It's definitely doable! I was never in your shoes, but I'm happy to offer some test strategies and study tactics. Before that, if you need any other advice or maybe some explanations as to why some questions are right/wrong, please feel free to message me! I'm still on my LSAT journey as well and will be taking both August and September, and I would love to assist you if I can because this test sucks.

‎

Study Tactics:

After you take a PT (or any section), note the incorrect questions and record the following information: Question Type, Difficulty, Stimulus, Question Stem, Breakdown, Answer Choices, and Notes.

The first four are pretty self-explanatory. With the 'Breakdown', type out the stimulus in your own words. Use 'lawgic' if you want, and try to make it as easy to understand for you as possible. With the 'Answer Choices', type out each answer choice and explain it to yourself. Why is this relevant/not relevant? What makes this question right/wrong? Lastly, with 'Notes', write down things that you think will help you on similar questions you get in the future. Did you make a mistake reading the stimulus or the question stem, or is it a general concept you're misunderstanding? It could be any number of things.

While sections are great to do, try drilling as well! Input the wrong questions you get on PTs on 7Sage, and use the 7Sage Virtual Tutor option on the Drills page. You want to drill the question types you get wrong as often as you can until you're able to get enough of them correct that you feel comfortable. Focus on the issues you have, not just the ones you get right often.

Test Strategies

Memorize the '33 Common LSAT Flaws' as published by Powerscore, and read the Flaw section in 'The Loophole'. By teaching yourself to identify flaws, you can become better able at answering Necessary Assumption questions, Flaw questions, and all other sorts of questions as well! This is super helpful, and bumped me up from a diagnostic of 164 to pushing past the 170s.

Try to learn how to recognize when questions are giving you a phenomenon and an explanation, or when causation is established on basis of correlation. While 7Sage breaks down questions into easily discernable types, on the LSAT, there can be a lot of overlap such as Strengthening NA questions. Practice your conditional reasoning if you need, too, particularly with diagramming. A lot of people say it's a waste of time, but diagramming on hard questions when you have the time is extremely helpful!

Other Helpful Things

This may or may not be relevant, but eating well, getting 8 hours of sleep a night, and exercising (I run, highly recommend) are hugely beneficial for this test because all of those are necessary to being in the best mental form you can be for test day. I also recommend a magnesium supplement. While this may seem odd, so many people suffer from a magnesium deficiency, and it helps maintain proper blood brain flow! I do that alongside a once-daily vitamin, because I know I don't eat well some days and need vitamins, especially that magnesium which Adderall drains like hell.

I hope some of this is able to help :)

In contrast to the other answer - no. In conditional logic, there's no real difference between "only" and "only if". They can be taken as the same. However, there is a difference between "only/only if" and "if and only if". "If and only if" signals a biconditional.

For anyone having trouble on WHY C is correct - C engages directly with the argument. It says "Actually, long term relaxation training is valuable because...".

If they aren't exact it's okay! This particular problem is quite easy, and so if you encounter ones of a similar difficulty on the actual test, that won't be a problem. However, it's important to be able to roughly quantify the strength of an argument. Questions with a difficulty of 5 (or 4 approaching a 5) will have answers where the strength of their arguments are very close, and it's up to you to determine which one is slightly less strong.

The negation of some alphabets are phonetic would in fact be Alphabet > /Phonetic, meaning that if it is an alphabet, then it is not phonetic. No alphabets are phonetic.

HOWEVER, there is a 'not' in that example. Some alphabets are not phonetic. When we negate A > B, we add a negation to B. But there's already a negation in front of the B from the original claim. Because of that, when we add the negation, it cancels out.

This leaves us with Alphabet > Phonetic.

Hope this helped!

Think of it like a math problem.

Step 1: Copy

/N or /O → /M

- - - - - - - - - -

We want to get the contrapositive. Okay, first, we need to switch the sufficient and necessary conditions. Let's do that.

- - - - - - - - - -

Step 2: Switch

/M → /N or /O

- - - - - - - - - -

Well, now what? 'If not M, then not N or not O' is the converse of 'If not N or not O, then not M'.

But we aren't looking for the converse, because the converse simply switches the sufficient and necessary conditions. We're looking for the contrapositive- the thing that swaps the conditions AND negates them. That leads us to...

- - - - - - - - - -

Step 3: Flip/Negate

//M → //N or //O

- - - - - - - - - -

This thing looks like a mess. Two backslashes just looks bad. Well hey, with the necessary condition, there are two backslashes in front of each one, so let's make this look a little nicer.

- - - - - - - - - -

Step 3.5: Simplify (Part 1)

//M → /(/N or /O)

- - - - - - - - - -

There we go! This statement is equivalent to Step 3, just a bit cleaner looking

Now, the backslash outside of the parentheses on the necessary condition looks familiar, right? In mathematics, when you have a number immediately outside of the parentheses with no operative symbol after it, it just means multiple.

So we can sort of think of / as a -1, it just makes things negative!

But you know what? It still looks a little messy. This is kind of a pain to read.

What Step 3.5 is saying is 'If not not M, then not not N or not not O.'.

But hang on a second, when we think of this like a math problem, what do two negatives equal?

- - - - - - - - - -

Step 4: Simplify (Part 2)

M → N or O

- - - - - - - - - -

There we go, this looks like the contrapositive we need! We understood that the negative of a negative is a positive, so we removed all those backslashes. Without those, we didn't really need the parentheses either, so we removed them,

I hope this helped to explain!

It's not incorrect, but the superscript is being used to indicate the belonging of an object to a set. You're absolutely right in that being Luke does imply being a force user, but this variation of symbolic logic is creating a distinction between sets and objects.

Think of → as being used to describe the relationship between two sets, and superscript as describing the relationship between an object and a set.

Think of it like the statement is a separate world, it has no grounding on our own. If the passage doesn't say "tigers are mammals", we need to assume they are, but it's possible that, within the confines of the passage, tigers are fish. We look only at the evidence in front of us, separating it from the outside world.