Listen to everything JY tells you.

Everything, especially with games, Its my best section and i was still at -4 and -5 and managed to get it to -1 and -0 at the end of 2 weeks because of JY's fool proof method and I've used every method out there, his is by far the best.

That winter delay was a once in a while thing, it's not regular at all.

A few things before you think about postponing, are you taking practice tests? what are you scoring? is it what you want to be scoring? it's ultimately up to your practice tests and how okay with what your results are. If the winter delay is your only issue but you're scoring well, then do not postpone.

If you're not hitting your target score, i'm assuming you've taken a few practice tests and you know what range you're scoring in and if you're just finishing up the course, i strongly suggest you postpone it.

You need to be comfortable testing and with that, the average person needs to have taken a lot of tests.

Hopefully, this helps..

@ I have used both of these resources thoroughly too. I think the Trainer does a really good job with the reading comprehension section. It was my worst section and i never saw myself ever improving in that section and i did, with the help of the LSAT trainer, so i would say that you should definitely read it very carefully and do everything you are told from it to a T.

The conclusion of this argument i stat the certification process is not very difficult because nearly everyone who takes the written portion passes it very easily.

Flaw: Just because everyone passes it, does not mean the test is easy, they might just be that smart.

A: Incorrect because there is no conditionality in this at all.

B: Incorrect because we don’t even know that from the stimulus, so theres no way they assume that.

C: Incorrect because even if this were true, the conclusion says the test is not very difficult, so the t set begin easy for others has no bearing on the argument. I picked this because i obviously did not have a strong grasp of the conclusion and premise of the argument.

D: Incorrect because not only is the author not saying a claim is false but there is also no claim about an inadequate argument made here.

E: Correct because just because the plumbers don’t find the test hard, does not mean the test is not hard.

The conclusion of the argument is that anyone who is qualified as a recognized medical specialist is competent to practice in his or her speciality because a physician who desires to become a recognized specialist must complete an evaluation program directed by a medical speciality board.

The key word is competency. It’s new in the conclusion and not in the premise. When you have to bridge, new information is useless to you.

A: Incorrect because begin highly motivated and not being highly motivated has no bearing in this argument. It doesn't tell us why these people will be competent or not.

B: Incorrect again because of another new concept that we don’t see. Talent will not tell us why these specialist will be seen as competent.

C: Correct because if you negate this it says, there’s at least one person who is incompetent to practice a particular speciality and completed the evaluation program for that speciality. This completely ruins the argument because they are assuming that competence = completing the evaluation program.

D: Incorrect because even if it isn’t sufficient, there are other possibilities that it could be which doesn't destroy the argument.

E: Incorrect because even if it’s not necessary, it might be sufficient or something else, which negated would not destroy the argument, so not necessary.

The conclusion here is that when we are looking to hire sales reps, we should hire the ones with engineering degrees but little to no sales experience over people who have extensive sales experience but no engineering degrees because most of the their best sales reps had little or no sales experience as well as engineering degrees when they were hired.

I most definitely did not see the assumption here when i first took this.

A (original answer): Incorrect because its fine, it could be true but it doesn't weaken the argument at all. Why should we hire the people with these qualities over the people without these qualities? nothing. so gone.

B: Correct because if most of the people we hire have these qualities, so of course, these people are going to have these qualities. It doesn't just make them better, we just have more of them. (UGH HOW DID I MISS THIS!?) I added this as a fact and didn’t really think hard under time pressure.. so it helps.

C: Incorrect because this would actually strengthen the argument because it shows that the engineering degree vs the sales degree actually work to their benefit because most of the customers have something in common with these sales reps.

D: Incorrect because we do not care what the people that apply, that has no bearing on why we should hire one type of person over the other type of person.

E: Incorrect because well i’m wierry of the word some in weaken and strengthen arguments because that could only mean 1 or 2 people and in this case, it works, they say most of their best ones have this quality, so not everyone, so this AC is okay for the argument but doesn't weaken it. It’s just helps one of the premises.

The conclusion is that MOST people in industrialized nations would be in better health if they took an aspirin a day because hearth disease is the MOST common type of of ill health in industrialized nations and the thinning out of the blood caused by aspirin help prevent or reduce the severity of heart disease.

A: Incorrect because this is not an assumption, it’s a stated fact in the argument.

B: Correct because just because its the most common doesn't mean that most people have it. For example, there are 10 sick people and 2 of them have heart problems while the other 8 have other different diseases, if they all take an aspirin a day, only 2 are in better shape, what happens to the rest?

C (Original Answer): Incorrect because there is no mention of other common diseases at all, we don’t care for this because the argument only discuses heart disease and it’s prevention. My original assumption was that they said better health, so including ALL illness in their conclusion but that is not the case. They meant better health according to heart disease, not better health for the nation in general.

D:Incorrect because there is no mention of the effectiveness of aspirin compared to other drugs, so….gone.

E: Incorrect because yes it does fail to do this but this is not a flaw. We are looking at countries that are industrialized ONLY, both in the conclusion and premises, so this argument is right in limiting the scope to this country only.

There are always two types of people, so he's allowed to voice his concern, no matter how outrageous and inappropriately placed it is...

Timing pressure and everything made me assume that winter temperatures are likely to increase means that it will get colder, so i was like wtf? how does the rest of this follow but it makes sooo much sense now. Excuse me while i go cry.

The conclusion is that the complexity of the flavour in chocolate ice cream makes any difference in taste due to lack of fat because the chocolate has a very complex flavour and that people tended to dislike low fat versions of vanilla ice-cream than they did low fat chocolate ice cream.

AsS: Well they are assuming that Vanilla does not have such complex flavouring.

A: Incorrect because the fat that they prefer it and full fat at that doesnt tell us what complexity of flavour has to do with anything and thatswhat we are looking for.

B: Incorrect because the fact that these subjects were not informed of fat content has nothing to do with complexity of flavour.

C: Incorrect because okay even if this is the case, it’s clearly hinting at it somewhat in the stimulus but we need to make sure it is proven and this case just says it already is proven.

D: Correct because that was the exact assumption that vanilla does not have the exact same taste as is.

E: Incorrect because peoples awareness does not tell why chocolate would be better than vanilla due to complexity.

The conclusion is that consumers often benefit when the government permits a corporation to obtain monopoly because they can use the money they would be using on advertising to invest in expensive research or industrial infrastructure that it could not afford before which would in turn pass the fruits of these investments on to consumers.

The assumption here is that whatever benefit they get will cover the price increase and more.

A: Incorrect because we are trying to prove that it would benefit the consumers in the first place not that it would in a greater way than something else because we don’t know if this is a good benefit at all. For example, lets say they are charging the consumers a lot of money for a new vacuum the money saved on “monopolization" funded research on, this answer doesn't tell us if the benefits from the new product outweigh the costs, it just tells us that there is one. Yes the new vacuum could have a cool button that makes it glow in the dark… uhmm okay, but does that justify why the hell i paid $100 for this vacuum? as opposed to a teleporting vacuum that like takes you back to the moments you want to take back like agreeing to date your ex (I would SOOOOO drop change and a half for this)…. (Might be getting a little out of hand but you get the gist)

B: Incorrect because it makes sense but doesnt strengthen this argument. It seems like an assumption but not one that we need for this argument to be strengthen

C: Correct because it strengthens the idea that they will benefit from it by telling us that the disadvantages of the price increase will be outweighed by that of the adv. research..etc.

D: Incorrect because lets say this is true, how does it prove that consumer would benefit from monopoly? It doesn’t. It’s even making us consider cases where the monopoly doesn't happen and we don’t care about that. Eliminate.

E: Incorrect because yes! of course they will! Anyone would take the option that tells them not to spend money and gain it but will they invest it in the aforementioned area for the consumers to gain from it? This option doesn't tell us that. Eliminate.

Annie says that the students should be charged a library fee and use the funds for library improvement because the library policy has been an errors and should remedy the situation in the fastest way possible and and charging the student will be that way.

Matilda says that the issue with the library is the fault of the library officials and not the students so they should not be charged for that.

My mistake was i didn’t think the library admin, university admin and library officials mean the same thing at all.

A: Incorrect because they actually agree that they are to blame for this.

B: Incorrect because Matilda says not to charge the students at all, so how quickly they should do it is irrelevant and also was not discussed by Matilda.

C: Incorrect because none of them discuss the fact that students will benefit from this.

D: Correct because Annie would say yes, that the students should pay for what the admins did and Matilda would say no, that they shouldn’t.

E: Incorrect because both of them do not even discuss any other way to raise funds.

EXCELLENT! Its in fact better than the books because it's almost like a one on one lesson and almost also guaranteed all the questions you have about the video might have been asked and answered in the comment thread on the video. do NOT hesitate. Do it yesterday!

Its the average of your last 3 PT's before the test and then + or -3 from that average.

Usually apparently people drop because they second guess everything..

The conclusion i stat the survey respondents who reported that Lopez’s arguments were better may have been biased in favour of Lopez because Lopez did win the election and viewers surveyed immediately after the televised political debate said that Lopez made a better arguments.

I only got this argument now, typical of LSAT to completely warp the stimulus and screw you under time pressure. UGH!

Ass: The author is assuming that the debate had nothing to do with their persuasion that these people were already biased to Lopez even before the debate.

A: Incorrect because even if they did not watch the debate, this does not tell us if people who watched the debate were biased in the first place or not.

B: Incorrect because again, the fact that they thought tanner was better actually sort of contradicts the stimulus which is a no no.

C: Incorrect because again, it does not tell us about the people who watched it and said Lopez was better and if they were biased or not.

D: Correct because if most viewers surveyed before watching the debate said they would vote for tanner and then came out and said Lopez was better then there was no bias at all, Lopez actually gave tanner an ass whopping gin the debate, so no bias here.

E: Incorrect because the fact that Lopez won, as he/she should by a narrow margin does not tell us where the bias is coming from.

The conclusion is that claims that water shortages will plague human kind in the near future unless population growth tends change are simply mistaken because even thought the human population is increasing, it only uses a relatively small fraction f the supply of fresh water.

Ass: That the entire world gets their supply of water from ONE source.

A: Incorrect because even if it’s hard to predict, the population is still rising, so out of scope.

B: Correct because it hits the assumption we are looking to talk about. Fresh water supply is not the same from region to region, so yes, there is a possibility of a shortage if conservation techniques are not used.

C: Incorrect because the suggestion that is given for water conservation would not necessarily be adopted by all, so even if this was the case, the argument still stands.

D: Incorrect because this says eventually, so of course eventually but not the near future as stated in the premises.

E: Incorrect because how likely one segment of the fresh water will grow in comparison to another segment tells me nothing about the overall effect of fresh water for humans consumption.

The conclusion here is that the cooler the temperature, the longer the fruits will stay fresh because there was a test done where fruits were stored under 10degrees, 20 degrees and 30 degrees (All celsius by the way) and the 10 degree fruits stayed fresh the longest while the 20degree fruit was fresher than the 30 degree fruits.

Flaw: I

A: Incorrect because the stimulus does not generalize at all. They do the the fruits tested, not the fruits in general.

B: Incorrect because yes it didn’t mention these but it did not NEED to mention these factors because they did control other factors, so regardless of this is an issue, it was not a significant factor in the experiment.

C: Correct because 10, 20 and 30 is a very narrow spectrum of degrees to use as evidence to conclude on a wider spectrum of degrees.

D: Incorrect because there is no mention of a thermometer in this stimulus and even if it wasn’t, this isn’t the reasoning flaw.

E: Incorrect because we did not offer an explanation but this is not the flaw.

We have been falsely criticized for not being an environmentally responsible corporation because environmentally responsible corporations are corporations that do all they can to pollute less and our production methods pollute significantly less than our old methods did. Also, there are no methods that do not produce any pollution.

Ass: Typical. This CEO is assuming that the methods they have now is the best method they can have. Yes, there is no method without any pollution but the less the better and there is no proof that they are using the method with the least pollution.

A: Incorrect because nope, the fact that it will never be developed doesn't tell us that you’re doing your best to make sure you produce less.

B: Incorrect because this is just not even a part of this.. i don’t even know how i picked this answer choice, time pressure i guess? but there is no cause and effect mechanism here. Maybe i thought that be they have a different method it would still cause pollution but the last line in the stimulus counters that.

C: Incorrect because it does not generalize anything too quickly from a class of criticisms. I didn’t even know what was happening in this AC.

D: Incorrect tricky! but incorrect because it does tell us in the stimulus explicitly that they do produce less, so we can’t counter a fact, we can just shine a light at the corners the fact does not cover.

E: Correct because thats exactly what the CEO is wrongly assuming. Just because it’s less than what you did before does not mean is the best it could be.

So we want to know how its possible that the price of a loaf of bread rose 10 to 15 percent whereas the price of grain fed beef came close to doubling when grain prices doubled.

A: Incorrect because because it does not help us explain at all why the price of grain-fed-beef doubled, especially when you’re trying to reduce labour costs.

B: Incorrect because the actual prices are different does not explain why the grain fed beef increased by almost 100% and the bread 10% - 15%.

C: Correct because if price of beef is solely represented by the cost of producing beef, then the price of beef is justified in doubling and if the price of bread is mainly marketing and labour costs, then right rise is not as significant.

D: Incorrect because the amount of beef that feed on grain that is available in stores does NOT tell us why the price doubled.

E: Incorrect because where the people that sell their beef and bread buy it from again does not tell us why the price increased.

There have been stories of people developing serious health problems shortly after receiving vaccinations and these stories have given rise to the question of whether vaccination is safe.

The author concludes that if these stores are true, then vaccinations should not be cause for concern because it is expected that people will develop health problems purely out of coincidence shortly after receiving vaccinations.

So we are trying to show other ways this vaccine did not cause the illness because the author is assuming that the vaccinations are in now way related to these illnesses.

A: Incorrect because this would actually in a way weaken the argument because if vaccinations are causing this, then that cant be good, be it new or old, we are trying to prove that it does not.

B: Incorrect because this does in no way tell us if these vaccines are causing illness after. This just tells us about people contracting illness even without vaccines, which is way out of scope.

C: Correct because if the odds of receiving the illnesses before and after are the same, then the vaccines have nothing to do with the serious illnesses.

D: Incorrect because the seriousness of these illnesses do not tell us if the vaccines are causing them or not.

E: Incorrect because this sort of weakens the argument, it says they thought that it wasn't the vaccines at first and then they found out that it was the vaccines. It would weaken it.

Extremely Helpful!

I didn't know what was wrong with my LR and why i wasn't improving at all but that was only because i was doing it wrong the entire time.

The fact that i redid all the questions without time pressure and i would have to describe exactly why an answer choice was wrong and why the one i chose was right, let me see exactly where my faulty logic was and what exactly it was i was doing wrong.

Now, i never do an LR section without blind reviewing it.

In fact, when i time anything i blind review, it helps you understand exactly where you went wrong and how you can fix it in terms of the right path to follow etc...

This allowed me to jump from like 10 untimed to 0 untimed. I wasn't even getting the core right, so there was no way i would get it timed.

Conclusion: The claim that there will be no oil damage in the environment becuase modern methods will be used is easily disproven. Why? Well it's because the land nearby Alphin Bay (where oil drilling began 5 years ago) has been marred by the process.

Ass: Well the editorial is using an analogy, so to strengthen it, we want to show that they are both equal in all aspects, in this case, the editorial is assuming that the modern drilling methods will be the same as the one used on the land near Alphin Bay.

A: Incorrect because knowing this does not tell us why the modern method may not result in no damage.

B: Incorrect because again, this is out of scope. Knowing what the companies drilling at Aplhin Bay doesn't tell us why the modern method might result in damage of the environment.

C:Incorrect because what the editorial believes does not prove that it is true. Even if we accepted this we still have to answer why there would be no damage, knowing that the author believes this does not do that.

D: Correct because like predicted, if there is no significant changes in the oil drilling ways, then the modern drilling methods are essentially the same as that used in Alphin Bay, so there will be damage.

E: Incorrect because the fact that it is the only one doesn't tell us if the modern method will cause damage or not.

Hey @ it's really what works for everyone. I plan to write 3 this week too and time myself in LR and RC on days of review as well, even the day before because my only problem now is getting the timing down... but i'm making sure to do that in the morning the day before the test and going to a movie that evening, so ultimately up to you.

I would say you should redo your old ones… starting from the oldest you wrote to the newest and write the 7 fresh ones you have have once a week till the test. I would start at the 40’s and use tests before the 40’s to practise on particular areas, even if you’re familiar with them. You learn from your familiar ones because you know what you’re still having problems with as well as teaching you to fine tune the parts you’re good at or not sure of. Also, There are 72 tests, the beauty of the LSAT is that chances are you won’t really remember every question you did.

I completely agree with @! Ive been a little discouraged because my LR seems to be going down and RC is going up (Struggled with this section the most) but 8 well now 7 days is still a lot of time to get you where you need to be or want to be, especially if you're close. Especially if you have quite a few PT's left.

I'm refusing to give up or slow down now though after reading these! thanks guys. :)