I'm in the same boat as James: PT 69 on Tuesday, review Wednesday and relax Thursday and Friday. It's a good idea.

I would call LR my favorite section (with an average of -3 out of 50+ total questions), but I wouldn't call myself an LSAT LR God because as we all know, when you're studying/taking the LSAT you know that God has already forsaken you. Now, everyone has his/her own particular issue(s) with LR and I don't know much of your personal situation, so take my opinions with a grain of salt. With that caveat, here are some of my thoughts:

- Are you getting questions wrong because you are running out of time late in the section due to the generally harder questions in that region? If so, one of the more trendy tactics being discussed lately -- even on this forum -- is to trust your gut instinct on questions #1-10.

- Are you running out of time in general and seem to get stuck on random questions spread throughout the section no matter its number? If so, you should adhere to JY's famous Coconut Tree analogy.

- Maybe you are right on time or even have left over minutes when you're done, but still getting more than 3+ wrong per section. In that case, I would recommend slowing down and choosing your battles. Perhaps you should leave some of the later questions or harder questions blank, let those be wrong, and guarantee the ones you've done are done correctly.

- General Tactic #1: Try to do the first 10 questions in 10min or less and work your way to 15 in 15 or 20 in 20. This will help save you a lot of time for those questions that just cannot be done in 1.5min (because these questions do indeed exist. They're called Time Traps or Curve Breakers). I personally take this tactic extremely seriously and rigorously keep track of time throughout all my PTs to adhere to this tactic. It REALLY helps, IMO.

- General Tactic #2: If you're finishing sections with time left, try to devise a system of mini-Blind Reviewing within a section. When you're running through the questions the first time around, create a system of marking the questions you've had extreme trouble with, are super confused on, decided to skip, or were closely stuck between two answer choices. I personally use circles for confusing questions I believe I potentially will get wrong and a dashed line for questions I feel I've answered right, but want to come back later on to double check. After that, develop a method of prioritizing which ones to mini-BR. Some mini-BR from the hardest questions to the easiest (me). Others choose to mini-BR from the questions they just want to double check to questions they believe they will most likely get wrong even if they went back to it.

Again, these thoughts are garnered from my personal experience, so please adapt them to yourself, appropriately.

As always, good luck folks. May the Devil (LSAT) have mercy on our souls.

Personally, for the last three months I would complete a PT once every 2 or 3 days. The breaks issue is really up to your personal outlook/psychological needs (never forget the LSAT is as much a psychological test as an analytical/logical one). On the days I don't take a PT I am either reviewing them again after my BR (which I did the same day I took the PT) or I am drilling 20-30 games (old and modern mixed together alternating with games sections from PTs I recently took, but was not satisfied that I did fast enough) or 16 old RC passages in one sitting.

Hi Sarah,

I'm not Jon, but if I may I'd like to take a crack at answering your question.

Notice how (E) uses the word "should." The argument in the stimulus is only descriptive; not prescriptive. The author of the argument is telling you what would happen if a certain change is not adopted (not preserving the forests). However, we cannot attribute an opinionated position to the author from that. To think that the author is arguing FOR the preservation of the forests will require that you make an unnecessary assumption -- the Big NoNo of Logical Reasoning.

As for (D), its wording is too extreme. Try negating it and see what it does to the argument. The logical opposite of 'any' is 'not all.' If not all of the substances of medicinal value contained in the plant species of the forest will be discovered does that destroy the argument? Not really. You could still discover 'some' new substances of medicinal value, right?

Hope that helps!

I second K's advice: keeping your calm is key. I cannot begin to describe how many times I wanted to do one of these (╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻, but told myself to just relax, keep my cool, and just carry on. Now, I know it's easier said than done, but you have got to find your own method of keeping calm. Every second you are spending being frustrated or pissed is a second not spent on the question in front of you.

They've spread out the more difficult LR questions across entire sections now rather then their old style of piling the harder ones towards the end. LR answer choices have become trickier and have become more of a detail creep in many cases.

With LG, I'd agree with you for maybe 2-3 of the games per section (but even so they don't quite conform to any one category anymore; it's always a hybrid sequence/group or something other) and then there's always 1-2 "random" games. Has anyone seen a basic linear/sequenceing game since maybe the 1999/2000 era of PTs? LOL

Off the top of my head, from more recent PTs, are:

- "Seven Nurses" (Game 4 PT 61): with the new rule of 'at least two in between variable x and variable y.' That opens up a larger set of possibilities and requires more brute force of trial and error instead of game-breaking inferences.

- "Mulch and Stone" (Game 3 from PT 60): no category for this. Sure you can identify the possibilities to make it a more manageable game, but most people were shocked when first seeing this.

- "Photographer and Writers' Assistants" (Game 4 from PT 60): granted a single game-changing inference would solve this one, you cannot deny it shocked most people upon first appearance.

- "Choosing Courses" (Game 4 from PT 58): sure it's an in/out game, but this was the absolute first I saw where you could not chain up the rules and instead had to write them all out separately (watch JY's video to see what I mean).

- "Toy Dinosaurs" (Game 3 from PT 57): need I say more?

Now each of these are completely manageable, even 'destroyable,' if you will upon doing it the second time (or after watching JY's videos). Now, I could totally just be the odd one out and am really slow/stupid at LG in general, but, I have had a hard time believing most people were able to do these comfortably, without error, within timeframe, upon first attempt. Each modern PT seems to carry with it a 'killer' game. I've been foolproofing all my games, of course, but it's hard to anticipate 'what's next?' Also the modern games seem to require more trial and error/brute force.

In terms of RC, I'd pretty much agree with you (I actually prefer the Comparative Passages), with the caveat that they probably added more Inference "read between the lines" questions, more "analogy/parallel" questions, and have less purely "find the fact" questions.

I don't care what anyone else on TLS says, the LSAT is getting HARDER for sure! In the 40s to late 50s I would get -0 on LR with 4 minutes to spare and -0 LG with 5 minutes to spare. This is ridiculous. I don't know how we are supposed to adapt to these changes after spending a good bulk of time taking older preptests. Every PT from 60 onwards feels like it has a group of questions designed to throw you off your pattern-styled attack method.

PT 60 was killer for me too. I was hoping others would think the same way.

Will definitely look into this...right after the LSAT lol

@kedarmoghe154 there's definitely a difference in difficulty on PTs I've been taking. A more obvious variance in the modern ones too, in my opinion. I find the scale to be kind of unfair usually, so I try to improve my raw score, in general.

I second K's advice. It's worked for me as well.

@random329: I think you just gave the absolute most detailed and "correct" advice I have ever gotten from anyone (including paid advisers). This process is exactly the one I have been neglecting for the past two months while doing over 20+ PTs. Which might explain my fluctuating scores. Although I am already scoring in the low 170s and my BR process is a bit shorter, I am not as thorough as you and that could be my downfall.

Somehow, I always knew they were different...I guess now (thanks to CJ) I can pinpoint to the exact difference: added labor intensity.

How is everyone else doing on the newer logic games? Were they similarly okay for you as the older ones? Or did you have to re-drill games again in order to better yourself for the newer ones?

I'm having the same issue as OP, but weirdly with the more recent games (PT52+). I manage to finish up till half of the 4th game before time runs out. For some reason, I am beast while doing the Fool Proof Method (I usually require only 1 redo before I completely understand a game) and I was beast (-0) throughout PTs 40-52, but these newer games just seem so ... weird to me that it freaks me out and I end up wasting time just mulling. Upon BR I ace these newer games, though, but the kicker is how to beast them during the first iteration of new set of 4 games.

@kraftphillip666: I think you might be the first person to have perfectly explained my current situation. I too think I have the studying done and the problem lies in perfecting my execution under stress and pressure for consistency. Kraft, could you please elaborate more on how you are solving this issue for yourself? Thank you.

Oh dear; well I hope it's not just me getting worse at games over time LOL

I don't know...they just seem different. If anything, I feel like the newer ones can't quite be categorized into our older system. Instead, they're more "hybridized" and require board setups that don't quite conform to our practiced system.

Any thoughts from the 7Sage team?

Thanks for the detailed strategy, CJ. Appreciate it.

That makes a lot of sense. Thanks, for sharing your strategy, it really helps.