As you review, write any words you don't know down in your notes with a definition and in content (during blind review on a PT, or just during review). While you are doing a PT, just circle the word (or highlight because digital) and try to figure it out in content. If you are studying using the economist or in your reading in general, do the same thing. Most of the time context should reveal the meaning, but this will help improve vocab without detracting from studies.

BRing definitely helps unless you are consistently -0/-1 overall on reading, both in terms of speed and accuracy.

What BR does is take out the constraint of time and help to see what the ideal score would be. It develops skills which leads to speed and accuracy. When BRing RC, you can figure out if you had a glaring error or misunderstanding of the passage, or if you misunderstood a specific question. You will begin to see trends in questions you tend to struggle with. Are they structure based or detail oriented? Do they happen more in sci passages or law? Did you spend too much time on the details and thus have less time on the last passages?

The other huge impact BR has is that it forces you not only to consider why an answer is right, but also what makes the other AC wrong. Doing this will add speed when you are actually testing because it will allow you to eliminate ACs more quickly based on those flaws or tricks that the LSAT uses again and again.

Additionally, the LSAT recycles topics all of the time.When you take the time to understand plate tectonics on one passage, it might help in another PT down the line. Yet, even with new material, the structures are all the same. Really diving deep into the structure helps to make a shallow swim easier when the clock is ticking!

It might be a good idea to watch some of JY's videos on the comparative RCs for pts you have taken. His approach is what @ describes. Read A, get the main point and attitude down. I might have something in my mind as simple as "A likes this method". I personally don't write summaries anymore, but maybe underline a key word or phrase in the passage. With A strong in your mind, tackle the questions, paying careful attention to the question stem, asking yourself what your task is in eliminating ACs.

If the question says something like "Which of the following is a central point/topic of both of the passages" go ahead and Eliminate any AC that doesn't seems like a mp of A. Same with a question stem like "Which of the following is mentioned in both of the passages". Eliminate anything not mentioned in A.

If the question says "Which of the following is mentioned in B, but not A" eliminate any ACs that are mentioned in A.

If the question stem asks you to draw an analogy between the two passages, skip it! You need to understand both passages to understand how they are related.

If the question stem asks for the relationship, sometimes you can answer it based on how it describes A. "Passage A criticizes a trend that passage B endorses" You might ask yourself if passage A really is criticizing a trend.

Then read passage B. Because you went thru the questions, you will kinda have an idea of what they will ask for. When you do your second pass, most of the questions will be a breeze.

In LR, when your brain starts to mush, or you are looking back up at the prompt over and over again, just skip it. It is hard to do intuitively, but the second time around it should look easier. And if it doesn't, well it was good you skipped it and saved that time for other questions.

For me, the questions I spend the longest on are the one's I tend to get wrong. So if I am going to get them wrong anyway, why sink more time into them? You arn't aiming for a perfect score, but probably -1 to -4 or what not per section. If you rush through the section using skipping, you get that time to check over the one's that don't work.

For RC, a question is difficult if you find yourself looking back through the passage. If is very difficult if you have to go back thru the ACs more than once. In that case, skip it and move on. In RC you don't really have time to get sucked back into the passage more than once or twice. In reality, sometimes going thru other questions help to get the point of the passage better.

It's like what JY says in his explanations. You are always trading time for confidence. If you are not 100 percent confident, that is fine, but how much extra time will it take to get there? If you arn't confident at all, just skip it!

I also flag all questions I wasn't 100 percent confident on or took a bit of time. I try to write the questions I really need to get back to on paper (digital testing) and tackle those first before doing a read thru of the rest, time permitting.

In LG, I usually don't skip a game unless it is a very unusual one. But I will skip questions that ask me to do a lot of work. If it is one that removes a premise or changes one so that you have to redraw the board for example.

It is clear why B is wrong from the explanation, and it seemed fishy as the AC I picked. There is no discussion on how science is relevantly different from other fields.

The reason E is correct made more sense when I used an analogy. If the Grammys are supposed to be an indicator of the best music in a year, but cannot include groups of more than 5, or those who have passed away, we have reason to believe that it isn't the most reliable indicator of the musical field.

This requires one small assumption: that the scientific nobel prize (like the grammys in this analogy) are supposed to be indicators of the top contributions of science (or music). If we exclude relevant parties from receiving the prize, we have reasons to conclude it is not a reliable indicator.

@ said:

Sorry this is a bit late, but I wanted to give a very big shout out and thank you to JY for conducting multiple BR sessions with prep test 88. I can't tell you how incredibly helpful that was, and it was great to get to know some of the other 7sagers as we went along. JY, thanks for taking a huge amount of your time to help us get better scores. It also is quite an honor to get to work directly with you. I'm sure we are all better for the experience.

I absolutely agree! The cost of group tutoring with such an experienced LSATer for that many hours would exceed the cost of of the started and premium 7sage packages. And not just that, JY took the time to work out issues for every problem that every student wanted approached, gave helpful tips, and made sure that everyone who could participate did, so at points it felt like one on one. I think the tools learned and developed will help me immensely on Monday, but to anyone taking the test in the future, try to make time to attend these sessions if they continue to be offered. What a great resource! It was surreal to have one on one time with the lsat master himself!

For question 20 (mp), another reason to get rid of D is because it says "in contrast to the theory of evolution" the claims of this theory are speculative. However, the author states that all evolutionary evidence is circumstantial in the last paragraph. In that vein, it implies that perhaps the evidence supporting evolution is circumstantial and speculative as well.

Also if D was the main point, the passage would have focused more on why the theory of standard evolution is not speculative.

@ said:

I want to echo Carpediem's question. I took the December LSAT in 2017 and completed writing at the test. Do I need to do the online writing portion now for my most recent October 2019 LSAT?

If you have one writing on file, you are all good.

Exactly here because of E. I got this question right both times, but the confusion of E was a real time sinker. This question reflects the importance of picking an answer and plowing forward.

I have really enjoyed seeing your comments on all the videos going through. Some of your explanations really helped me!

I have also been studying off and on for about 2 years now and it has been a pleasure sort of doing this journey with you.

This might have been mentioned, but the reasons to retake the LSAT have been mentioned as follows

You didn't get -0 in LG (although I know September was near impossible)

You scored below your PT average (for like the last 5 pts)

There was some distraction that prevented you from doing your best

Ran out of time

If any of these reasons sound like you, it is worth it to take it again (considering your blood sweat and tears). The biggest disadvantage to taking it again wouldn't be admissions looking down on you, but the money and opportunity cost going into it. Also consider a lot of testing days have been filled so you might not get in as soon as you want.

Pay really good attention to the set up of the game before you move on to the rules. Think of what it means before you make a board, and read the rules once before writing anything down. Then as you go thru your boards try to think of all the inferences you can push out and make them on your board, splitting if possible.

Jy always does the acceptable situation q while reading the rules. I like to do it right after i understand all the rules and try to eliminate with that understanding. (But obviously go with what works and saves time). It helps because I can apply two rules at once or whatever inferences and when I elim more than one answer based on one rule I think I might understand the rule wrong. It also ensures I am comfortable with all the rules in tandem.

Skip the bare CBT and MBTs that require game boards and do the additional premise questions first. I usually read the question and see if I can eliminate any ACs or if my inference gives me an answer, but I do not make any extra game boards until I do add'l premise Qs first. It gives you more game boards and help solify understanding.

In circular games I never draw the board in a circle. Instead, I draw a linear board with an arrow connecting the first and last thing so I know to think of them as next to eachother. The only exception might be the picnic table game where people were sitting "across" from eachother (very hard misc game but with fool proofing and the other tactics becomes easier).

It is just as imprtant to know what can go somewhere as what can't. If you are in a limited game board, say 5 or 6 items, and 2 cannot go next to something (for example, G and F cannot be next to A), I might add in the margins A with the things that can go next to it. Then questions that ask "if F is between D and C, what must be next to A" I will look at that extra inference I drew and see what is left. A good example is that 8 person circular game with couples who cant sit next to eachother because it added more premsies that made it so only a limited number of people could sit next to G and R.

Skip the hardest game if you are stuck. Do the easier questions you can get and come back later. A fresh look can help immensely. If you have no idea how the board looks, just keep reading the stim and look at the acceptable situation qs. Look for works that suggest an order (numbered, one after another, in order) a proportion (exactly 4 out of 7) and if something can repeat (each thing exactly once, or if there is 7 spots and 5 pieces).

In prep, BR all the games and use fool proof for all games you dont get -0 within the expected time. Watch the video explanations but do not be afraid to try making your boards look different than JYs if you still get the Qs and inferences. Everyone's brains interpret info differently.

Dont just work on difficult games. You should be doing easier to medium games in your prep and BR because getting those done faster gives you much more time to tackle the harder ones. A simple sequencing game in 4 minutes versus 6 gives you 2 extra valuable minutes in the harder game. That is huge, not only for timing but confidence. When 5 mins is called, if you have 5 qs left you will start to panic. If you have 2-3 with lots of game boards made, you can take a deep breath and power thru.

@ said:

@ Thanks for your reply! When you said _"but they cannot be completely neutral, because of the negation test. this really got me thinking. I think sometimes with my AC (not just for NA) sometimes I get flustered and I just fall into traps without double checking. Because in my head I gave myself a rule I must remember that rules with the LSAT are not concrete and I should treat them with a rule of thumb.

Your line of reasoning really made sense to me thanks.

I am very glad it helped! I didn't know if it was concrete but to know it helped someone made it worth typing it out! Thank you.

Great advice on here. I have a few points to add.

I would add that I love the PT analytics tool. It shows you a breakdown by section, question type, improvement test by test, your averages and improvement first test to last. The only way to get analytics is to take tests (analytics ---> take pts) and each test gives you more to work with. You are feeding the machine, a machine which has the sole purpose of helping you excel at the lsat.

You also get more material to drill, and 7sage lets you make practice drills off of the practice tests you own. You never want to drill on perfectly good PTs you haven't seen, but if you take one and get certain LRs wrong or need to foolproof a game, you have more material to work with. Even passages can be reused after a few weeks to get in faster habits and practice.

Another thing about PTs, especially at the beginning, is that blind review is ultimately the most important part of the process in improvement. The process works! If you freeze up in a logic game, do your best, but know that you will have all the time in the world to do it when the test is over. If you spend the time in blind review you can insure that certain weaknesses become your strengths. Spending an hour solidifying that difficult NA question helps on the next pt you take...and the one after that. With the digital test, it also shows you how long each question took you to answer. That helps to understand what is taking too long, what should have been skipped, where more improvement can be made in timing.

Lastly, PTing forces you to gain endurance, a very important part of the lsat. You can ace one section at a time, but when you have four timed sections, you have to get used to keep it moving. Sometimes you will get a game or passage that destroys you, but you cannot take that frustration into the next section. When you do one section, you get to check it right after. Endurance is easier said than done, but it is a skill only possible through real (no cheating) PTs. You learn that some questions need to be skipped and hoe to maintain pace.

Looking at PTs as something awesome, the biggest tool in improving scores (when implementing the correct strategies) instead of these anxiety bombs may make it not only easier to take them but also potentially improve your score on them.

Another reason to get rid of 24 D. Outside information is not specific - let's try to think of the strongest outside information we can get. If we make a decision that we should go to war with X country, a result of groupthink. Now, let's say the outside information is that Country X no longer exists, aliens attack, or country Y or country X just fall into the earth. Are we to believe that the information will have no effect on our deliberation? Maybe we would be skeptical to believe it, but it would effect the decision making. It would be difficult to support that upon hearing this news and having it confirmed, our group would insist - let's go to war!

When trying to Blind Review, I like to take these examples to the extreme to really see why they would be eliminated.

I had a community college gpa of 3.476 for one year (25 credits) and then a 3.961 for 3 years of university for an overall total of 117 credits. LSAC calculated a 3.86 overall for me which is what I had calculated as well.

If you look at the LSAC transcript report there is some interesting info that compares your grades to overall distribution in your university, LSAT distribution, and a year by year total. I have heard that the lsac does make mistakes so if you calculate a different number you can call and dispute it. I've also heard that sometimes they recalculate and it actually goes down so do at your own risk.

@ said:

Thank you @ that was super helpful! :smiley:

I'm glad! Thank you.

Most flaws are of the same type. I believe there is a lesson on these types in the core curriculum. Make sure to watch the video explanations for the flaw questions, as JY points them out really well. If you understand the types of flaws, you will start to recognize the language the LSAT uses to identify them. Find the flaw in the stim, really understand it, then hunt for the answer. Really pay attention to referential phrasing in the ACs.

Maybe try coming up with examples for every flaw type that are easy to use as analogies for other cases.

For example, sometimes the argument concludes a conclusion is false because the person making the claim is self-interested, is under investigation, has said something contrary in the past. This is called ad hominem. I've seen so many questions that say 'Prof X has theory A. But Prof X also says to doubt any theory you hear (or some variation trash talking prof X - maybe he's being paid by someone, he is the youngest prof, he was wrong about another theory, he changed his theory in the past). Therefore, theory A is wrong.

Another example - Mayor Bob says to donate to charity. Yet, Mayor Bob has not donated to charity in the last 6 years. Therefore, we shouldn't donate to charity.

----Yeah, major bob is a hypocrite, but there is no reason to believe he is wrong.

Another popular one is suff/necessity confusion. What JY calls 'the oldest trick in the book'.

All jedis use the force. Sam uses the force. Therefore, Sam is a jedi.

There is one about proportion - not knowing the denominator in some comparison. 20 people in my class got sick last week, but only 4 in your class did. Therefore, my class is way sicker than yours.

---Well, how many people are in each class? I mean if my class has 200 people and yours has 5, it seems that my conclusion is flawed.

Another one about theories assuming something is wrong because there is conflicting evidence or theories.

Theory A says it will rain tomorrow. But theory B says it won't rain. Therefore, theory A must be false. You see this type a lot with science or anthropology theories.

There is one called False dichotomy. Making it seem like there is only two options when there could be more.

-Ex - Theory A says it will rain today. But it was snowing earlier. Therefore it won't' rain.

Well, come on, we know that it can both rain and snow on one day.

My favorite is one you hear people do all the time. Using one or two examples to prove something true or false.

---You say driving at night has the biggest risk of accidents. But I've driven every night this week and I haven't crashed once! You much be wrong.

There are many more, but these are just examples. When you get a question wrong, look at the flaws and try to come up with your own similar examples. They repeat over and over and over again.

This question is covered in JY's recorded video calls, which is a good resource

https://classic.7sage.com/discussion/#/discussion/21699/pt88-br-with-j-y-on-nov-1-16-2-5pm-et

Let's get clear on the argument first:

Babson concludes basically that if the quality of articles and essays is high enough, charging people a dollar will succeed. Why? p1 Because people already tip in many countries even more than a dollar. p2 Also, a dollar isn't a lot of money.

Babson is using the analogy of tipping to provide support for paid articles.

Cortez replies basically that Babson's argument is weak. Yeah people tip in countries, but only for customary traditions - when you go out to eat, or get your hair done. He implies that tipping isn't customary for article writing. Additionally, people don't pay for each article individually, they usually buy a subscription. Therefore, good luck trying to make a living on writing for a dollar a view.

Cortez questions the applicability of the analogy in this case and offers another reason to doubt Babson.

What do they disagree on? Well that charging a dollar for reading an article would be successful. Babson says yeah, if quality is good. Cortez says probably not - people don't tip for everything - people don't pay for individual articles - good luck.

The Answer Choices

B - We don't know who is more likely to support such a practice, tipping or non tipping countries.

----Babson has no opinion on this. He thinks the model will be successful if quality good enough because a dollar isn't much and many people leave more than that to the barista at starbucks in many countries. Babson never says it will be successful only in countries that people tip. It will be successful if quality is high enough.

------Cortez has no opinion on this. He thinks it probably won't be successful at all because Babson's evidence is sloppy. Yet, it doesn't mean that some people won't pay $1 per article view. Just good luck making money that way. Who is more likely to pay $1? France? The US? Who knows.

C - Just claims it is possible to write articles that some people would pay a dollar to read

Yeah, babson agrees, but does Cortez disagree?

----- In fact Cortez probably wouldn't disagree with this. I mean maybe Babson would pay a dollar to read the article and is from a country that doesn't practice tipping. He just thinks it wouldn't be successful. Let's say you write an article under this motto and 4 people read it. You've made 4 bucks. But are you successful in your dollar a read motto? Have you actually earned money "This way"?

D- People's attitudes towards tipping (The analogy used above) suggests [If quality high enough ----> Success]

----Babson agrees - his argument is structured in that way. His conclusion [qual articles ----> S] is supported by the fact people tip.

------Cortez disagrees - he says tipping in countries does not support tipping because it isn't customary to tip for articles and we don't pay for individual articles as is. I don't think Cortez is committed to saying the practices won't be successful anywhere at all in any circumstances, but that the reasons Babson gives arn't good evidence for the practice and that he would say good luck to any dollar journalist out there trying to make a living.

(Other ACs)

A - Nobody disagrees that tipping isn't a practice - or that no one wouldn't "routinely part with money" - I mean anybody ever go shopping ever?

E - We don't know what 'Most people' think. We know Babson thinks it is novel, we don't know what Cortez thinks, and we don't know what anyone else thinks about the practice.

Here was the way I tackled it:

Necessary assumption question.

The argument is flawed because it assumes investors putting money into stocks correlates with voter confidence in economy.

C tackles this - the economic attitudes of investors do not vary greatly from voters. Maybe they vary slightly, but not enough to prevent the incumbent to get re-elected. If you negate this, and attitudes do greatly vary between investors and voters, it seriously undermines the argument.

B states the investment choices of voters reflect political preferences. Yet, the argument doesn't state anything about political preferences, or the actual investment choices, other than the choice to invest in the stock market in the first place. Instead, it states that 'voter confidence in economy favors incumbents'. They have confidence in the economy = economic attitude. Confidence in the economy because they invest. This confidence leads to voting that tends to favor incumbents.

Think about what B would mean. If I invested in an eco friendly company, that would tend to reflect my political preference that is pro-environment. That doesn't seem necessary - what if I invest in an oil company because it will make me money, not because it reflects my political preference? Does that influence our argument at all? This fails the negation test.

I mean, to draw it out further, you could ask if we always vote for our political preferences in the first place? What if I am a libertarian so my political preferences are no taxes no restrictions on individual rights? But hey, the economy is doing good, my IRA is up, so I will vote for the guy in charge even though he is far from libertarian.

@ said:

*Side Note: I am not sure if I am correct about this but NA AC should not be to strong, and the way (C) is worded is subtle enough to provide the support needed. Especially when they say "voters in general". Hopefully I am right about this.

I think you are on to something but I don't think it is quite right. I have tried to get my thoughts around this for a long time and I hope this explanation helps.

AC C is a lot stronger than B, which in this case, makes it more correct. I do think the NA questions tend to be less strong than SA, but they cannot be completely neutral, because of the negation test. For example, if an AC said the man is right half the time, the negation test would mean the man is right more or less than 50%. It is not clear which one, so it is unclear how that would affect an argument.

If we say voter's attitude sometimes differ from the economic attitudes of investors. The negation test would be voter's attitudes never vary. Well that isn't necessary, what if 1 in 1000 vary?

In this actual question, the greatly is what makes C right. If we negate it, it means the economic attitudes do vary greatly from voters - meaning the voters don't have confidence in the economy overall.

We also have to make the assumption relevant to the argument. If we say investors usually don't vote, this doesn't affect the argument. Maybe they only vote when the economy is good, and that only happens 1 out of every 10 years. It wouldn't impact this argument.

If a NA AC is strong, it becomes quite weak under the negation test. If the AC says a person always goes to the movies after dinner, the negation means a person sometimes does not go to the movies after dinner. (There has been at least one time the person has not gone to the movies). Depending on the question, this could destroy an argument or have no effect on it. Maybe it is necessary for the argument that the person always goes to the movies after dinner, so if there is one time where the person doesn't, the argument falls apart.

The opposite is true. If it starts out weak, it becomes strong. If the AC says sometimes Jerry eats ice cream, the negation test would mean Jerry never eats ice cream. Super restrictive.

I'm not sure if this helps at all or just makes things more confusing. I do think that weaker answers tend to be right, but not always. I also think there are a lot of weak wrong answers that throw us off.

@ said:

Thanks to everyone for replying, especially @ and @ Nikki, super helpful!

Absolutely! Hope some of the tips come in handy.

@ said:

I have daydreams of being some kind of a surgeon/lawyer, but am unsure how feasible such a career would be. Has anyone read a case study of someone who has done both? Or is anyone actively pursuing a joint MD/JD, especially with interests in pursuing a career in medicine outside of medical law?

So I have heard that this sort of background is good if you want to pursue medical malpractice law. It is a lot easier to understand the terminology and the tort if you have a medical background in the same way an engineering background helps in patent law. These cases are highly specialized, allowing for big bucks for those in the niche. You could defend surgeons or people who have been affected by medical malpractice. Insurance companies also need lawyers with this background.

However, doing both medical practice and law at the same time seems very difficult. Perhaps consider pursuing the medical field first and then using that expertise towards a legal career. I've never met or heard of a lawyer or a doctor in the early stages of their career with a lot of time on their hands to do two completely unrelated jobs.

General time savers I use:

Whenever I know something is sequencing, I will make two master game boards after writing down all my rules. I think I usually do this for in out boards as well, but I wait to see if there is a good split first. I know I will use at least two boards, and writing them at the same time makes it seem faster than looking at a question and then writing it and then using it for that question. If it is a sequencing with days (mon -fri) i will write the abbreviation under one board (M T W Th F) and try to line the rest up underneath. I always do this with charts if they have a lot of restrictive rules. This helped me a lot on the flowers game because it gave me an inference that let me have 2 master game boards. It also makes things neater imo than quickly scribbling other boards.

If the sentencing board uses numbers (1-7 for examples instead of mon thru fri) I never write the numbers. Instead, I will put a small gap between the 4th and 5th number and use that as reference. Strange at first but did come in handy and become habit soon.

In in out games with fixed numbers, I dont put a fixed number of spaces in the board for both sides as it makes my boards look cluttered. If one has a max of 2 or 3 then I might add the lines, but usually only when there is only two options for one line. ( for example, if G-->~H then I might makes a line and put the G/H on master game board). If there is a fixed number (3 in 4 out) I might write it on the bottom of the board or just remember it.

Another tip is know on the digital test you will be using scrap paper so you can make big boards if it helps you and use a whole page per board instead of writing by questions. If something is messy, cross it out, try not to erase. If you mess up on a board, don't spend time trying to save it if it will give up legibility. Just make a new one.

Additionally, listen to JY's advice about doing additional premise Qs first. Use intuition to try out ACs in CBT and MBT to eliminate number of boards made.

Games with charts can be messy for me. To remedy this I really think of the neatest way to write it. What pieces should go on top, what should go on the sides? I personally do better with more pieces going horizontal than vertical. Sometimes you don't need to write in lines for your charts if they are small enough and trace with fingers. (Like a 3x3 or so) If you do make lines, know you can make a big board.

Lastly, just be relaxed doing the games. This comes with confidence and practice, but it will make your boards neater. Rushing to write something that is messy will waste more time. But really spending an extra second on legibility makes the whole game go by easier.

B states that it takes for granted any failure = air bag inflate. The argument does not do this. Instead, the argument presumes that more ways to fail = more of a chance it will fail. Not that every time it will fail. The author doesn't even state how it would fail. Maybe the computer control system will fail to make the air conditioning work. Or maybe a failure will cause the airbag not to inflate.

The argument only states that with the increase in possibility of failure due to the complex system, the specific "Accidental air bag inflation" rate will increase.

Also situate the line reference into your low res summary of the paragraph, and sometimes into the passage as a whole. Perhaps the line gives an example of OPA (other people's arguments) and the author crushes them later in the paragraph, or they are a reply to the argument in a prior paragraph. Or maybe it is support for the authors argument. With your low res summary you get a better point of how it fits.

I am sure there is some consensus on which get harder or different Question types that show up more. However, I feel that each preptest is best looked as as a whole. The goal for lsac is to keep the same distribution of scores, so on some tests you might find that LR 1 is easy, LR 2 is hard, LG is easy and RC is very hard (or some variation). I have found studying for fixing each section the best helps score distribution overall. There are trends in the 50s and 60s and 70s that change, but we are still in the 80s and there are always curve breaker questions, sections, games, and passages.