tests tend to cluster in style in groups of around 5. so if you take 10 tests in chronological order then you generally improve over the first 5, then your scores can dip over the next few before coming back up. I would suggest taking the tests in random order to see if that helps

you should post a list of every question type you got wrong with a count in the chat. also clarify what you mean by your answers being "objectively right"

are there any patterns to the question you are getting wrong? are there common question types for the argument and or reading questions? are there common wrong answer types you are picking for either question? what do you mean by "objectively correct"? need some examples in order to be helpful

There are always indicators. Would focus more on understanding the argument so the indicators become clear.

what's with the assumption that every relationship is narcissistic

That's not really much of a difference-3 or 4 questions is not much of a range. I would worry a lot more about why that high score is a 167-seems like there a couple of question types you don't know how to answer. If you focus on learning that, then you'll have some margin. If your only goal is to get three more questions right than you are now, and those are split among many question types, you don't have much margin to improve.

also confused why you would need "near perfect grades" to get into law school. plenty of law schools have a median gpa of 3.5 and below, and plenty of kids with high lsat scores go to the best schools in the country with that gpa.

read outside the test.

push the date. take it in September. then you'll have 3 months where you can focus on the lsat.

yeah, chain the argument. don't take in a month its very early in the cycle and conditional reasoning is the most basic part of lr

I'm confused about this question, so if you can post more detail so people can help you effectively that would be great. you mention "passages" so I assume that this question is about reading comp, but I'm nots sure as Weaken/Strengthen/Evaluate questions are not very common in the reading section. seeing an assumption is generally only relevant if the gap has an assumption or if you are doing an assumption question. but you are saying that the test is "using an assumption to arrive at an answer choice"? I'm not sure if that means that you are not seeing the relevant assumptions in the argument, or if you think that assumptions are used to justify answer choices, which does not happen

The Sidley Podcast is a great law podcast

there's no rule about which is best in general. different times can be helpful for improving different parts of the test

figure out the question types. figure out what confused you each time, and if there are patterns with the question types or patterns in what you find difficult about the questions. "curve-breakers" tend to be different for everyone

I think a key mistake people make when studying reading comp is just focusing on the test format. The section is a test of reading skills and its reading outside the test where you build those skills. I also think that you should start learning the sections at the same time. More time is always helpful for building skills as you learn a lot when you are asleep.

it depends. sometimes its good to go slow and sometimes its good to go fast. its better to mix things up

its early in the cycle so there's no need to take

start reading a lot before studying specific lsat content. it's essentially a reading test just one section has long reading passages and the other has short passages.

no they do not overlap in that way. pointing out a flaw in an argument does not weaken the argument as it as the flaw is already in the argument, so there cannot be any additional weakening from something that is already there. to weaken the argument you need to supply new information.

don't believe those tests are experimental sections. tests after 99 are not actual prep tests they are tests 7sage made by combining sections from old prep tests to fit into the new non logic games format.

Argument: 1) assumption 2) weaken 3) strengthen 4) resolve 5) argument part identification 5) flaw 6)parallel 7) parallel flaw 8) resolve 9) agree/disagree 10) principle supports/find a principle 11) set Reading: 1) main point 2) meaning of something in the passage 3) role of something in the passage 3) title for the passage 4) author agree/disagree 5) strengthen 6) weaken 7) analogy 8) author agree/disagree

not sure what you mean "needs to prepare for June" but going from that to performing well on the lsat in 3 months is a pretty tough challenge. lsat prep is kind of a dual thing where you want to build the fundamental skills outside the test basically reading a lot, and then taking and going over practice tests. 3 months is not really enough time to do both. but if you have no clue how to approach, I would say those fundamental skills are a lot more important and would focus on reading a lot and then getting into prep a month later.

necessary: need for x to happen, sufficient : makes x happen

absolutely absolutely would not advise on taking 3 official tests in a year. they cap the amount of takes you have.

absolutely not. it doesn't make sense to take any more practice tests without knowing how to do one of the question types. the key with analogy/parallel questions is to chain the argument [e.g. if it is something like "clouds lead to rain" "rain leads to thunder "thunder leads to noise", "therefore rain leads to noise"], you would chain it as "clouds => rain => thunder => noise" => "clouds => noise"]. then you would simplify it by writing "a => b => c => d" therefore "a => d". then you would chain the answer choices. the other thing to do is look at key features in the initial argument and then look at the answer choices and see what have the same or different key features (for example, if one argument has an "if" and the other doesn't then you can likely eliminate that answer choice, or if one has a probabilistic conclusion and the other has a definite conclusion then you can likely eliminate that answer choice) (the final answer is always dependent on the other answer choices)