LSAT produce results that are statistically the same across the whole, but different between each test taker. Some tests touch on your strengths, and some on your weaknesses. This test could have been one where your weaknesses were touched on. I wouldn't put too much emphasis on a single test score. You are your highest score, period.

If you have accommodations, ignore all of the following.

You need to PT using real timed conditions. Giving yourself and extra 7 minutes is conditioning your brain to get used to 20% more time. This is just not the case on the real LSAT. Not to be blunt, but your scores aren't really characteristic of how you'd do on the real thing if you are testing time plus 20%. You need to take a PT under real timed conditions. That will tell you where you actually are. Also, if you do this, you will probably score lower than your time plus 20% PT's. So don't freak about that. It's normal to do better with more/unlimited time. You're doing yourself a disservice by taking tests with more time than you will be given on the real thing. I know this is harsh, but it's the truth.

LSAT scores are described as a score band of plus or minus three points from your scaled score. Four points is close enough to this. It's probably natural fluctuations on tests. LSATs perform the same over tens of thousands of test takers, but that's not to say each LSAT performs the same way in your hands. Some tests feature your strengths, some your weaknesses, and some are in the middle. Four points is well within the realm of natural fluctuations, and 6 tests in a row near your target score prove you can do it. ie, if you can get a 170 on an LSAT you are that 170, even if you get a 163 on the next PT. There's a reason why law schools take only your highest score. It's because if you can achieve a score, that truly reflects your ability.

Take a break, seriously it helps a ton. The lsat is a process test, and your brain will still be compartmentalizing all of the ideas which you have learned and worked on. Take a week off. Can't do that? Take a few days off. You will feel sharper and excited to prep again. I take a day or two off every few weeks to let things marinate. Burnout is real. If you're prepping for August, like me, watch yourself carefully, and take breaks of a few days to ensure you are sharp as a whip for test day.

I almost always see improvement on my sections when I try this out.

LR26-LG23-RC27

LR: electric bacteria, crying babies, British soldiers and their armor

LG: inspections, Product development, officer departments

RC: Volcanic ash, native tribes, contemporary literature, and British marriage

Contemporary literature was the hardest RC imo. LR and the rest of RC seemed pretty fair. LG felt fair for the first three games, but the last one about inspections was hard. However, that could have been because I only had a few min left to finish it.

Overall fair test, and the flex experience is much better than sitting at a testing center for 4 to 5 hours.

Working on doing a similar thing. Diagnostic at 142, and currently I am pt'ing around 159. I know that there is so much room to grow, and it's only up from here if I keep at it. Thanks for the post! It's keeping things in perspective and focused!

@kellyxialove358 should I just DM you my # if I want to join the study group?

@davidbusis895 Thank you for letting me know! This is a great opportunity!

Is this for the current cycle, or for the 2020/21 cycle?

The trick of this question is recognizing the content of the support, and connecting it to the conclusion that some of the master works must be forgeries. How could minor artists make a living if there were more of them and they were making less paintings per person? Anticipate the idea that they were somehow helping the master artists

A is discussing something which is irrelevant to the forgery of paintings. Cut it

B is trying to trick you into thinking that the assistants were shifty people. Run, stay away! Making assumptions in a statement which is supposed to strengthen does not help the argument!

C I fell for this one, because I did not recognize the idea in the conclusion that the artists may have been forging their paintings. With a strong understanding of the support and the conclusion this AC is eliminated

D Correct! This AC explains and supports for why there were many minor artists making a living on landscapes, but the famous artists were getting all the credit

E This AC is playing on the idea that old things usually get destroyed, thus less survive. But that has nothing to do with explains the disparity of minor vs major artists despite minor artists painting landscapes all the time.

A is an explanation for the coincidence of the laptop turning on, and the issues with the navigational equipment.

B All electronic devices introduces a strong form of what devices can impact navigational equipment. This AC addresses both circuit types, but when rereading the stimulus you will notice that the old circuit types are impacted my electronic devices, however, to a lesser extent.

C Strengthens the argument by eliminating alternate explanations of why the event may occur on planes that have no passenger owned electronic devices. Through this AC we learn that when devices have not been on board planes there have been no issues,

D Eliminates the possible alternative explanation of why the devices do not cause the issues. This cause being distance from the equipment.

E Merely telling us that two things became commonplace at the same time. This provides no support for the causal structure of the argument, therefore it is the AC which does not strengthen.

The trick for this question is being able to understand the simple solve for X equation that is in the stimulus. Admittedly, under the timed situation I understood that censor 1 had more submissions than censor 2, but I fell for a trap answer choice. This was likely due to the timed conditions and a bit of panic.

/A) This answer is tricky because they are trying to trick you into thinking that before the first censor was appointed people could publish as many books critical of the government as they wanted to. I got seduced by this AC for a second in blind review, but upon writing out the math in its entirety this answer is clearly addressing something beyond the scope of the information in the stimulus.

/B) If you did not read closely enough, then you might have missed the information which says they both approved the same number of manuscripts. This AC is clearly a contradiction.

C) Correct! This AC clearly states the math problem which we figured out. I'm not going to post my own, since JY has a good explanation of it. I missed this at first partly due to time, but also because of not having the math written out on the timed run. The visual clears everything up.

/D) This AC could be appealing even if you figured out the math correctly. It mainly plays into you thinking that 25% is less than 50% denial, so censor 2 was more lenient. Not true we know nothing about the censors respective approval nature.

/E) I fell for this in the timed run! If you figure out the math and are rushing, you might think that this answers the question of why more people wrote manuscript under 1 than 2. However, it does not explain or even address this. This is because this AC is referring to unpublished manuscript which we know nothing about!

Hello! I posted about a month ago looking for a group in Chicago. I would love to join you! I currently live in Uptown, but attend college in the loop. This would be a great thing, as I do not think there is a Chicago study group right now. I currently scoring right around your diagnostic.