@

My diagnostic was a 159, mainly thanks to RC (-1).

When I was going through the CC (mid-April to early May), I probably studied 2-5 hours a day depending on how busy I was but also skipped the RC portion. Mid to late May I graduated and moved across the country, so I really only did an LG section every couple of days/foolproofing. I wish I had started PTing during this time but honestly I was scared because I didn't think I was ready and wanted to be "perfect" for misguided reasons.

June till test day was when I really hunkered down to study––probably did an LG and one or two LR sections almost everyday, except when I did PTs. Most weeks I did two PTs, maybe three one week. So I guess about 4-5 hours was my average the last month, but there were certainly a number of days I did nothing, only review, or a single section.

My first few PTs were 167-169, mainly because I didn't have LG down yet. To be frank, it kinda pissed me off because I knew I could do much better, so after a 167 I took a PT the next day and got a 172. I realized I wasn't going into the PTs with a game time attitude. By mid-June I was consistently in the 170s thanks to LG becoming my best section up there with RC (-0 to -2) and suddenly LR (sometimes -0/ -1 but more often -2/-4) became my worst. So I'd say my jump came with about a month left for studying then fairly stable.

As for blind review, I wasn't really that diligent with it aside from the LG sections. I'm not sure how much it would have helped if I had done it more consistently, but I certainly didn't feel that it harmed my studying at all.

Hope that helps!

I am in about the same place as you are––just received a 173 on July and have similar GPA/academic background. Personally, I am not retaking it. This was my first LSAT, and I was PTing mid-170s consistently before the exam. I know I could have done better on the LSAT I took in July. In fact, right after the test I was fairly confident I knew two questions I definitely got wrong and what the right answers were. However, I am not confident about how well that would translate to a new LSAT in August, which may play to different strengths and weaknesses, especially at such a narrow margin of error of maybe 1-2 more correct answers depending on curves. I also understand the strong urge to retake it to further make up for our lowers GPAs, and I don't think it is a bad decision by any means. I just came to the conclusion that it's already a great score above most medians, and my time would be better spent working on strengthening the rest of my application (essays, my job for the year, trying to publish my undergrad research in a journal, etc.)

I could be wrong, but I think schools only care about your highest reported score, so I don't think it's risky. Rather, I think the real question is if it's worthwhile given your confidence in potential improvement and time commitments. Congrats on the incredible score and good luck!

Without an actual LSAT score it'd be difficult to predict your chances at law schools unless a school reports GRE medians. Undergrad GPA and LSAT score are the best, and arguably only, reliable predictors of one's general chances at any given school. Knowing nothing about your Harvard program, I don't know how that affects your competitiveness as an applicant. I'd recommend asking someone at HLS admissions about it.

According to the LSAC website, you will be required to have a writing sample on file before receiving your score starting with the upcoming August Flex exam. So based on that I think you can receive your July Flex score without completing a writing sample just like the traditional requirement.

https://www.lsac.org/lsat/taking-lsat/about-lsat-writing

I had LG-LR-RC

LG: Product development, Inspections, and don't remember the other two. Fairly standard, inspections was hard for me

LR: Electric Bacteria, British Soldiers. Also found it fairly challenging compared to many LR sections I've done but certainly not abnormally difficulty

RC: Rent Control, Assemblage art, Docks in courts, Invasive Plants. Thought it was average, but Rent Control was unusually difficult for a first passge imo

I recommend making problem sets of the LR questions you've missed and doing them over. I wouldn't do it immediately after reviewing the PT or LR problem set of course, but being able to successfully do the questions a second time around (or a third or fourth need be) and understanding why the correct AC is correct and the incorrect ones are wrong is a solid indicator of improvement.

Also, if you aren't already, make sure to do full LR sections outside of full-length PTs. Personally, I have PTs 60+ dedicated as my untouched PTs. Meanwhile, I do each section of PTs 35-59 individually for daily practice. I am on a tighter study schedule than you are (I'm taking the July exam), but I probably do at least 6-8 individual LR sections a week.

On the more micro level, two things that have helped me are skipping questions and being more attentive of subtle word choice in the stimulus and ACs that may indicate that an AC is incorrect.

Really though I would attribute my improvement in LR to a lot of practice, both of questions new to me and of those questions I've gotten wrong or struggled with in the past. Best of luck!

The number one tip I would recommend practice wise is to do more loosely timed RC sections by making problem sets of the four passages from a PT and setting it to 50% or 100% more time. That way you can get more comfortable with the section, which would hopefully lead to you reading/answering questions faster, and there's still a time limit to sharpen your time management skills.

Also, it may be worth making problem sets of easier/easiest passages from a mix of PTs. I would think getting better and faster at doing those passages (which are usually the first two passages of the section) would help you get to the later passages––and get better at recognizing common passage structures/question types in the process.

I read them both first, though only because I know it works for me. Time is no issue for me on RC, and I don't have trouble keeping the information from both passages in my head without muddling info from the two. So doing the read 1,check, read 2, check method is certainly slower for me without big returns––especially since I have a bad habit of dwelling on questions rather than skipping and coming back.

Certainly a matter of personal preference, skill sets, and potential for improvement on RC. I am consistently -0 to -2 on RC, so never saw the need to try out JY's method after I tried it once and didn't find it to improve my speed on questions or judgement.

I think it's helpful to reframe this question as an RRE to see why D is correct.

Imagine the stimulus is asking why photographs haven't entirely displaced painting as an art form despite the fact that people praise realistic portrayal over abstract expression, and the conclusion of the stimulus would instead be a plausible answer choice for the RRE––namely, that people appreciate other things than just realistic portrayal in regard to paintings. Thus, since the actual question is asking what the method of reasoning is, the correct answer choice should closely resemble how an RRE question is presented in the stimulus and resolved by an answer choice. That is, make a claim that resolves an apparent contradiction of facts. In this case, the argument appeals to an apparent contradiction of facts (i.e., a historical fact) to support a claim about people's artistic preferences, which, in turn, would resolve that contradiction.

I struggled to so easily discount AC A as JY did for this question. I interpreted it to be a blatantly obvious necessary condition that it is possible for hatchery operators to finance an experimental hatchery with the specified characteristics. without such a condition, there simply could not be these new, experimental hatcheries.

Good to know that the meaning of "economically feasible" is closer to "advantageous" than possible it is to "possible to achieve."

Yes, I absolutely agree! Same as you, just tough not to stress about each little thing to make my application stronger. At least for me, I think I will wait until mid-October. If nothing by then, send them in. Thanks for the kind words and best of luck on your journey too!

I don't think it's possible for LR problem sets, so I usually add either one or two random LR questions (from a previous PT so they appear first) to the problem set to make it 27 questions. That will make the problem set 36 minutes, and then I just start the questions I want to do when the timer hits 35 minutes.