I've been studying now for 10months and do not see much of the improvement.

Comparing to what it felt like 10 months ago when I first started to study, it was very difficult to understand the passages as well as the answer choices, and comprehending took so much time. I was always short in time by 5~10 minutes when I do the time section on LR(getting -7 ~ -14wrong).

Now, I feel more familiar with the LR passages, sometimes see the pattern and most of the time able to solve 1~2 star questions quickly and some of 4~5 star questions easy, and I am now able to finish timed section roughly in time.

But I don't see much of the apparent improvement and keep getting -8 and sometimes -12 if I was unable to focus and distracted. I will be very happy if I could get less than 3wrong consistently.

I am so devastated. Is this normal? Any advice will be very appreciated.

I totally don't understand this question. Need help and let me know if I read correctly.

Stimuli provides: certain peculiarities are used unconsciously, and if used by more than 1 poet, it represents common usage; if used by only 1 poet, then its unique trait which plays as "fingerprint" allowing the scholars to identify the poem of that poet.

Q stem asks to choose the proof from ACs that goes against the stimuli.

(A) - wrong : didn't like "labor"

(B) - don't understand so I'll leave it

(C) - this was correct AC but I don't get it: well, if such peculiarity was not unique to that author, then doesn't it suggest that it could be the commonly used language among other poets as provided in the stimuli?

(E) - thought this was the correct answer; if peculiarities are used "conscious" (by other poets) even if it is supposed to be unique in other poems, then it would make the scholars hard to identify

Can someone explain?

Hi I hope all is well with you 7Sagers.

It has been now 6 months since I've started to studying for LSAT but still struggling with many of the sections.

My diagnostic was 145, and last score was 153 (pt38: BR164) but this, I think was a fluke(higher BR score came from LG and RC, not much difference in LR). English is my secondary language.

I have full time job, and during week days, I manage to study for 3 hours per day. I meditate daily, listen to LSAT podcasts while driving back home from work; really trying to dedicate myself to LSAT studying.

I plan to take my LSAT next April; I have now about 6 months to prepare.

I foolproof LG with old PTs on daily basis (4games per day), and not doing any drills on RC yet (instead, I am currently reading Economics) as I feed the need to focus on improving LR at the moment.

After CC, I read Ellen's Loophole twice which made me feel pretty confident that I have the fundamentals strengthened, and I have been doing the basic translation drill ("BTD") for a month (but still takes 40 minutes to finish off one section).

*BTD is a translation drill that you read the stimulus and cover it up and repeat in your own words which will require fast understanding and quick memory; this process is quite tedious and even harder since English is my secondary language.

I plan to continue BTD until I can do it within 20 minutes (may be 30 minutes? I don't know) but not sure if this is something that can be improved because I will be facing different passages all the time.

Recently, I took timed LR section from old pts to see if there had been any improvement. I still felt nervous and digesting the stimuli difficult (maybe there was very slight improvement but generally difficult); I got -10 (BR -8); when encountering the questions, my fundamentals seemed to fall apart or mind goes blank, and this was so discouraging.

My general idea is that we do BR after taking PTs but since I need to work on my accuracy on LR, I am currently working on drilling with old LR sections (pt 1~35) doing untimed, and take as much time as necessary.

I have several questions:

In this case, is BR still necessary or recommended? Or should I do the drilling timed, and BR?

Also, should I spend more time on drilling old LR sections untimed? I realize that I have been focusing more on BTD and reading books to learn/familiarize the concepts.

Is drilling by solving lots LR sections from old pts is what it takes to improve?

With 6 months remaining, I feel desperate and lost with little improvement; with many things going on my head: trying Blueprint, tutoring or quitting. I am not sure if I am doing things right.

I would really appreciate any advice.

In Oscar's argument, he mentions "..and thus a country's economic well-being will not be a function of its geographical position..."

What the hell is "function of geographical position"? I have no idea what this means.

Does being northern or southern itself implicates any function? or does "economic well-being" serves as a function?

I get the idea that generally north is rich and south is poor as presupposed in the stimuli but simply don't understand that phrase.

Can somebody help?

While I was struggling with LR, I encountered and read Loophole by Ellen Cassidy. I am currently working on basic translation drill a training method introduced in the book; I read the LR passages and cover it up and write down or elaborate in my own words within 20 minutes for all stimuli in the section.

This, I find it very difficult since my English is secondary language, and it takes 1 hour to complete a section.

This method of training seems reasonable approach to conquer the LR in time but I wonder if this is something that can be improved.

Any advice or thoughts will be very appreciated.

Can someone help with analyzing the stimulus?

I am having difficult time identifying the conclusion.

Admin Note: Edited title. Please use the format: "PT#.S#.Q# - brief description of question”

Can someone please explain why AC A is right?

Is AC A right b/c "some" selfish opportunists to mean, out of all selfish opportunists in the world, only those who participated in local politics?

A: Hawthorne is unethical because he sold the influence to environmental interest group; there is no justification

M: Nope, he's not unethical because It's environmental interest group preventing pollution doing good to public.

Need help:

I kind of get why AC B is right but do not understand why D is wrong because how I also see the above is:

=>His gaining private benefit by selling unethical vs. His action somehow benefiting the public ethical

Can someone explain?

Hi all.

I need some advice with my study plan.

I have recently finished CC after 5 months of studying; I was only able to study 3 hours daily since I work full time.

Currently I manage to do the 1 or 2 PT(s) per week;

I understand that I would need to focus on Pting with more later version as nearing the actual Test date.

But I wonder if it makes much change(ie. starting from old Pts vs. skip old Pts, use it only for drilling and do newer Pts) at this stage because I presume that whether those PTs are old or new, they are testing the same fundamentals/principles.

Any suggestions?

I would appreciate any advice/comment.

Need help in explaining why (A) and (D) is wrong.

I understand that we need to strengthen the argument that the firm's need to reduce the tests on live animals and therefore use new tests: cultures of human cells.

However, (A) seems to infer that because there has been a move against live animal tests by social activists, cosmetics firm is motivated to reduce live animal test and use new test.

(D) also seems to implicate that if the number of the tests can be reduced by using human cultures, then the firm should use it instead of live animal test.

I chose (E) anyway but still doubtful. Is (E) the best answer because I don't need to make any inference at all?

Stim: Japan is model for such sort of training effort & nothing is implicated about its economy

=>which makes ACs (B) and (C) to quickly be eliminated

(A) - worldwide shortage? who cares? irrelevant

(E) - ??? nothing is implied about European countries having better economies

(D)- can definitely be implied from 1st sentence and 3rd sentence together.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

By the way, I still get the conclusion from the stim. Is it the first sentence?