Interested!

I usually do copy my master game board if the question stem introduces a local rule. That way I am able to work with the master diagram and introduce the new rule without altering my main diagram.

So from my understanding of "until" is that it falls into the group three for logical indicators. This means that when you read the sentence (by choosing to go with until as your logical indicator) we are expected to negate either the necessary or sufficient statement. I usually go with the sufficient statement, but there are instances where it makes more sense to go with the necessary (as I think I have confronted this in a few LR questions).

So according to the example you provided, I would diagram as: "-M->B" (reading as if Mary does not go to gym then Brittany goes) and its CP would be "-B->M".

Hope this helps!

Let me see if I can help. I know that there are situations in which "if" is tagged along with the necessary condition BUT this is only because there are other component factors like "if" being present with "only if". In this case the "if" because it is with the "only" would have to be diagram as the necessary condition. Not sure if that answers your question?

Not sure how into the CC you are in but there are scenarios in which you can logical indicators that are present with other logical indicators. Ex.) you can have "unless" with "no" In this case you can choose either or and still diagram the statement appropriately.

I have the same issue and I think it is because I am not accustomed to the words, techniques, nor ideas that they talk about. It is hard to attribute my perspective to the ideas presented.

I had the same issue before. You probably need to delete some of your old drills to help the drills load faster.

Hey, yes I have noticed that some of the sections tend to be easier than others as they are more four star questions for the harder one. I would say that the harder questions can be addressed in the same form that you take care of the easier ones, but what tells them apart is the way that they are formatted. They simply require more time than the easier ones as they are more convoluted with phrases. I would say try spending more time up front with these questions and you would be able to see the difference.

I believe that we are allowed to use Ctrl + F, but the only thing is that in the newer lsats they actually highlight the portion in the passage where they expect us to go back to. I haven't taken the actual lsat so I don't know how effective using the text search engine will be.

I think that as you progress towards the new PTs the LR section does get a bit harder but that is not to say that they cannot be still approached the same way. I feel like the only thing that changes is their grammar approach (they def use this to their advantage). So try to keep on eye out for the way in which the questions are structured and really review why you got the questions wrong and you should see that the section is not that bad.

Normally what helps me when I come across words that I am not familiar with is that I remember that everything that they may be new to us (or that they want to us to know) they will define it for us (for RC). For LR it helps to know that for the most part they don't really want us to know what the word means but just to keep in mind that there might be a distinction between the things identified (when it comes to words that are related to specific fields like astronomy, physics or so forth). So I think it is great to expand your vocabulary but in case you do come across a word you don't know, it is helpful to keep this in mind.

Yes, one thing that I have noticed is that when you are reading RC passages you have to take interactive role with the passage (just like LR). So, you have to constantly engage with the passage by pushing back the info to the idea previously stated and also asking yourself: why the author is telling you the things that he is? Engaging with the passage is def a game changer. As you practice this approach you will notice that (often times) the paragraph just comes down to one core idea with the rest of the sentences simply serving as either: illustration, contradiction, or examples of the ideas.

I would say that your timing for the passage is similar to mine, so I would not say you should attempt to sacrifice understanding for time. What I do recommend, which may help you for the questions, is to eliminate all those acs that seem to present information that conflicts with the passage. Being able to really scrutinize the answer choices and be able to see what they include that simply cannot be supported from the passage helps with decreasing your time.

There is no specific order that I follow for the passage approach as some of the passages that I would like to preform first sometimes tends be the harder passages. I also don't follow a question approach but something that really helps out is knowing what type of question you are dealing with. Say for example if it is under the category of: most likely to agree, inferred, (anything under the inference question) I tend to treat these as MSS questions as you would be surprised that they can be attempted the same way. The way in which I do this is I get rid of all acs that are way too strong, contradict with the passage, or simply cannot be backed up from the passage. For questions that are more detailed to the passage such as "according to the passage" it really helps a lot knowing where to go back in the passage as these questions tend to be explicitly stated. It really helps a lot being able to differentiate these two of questions when you are approaching them.

I highly recommend that you don't touch your pts until you have finished the cc. Why? bc you are going to come across questions that you won't be able to approach appropriately. What you should do is finish the cc and then touch your pts.

One thing I realize with this test is that you can't just wake up and get better at it. It takes time to be able to approach the test appropriately and I think the more we try to rush (taking pts as soon as we can) the more it delays our chances of scoring high.

Yes, I think you have it right. The unrepresentative sample (US) is when they use some sort of bias to test their results. The idea is not just limited to a limit of individuals that they use as the US can also be used when they have gotten a biased group or bias survey results; i.e. selecting individuals from a certain region that have a particular preference (voting proclivity or food preference) in order to say that individuals share this element. You should also be weary bc there are instances in which the flaw questions may appear that this sort of error is present when it is not, because the lsat authors have protected themselves against this sort of bias when they say they gathered their results "from a representative group sample". So, there will be an indication when they get rid of the possibility of having this error when phrases (like the one mentioned) are present.

Hope this helps!

One strategy that has worked for me is that (depending on the difficulty of the question or question stem) is I quickly eliminate all those that I know for certain that conflict with the information given in the stimulus. I leave my contender to the side and the right ac and then I contrast that information with the stimulus given. You will be able to tell which one is right over the trap by a word or phrase that helps the right answer choice stand out from the trap. So I would highly suggest that you narrow your ac selection and then try to find out what makes the right ac stand out for the trap.

I agree with Ravinder. The way in which you can improve on RC is by focusing on the questions. The wrong acs would be wrong bc it introduces ideas that cannot be reinforced by the passage or they flat out conflict with the passage. They purposely place acs that seem to fit well in the outside world but they just don't receive any support from the passage or they directly conflict with the information given. So I would also recommend focusing on the questions.

For the passage I would stress to try to get a general idea of what the passage is saying (without skimming). The way in which the paragraphs are constructed tends to be consistent throughout the passages: they give you a core idea followed by elaborate sentences that either refute or support that idea. Even if you confront a passage that tends to be very dense/hard to deconstruct just focus on what you understand and the povs that are given.

I think what really helped for me was getting accustomed/familiarized the approach in which I would take for each question type. I think that was really a game changer for me with regards to time. When I identify the question type I instinctively know what method to take when I am looking at the stimulus.

Ultimately to truly grasp what was being said just took practice, but one thing I can recommend is attempting to put the info that you are reading into your own perspective. That really helps because you are no longer attempting to read the stimulus from the pov that is given, but rather from your pov (by considering the text provided in the stimulus).

For what I have heard is that they consider the undergraduate GPA over the graduate one. I think one of the reasons that they do this is because not a lot of students have received a post graduate degree when they are applying for law school.

I was doing that for a while for the LR section, and yes I did improve on LR. But I don't think it is a good strategy, because I neglected to practice the other sections. For me personally it did not work, I did see improvements in one section, but now I am attempting to revisit info that I missed in the other sections.

We are all different though, just giving advice based on my experience :).

interested!

Yes, there are two ways that you can approach these question types, and you will be able to tell by looking at the argument form in the stimulus. Normally, when there is a gap in the argument form (the stimulus makes a jump from one idea to another) the ac will bridge these two ideas together. The other form is (if you don't see any gap) then you are simply going to be expected to select an ac that can block the argument from being "wrecked". You can check this latter approach by negating the ac. If the negation wrecks the argument then you have the right ac. Hope that helps!

Yes, I am having the same issue. Not just with explanations but with reviewing my answers as well!

Hey, the PTs do tend to get a little difficult as you get closer to the newer ones. The concept stays the same but the only difference is that they tend to employ more tricks with grammar for RC and LR and simply add new things for LG.

Hey I am interested.