minutes isn't enough time to accurately complete the first 15 questions. Just trying to generally move quickly through the first 15 has helped me a bunch with speed, however. My thought process is this: hard questions are hard. There's no way around that. Inevitably, some of the questions between 16 and 25/26 in any LR section are going to be tough. No matter how good you are at the test, you'll still have to spend some time thinking to figure out certain questions. Therefore, instead of trying to speed through those tougher questions, just accept that they're tough and try to give yourself more time to complete them. Sure, speeding through the first 15 questions is a bit of a gamble, as you may accidentally make a mistake and miss a relatively easy question, but, in my opinion, that's a totally worthwhile tradeoff to make sure I've got extra time for those tougher questions.

A drill I've seen recommended to practice this method is taking the first 10 or 15 questions in an LR section and doing them as quickly as possible. Seriously. Force yourself to go about as quick as you can. It may not feel comfortable, but there's a chance you'll be surprised by how accurate you are. If you're missing a bunch then slow down a bit, but see how quickly you can go through the first 10 or 15 questions in a few LR sections without sacrificing accuracy. Once you figure out your general "sweet spot," you can start implementing the timing strategy on PTs. I found that just doing the first 10 or 15 questions from some LR sections super quickly and repeatedly seeing myself doing well was a huge confidence booster. It gave me faith in the strategy which, when approaching every section of the test, is super important.

Sorry for the long-winded response but I wanted to make sure to thoroughly convey my thoughts! This isn't a one-size-fits-all approach, of course, so if it doesn't work for you then definitely seek out other strategies!

For in-and-out games, you're being told they can't both be in the in-group. That means at least one must be in the out-group. So both are allowed to be together in the out-group, or just one in the out-group, but they can't be together in the in-group. For typical grouping games, the type of rule you're referring to just flat-out tells you the game pieces aren't allowed to be together in any group. No ifs, ands, or buts. So for the in-and-out game, the groups are characteristically different because one of the groups is for selected items and the other is for non-selected items. That's why the rule, visually speaking, applies differently to the groups. For a typical grouping game, however, all groups are "in-groups," in that every game piece is in play. So the rule applies to each group the same.

Does this make sense?