@nikoswright351 said:

I got an email from a law school on 12/21 saying December LSAT scores were being released the next day. Turns out, that law school was right. Scores came out on 12/22.

That may be because LSAC tweeted on 12/21 that scores were going to be released the next day.

@stepharizona288 said:

I would say a test can play to your strengths or be kryptonite.

I felt like the Feb test played to my strengths and so did the June test, but I had my experimental RC from 2015, which would have seemed like an advantage but through me for an entire loop. I was in such disbelief or "predicting" the next passage or was entirely distracted and put forth my worst RC performance ever on a test (of the irony).

I rewrote in February after writing in December for the first time and that's exactly how I felt. Feb test came naturally to me, and that could be in part due to calmer nerves and having gone through the motions before but the material felt like it was aligned to my strengths in comparison to December.

I don't know what I would if an experimental section reappeared on my lsat, probably just panic and freeze!

Hope you attain your desired lsat score from the Feb sitting! :)

@cstrobel445 said:

@cstrobel445

Absolutely, but it probably wouldn't make for a dramatic swing.

For example, when I took the LSAT this February it seemed like there were fewer hard PSA and PF questions. Those were consistently the most difficult for me. But I lucked out given that I feel like I did well on the other kinds of LR.

I wrote the February test as well and I breezed through the LR even though around 80% of the time a question bogs me down and I end up not finishing in time, which wasn't the case here. I guess the point of this thread was to figure out whether something like that is possible or is it all in my head. I agree with you, PSA and PF were at a minimum while there plenty of weakening/strengthening type questions which I usually do okay at.

@jhaldy10325 said:

Sure. There are two RC passages drawn from books I’ve actaually read. I knocked those out -0 really fast which further strengthened those sections by giving me more time and confidence on the remaining passages. LR is highly dynamic and tests a lot of different skills, but sometimes things fall just right. Generally, you should expect things to even out though. The best way for a section to align to your strengths is by eliminating all your weaknesses.

Wow! are you an avid reader? otherwise the chances of something like that are close to nothing. I agree with your last sentence.

I found the rc to be easier than other pt's I've done, I understood all the passages to a degree where I could comfortably attempt questions, which sometimes isn't the case. I found the first 3 games simple, even though I made an error jotting down the rules on the Economics game(3rd) and had to guess a few questions to have a chance with the 4th game. It was sort of bittersweet, as this was my second attempt and I had fool-proofed games rigorously while not paying as much attention to RC.

on the other hand Logical Reasoning was pretty average in difficulty level.

@yasmink01134 said:

i can't remember which game it was on the December lsat, but it reminded me of an older game on a ptest that involved turning light switches on and off

yes! similar to that one. I know there are others out there like that one I'm just too lazy to search for each and every one lol

Thanks!

it's happening to me too, so it's definitely not just on your end.

"we honour the December deadline as well as the February writing of the LSAT. Therefore, we cannot and do not fill all our spots early. Applying early does not increase an applicant's chance of being given an offer, but it does allow us to begin evaluation as soon as possible."

extracted from UBC's frequently asked questions section. Hope this helps. @jennybains774

for those of you who don't have ultimate +, how are you fool proofing the logic games without the logic game bundle? sorting games by category and then attempting them accordingly?

@gregoryalexanderdevine723 said:

@mustafaghori789 said:

@gregoryalexanderdevine723 said:

@mustafaghori789 said:

I am nearing the end of my core curriculum, what's the next step?

should I be fool proofing logic games from pt 1-35? or diving into the pts? or something else perhaps?

thanks

I can't recommend fool proofing LG from PT 1-35 before you begin full timed PTs. If you're LG isn't consistently -0, then you already know where you need work without having to sacrifice finite PTs. You can also do timed sections from early PTs while fool proofing so you can hone your skills on LR and RC too.

Thanks for your response!

so would you recommend taking a few pt's and see where my weakness lies within LG and work on those type of questions? if so, what would be the best approach to enhance my LG skills? time sections from early pt's to master the inferences?

I don't think you need the tests to discern where your weaknesses are especially if you haven't fool proofed the all the games in the bundle. Just start at PT1 and start fool proofing. Either you'll blow through certain game types, and in that case, awesome! Or more likely than not you'll need to do most of them more than once to get them -0 and under time. That's honestly the best approach to mastering games and memorizing the inferences.

After fool proofing only half the bundle I am at least 10x better at games then I was previously. Especially the speed at which I am able to recall inferences from similar games when approaching games I've never seen!

what exactly is the bundle? I don't see it being advertised under any of the packages and google searches tell me that it's no longer offered? I see that "not ralph nader" mentioned it only comes in the ultimate+ package and I am willing to upgrade, but first I need to know what it is. is it just like the bank? but instead you search logic games by type and sort them?

@gregoryalexanderdevine723 said:

@mustafaghori789 said:

I am nearing the end of my core curriculum, what's the next step?

should I be fool proofing logic games from pt 1-35? or diving into the pts? or something else perhaps?

thanks

I can't recommend fool proofing LG from PT 1-35 before you begin full timed PTs. If you're LG isn't consistently -0, then you already know where you need work without having to sacrifice finite PTs. You can also do timed sections from early PTs while fool proofing so you can hone your skills on LR and RC too.

Thanks for your response!

so would you recommend taking a few pt's and see where my weakness lies within LG and work on those type of questions? if so, what would be the best approach to enhance my LG skills? time sections from early pt's to master the inferences?

thank you!

I've got a question, what exactly is the logic game bundle? because if it's really worth it, then I might upgrade to the ultimate plus. Thanks again for posting your approach, I'll definitely be looking back at it.

@edricbala130 said:

It depends on your goal, if you are aiming for 170+, you need to go -2 to -0 on LG consistently. LG bundle is part of CC for Ultimate+ users. I would recommend fool proofing LG bundle before taking any new PTs. I quoted one of my previous comments about the way I approached LG bundle I hope it would be useful to you.

My suggestion: after fool proofing LG Bundle, take LG sections of PT 1-35 under time and watch J.Y explanation after completing each section but this time when you watching focus mostly on how he teaches to perceive the right answer choice (instead of brute force) and try to implement his suggestions on the next section.

Do not get bog down on one question (take a hint if possible) but if you find one super difficult and you are confident about your master game board, skip the question answer others in that particular game then come back to it use your other set ups you drew; if nothing works finish the section and if you have extra time come back to it. The ultimate goal is to be able to systematically answer any questions so when under exam pressure you just follow your system. You need to develop a system that works best for you. The system I am trying to follow is like

1- read the question set up the sketch try make obvious inferences

2- check answer choices

3- If still confused take count of the items write them near questions and go through the rules one by one make inferences

4- check answer choices

5- If still stuck, SKIP the question

6- After I have done all other questions I will take another try at it by only checking the question against all of my sketches (I do not try to make inferences again unless I already finished the section)

Pacifico Logic Games Attack Strategy

https://classic.7sage.com/discussion/#/discussion/2737/logic-games-attack-strategy

J.Y fool-proof guide

https://classic.7sage.com/lesson/fool-proof-guide-to-perfection-on-logic-games/

I hope this helps you>

@aaronwfrank90 said:

At the end of the prep test look for the Acknowledgment page, they list the publications there.

Edit: Also it seems quite common for people to suggest The Economist as a publication to read.

thanks everyone!

see the issue is, I don't mind reading The Economist, actually i quite enjoy reading it. It's the art history/science material that I need to get used to reading and get accustomed to the terminology.