I'm not convinced they are of any real value for most test takers. Every school you apply to will know you canceled your score. So the question is: do you want them to see that you got a 150 or for them to look at your released score(s) and guess what your low score could've been?

The only case that I think offers any real potential benefit is if you're applying to a T14 school and already have a 170ish score under your belt but want to test again to get something closer to a 180. I can understand why a Harvard-hopeful would be concerned about the potential of applying with a 170 score while having a more recent 162 strapped to their leg fi they fail to increase their score. One might worry that their most recent score will be more reflective of their ability than their 170. You could always write an addendum but I think a score cancelation would be better in this situation (just avoid talking about it instead of wasting an addendum to explain); however, they will still see that you canceled a score after achieving a 170. So, you're now just leaving it up to their imagination as to how far you deviated from your 170. They probably won't care or even think about it. But that's the reality of the situation.

I've heard some people say it's good for peace of mind for first time test takers. But for first time test takers I don't see why you need to worry about getting a "good" score on your first attempt. I don't think T14 schools look at someone who went from a 160 to a 175 any differently than someone who only has the 175 reporting. They only incorporate your high score into their metrics anyways. Yale's JD class profile LSAT median won't go down if you got a 150 but managed to pull off a 180 after. I suppose you could reverse that and come away with the same message, but going from a 180 to a 150 might raise some eyebrows...

Hope this helps,

Brian

I'm a bit confused about your dilemma-

Logic Games are verifiable. Eliminating the time constraint during Blind Review should allow you to fully work through right vs wrong answers for each game/question via trial and error/verification.

That being said, I'm not really sure how you end up second guessing yourself when the games themselves are solvable. I can see this happening under time constraints when you don't have time to fully prove/disprove each answer choice but not during a Blind Review. Each question has four wrong answers and one right that can all be tested/verified. If you second guess yourself and select a wrong answer choice, you are clearly not verifying your answers or you are failing to incorporate a rule necessary for selecting the right answer vs the wrong answers. If you are running into these issues, you should take the time to work out each right and wrong answer choice during Blind Review. If you are unable to, this means you are misunderstanding or failing to account/consider a rule/setup contraint. You should never be left with multiple answer choices that can be right. For example, a Must Be Trust question has one answer that is always true and four that are never or only sometimes true. You just need to "break" the answer choices to verify them. Answer Choice: "X is always placed 4th". Diagram X anywhere but 4th and see if it works. If it does, that is an incorrect answer for Must Be True and you can apply a similar tactic to the rest to fully prove/disprove them. The same applies for every other type of question. There's a way to prove/disprove each answer choice. You really should never get any Logic Game question wrong within Blind Review unless you fundamentally misunderstand a rule/setup constraint or incorrectly read/interpret a question stem.

If you are missing Logic Game questions in Blind Review, your problem is not second guessing yourself. Your problem is that you are not actually "solving" the games.

Hopefully this helps,

Brian

This thread seems to have helped a lot of other 7Sage users (myself included): https://classic.7sage.com/discussion/#/discussion/10749/my-rc-strategy-that-got-me-to-0

If you read to understand how each sentence functions within the passage, you should be able to greatly improve your score. I literally take a pause (sometimes brief and sometimes longer depending on how the new information fits into my understanding of the passage/subject matter) after each sentence. Although I have less time for questions, my overall understanding of the passage and my confidence in right answers leaves me with an adequate amount of time to do all of the questions within the 35-minute time constraint.

I would recommend drilling all of the old PT material- just do one passage at a time at first using the target time and see how you do with your current approach vs what is described in that thread. I was suffering from wide variability in my RC performance (sometimes -0 and at worst -7). As soon as I implemented the technique in that thread, I started to consistently get under -3 for RC sections.

Hope this helps,

Brian