In

I am interested in joining as well!

Thanks everyone! Will get to any PMs ASAP!

I am also interested!

Hey!

For flaw questions I would say what helped me get to pretty much like 98% accuracy is exposure. First I studied the list of common flaws but the more questions I did, the more familiar I got to the different flaws the LSAT uses. Flaw questions I feel is one kind of question type where there are times where I would read the stimulus and know 100% what the flaw is because I had seen the same kind of stimulus before.

For NA questions, I was on the same boat as you since I had to idea how to get better. What helped me was just practicing identifying what ACs HAD to be true. I would eliminate answer choices that were too specific (because most of the time I would ask myself why would this specific thing HAVE to be true for this argument to work?) I also learned to be more attracted to broad/soft sounding answer choices because the negation of them would for example turn a "some" scenario into a "none" scenario which would then kill the support for the argument if that AC was true. I also carried the mindset that the AC we are looking for is a MBT since it HAS to be true for the argument to work.

In the end it just took time and repetition for me to get better!

Hey! What really helped me initially to get a good foundation for games was the fool proof method and obviously the core curriculum. However, I was also aiming for a 170+ and some game sections/individual games would totally kick my butt. After that I really tried to improve my intuition and instinct. I did this by not even timing myself during games and forcing myself to make as many inferences I could upfront. During this period I literally just focused on making as many inferences I could after I wrote out the rules, then making additional inferences depending on the question. I felt like this really helped me whenever I faced an unconventional game or a harder game where I couldn't just rely on pattern recognition!

Hope this helped!

I thought the question stem was a little unique. Since it is almost saying, "from what Anna has already said, what is she probably going to conclude?" Initially I had trouble with this question since I was looking at it strictly as a MSS question. So I wasn't sure about picking D since I was saying to myself, how do we know for sure that the cost savings will be small or non-existent?

My breakdown below:

Tony -

Conclusion: Video rental stores would find it significantly more economical to purchase and stock movies recorded on the new device.

Premise: New video cassette lasts for half as many viewings, but costs a third as much.

Anna -

Premise: Videocasettes itself only accounts for 5% of the price a video store pays to buy a copy of a movie. Most of the price consists of royalties paid to the studio.

Major Premise/Sub Conclusion: price that video rental stores pay per copy would decrease by considerably less than 5% and royalties would have to be paid on additional copies

Conclusion:

I wrote out the below for anyone that may find it helpful but the below is definitely not necessary to solve this question. I wrote the below out when I thought it was a basic MSS question so feel free to skip.

*

I think the "BUT" in Anna's response is a really good clue to solving this question. Since the BUT implies that what she is about to say is going to go the opposite direction of Tony. I am predicting an AC with something like "maybe it won't be as economical as Tony says it is going to be".

For (2) amount of viewings -

Old Video Cassettes:

$9

New Video Cassettes:

$3 x 2 = $6 (1/3 of the price of the old VC but x 2 since 1/2 as many viewings)

VCs (Videocasettes) count for only 5% of the cost.

Old Video Casettes:

if $9 is 5%. $9 * 20 = $180 total price for one viewing of the movie (1 copy)

if $6 is 5%. $6 * 20 = $120 total price for one viewing of the movie (1 copy)

Saving $60. But, Anna says that there is going to be additional royalties for the new casettes since there are more copies.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A) I don't think Anna is going to conclude this. Doesn't state that she has an opinion of what she thinks about the royalties paid to movie studios.

B) Initially, I crossed this out because it said "always" but now since I don't think I can look at this like a regular MSS question. Now I would cross it out since it doesn't match my prediction.

C) This one is talking bout the fee a customer pays to rent a movie. I want something about the savings in relation to the video rental store.

D) This is the correct answer and goes the direction that I wanted.

E) Nope.

MSS

There are 12 healthy volunteers with A1 gene and 12 with A2 gene.

Both groups consume standard diet supplemented with a high cholesterol food.

High cholesterol associated with increase risk of heart disease.

3 weeks later A2 group cholesterol levels unchanged, A1 group rose 20%.

Summary: Two groups. A1 and A2. Both consume standard diet with a high cholesterol food. A2 group no change A1 group rise 20%.

Prediction: Seems to me that the A2 gene has an effect that combats the increase in cholesterol? I say this since both groups are eating a standard diet that is supplemented with a high cholesterol food. We know that the A1 group had increased cholesterol levels. We are trying to find the most supported answer choice.

A) How can we say that approximately half the population carries the gene? We only studied 24 people. Were the members of the A1 group and the A2 group super representative of both halves of the population? We don't know this.

B) How do we know this? How do we know that they are able to reduce their risk by adopting a low-cholesterol diet? We have no information about a low cholesterol diet.

C) No support for this. What if the A2 gene just constantly excretes cholesterol from the blood stream no matter the level.

D) Actually seems to suggest the opposite? The people with the A1 gene had their cholesterol levels rise by 20%.

E) I think this is the AC with the most support. It also contains the word "may" which makes it softer and easier to prove. From the study, since the people with the A2 gene didn't have a change while the ones with the A1 gene experienced an increase, it MAY (also weak language than be proven more easily) be the case that the A2 gene inhibited the elevation of blood cholesterol.

Great! Just PM me ur number and ill make a groupme or whats app group!

Hey was in a similar position as I would be wayyy more nervous during the real LSAT vs practice tests. One thing I would recommend is taking practice tests in the same place/time/with the same routines before hand (obviously to the best of your abilities) so when you actually take the test, your brain says ok i've done this before nothing new here. Also I read a book called "Performing Under Pressure" by Hendrie Weisinger and J. P. Pawliw-Fry which gives you some good tips about how not to choke under pressure (parts 2/3 provide the tips part 1 is more explaining why it happens). That book has def helped a lot and i've incorporated some of the strategies to ease my mind during tests!

I am also interested in joining!

Hi,

Sorry - but I'm just a little confused about the explanation for why answer choice B is incorrect. JY explains that negating B helps the argument, but isn't the conclusion of the argument that: "Still photography cannot enable us to understand the world"? As a result, wouldn't the negated B potentially hurt the argument (if the AC actually said "the functioning of the world cannot be captured in photography instead of film? If the functioning of the world CAN be captured in film, then why did author say that the reality of the world is not in its images but in its functions as if that fact helps strengthen his argument?

#help (Added by Admin)

The argument "assumes". NA question.

Conclusion: Banks will lend more money if those standards are relaxed.

Premise: During a recent economic downturn, banks contributed to the decline by loaning less money.

+ Prior to downturn, regulatory standards tightened.

Gap: Just because they were tightened before the downturn, doesn't mean that they will lend more if relaxed. What if they would have loaned out less money anyway since that is what the policy is during economic downturns. More drastically, what if in some world, the regulatory standards being lifted would have resulted in banks lending out even LESS money. Who knows?

A) This is what I was saying. The argument is assuming that the down turn didn't cause a significant decrease in the total amount of money on deposit. So that means, its assuming that banks would not have lessened lending regardless of the fact that regulatory standards were tightened. Maybe they would have anyway due to the recession.

B) I don't think finding out what caused the economic downturn matters.

C) Don't think finding out the reason for tightening matters.

D) This one is tricky. I think you have to focus on the "no" in this scenario. Is this argument assuming that NO economic downturn is accompanied by a significant decrease in the amount of money loaned out by banks? I'm not so sure about that. That feels a little too strong.

E) Don't think we need to care about the "effects" of the downturn.

Interested!

The question stem is a little unique. Originally not sure how to categorize this question, but then realized that it seemed like a strengthening question because the stem is asking you to kind of provide more evidence or support to the already given premise to create a more "fuller" explanation.

Conclusion: A running track with a hard surface makes for greater running speed that a soft one on dry conditions.

Premises: the time a runner's foot remains in contact with the running surface is less with a hard surface.

A) I am looking for a statement which would STRENGTHEN the support between the already existing premise and the conclusion. This AC doesn't do that. Okay, so what if this statement was true and dry running conditions can be guaranteed for indoor tracks only. How would that strengthen the support that the less time a runner's foot remains in contact with the running surface leads to greater running speed?

B) Let's say this was true. It doesn't help explain further why the premise leads to the conclusion.

C) I guess this would give a fuller explanation as to why a running track with a hard surface in dry conditions results in greater running speed than a soft one. But, one thing is that it doesn't seem to really strengthen the already existing premise further. (An example of a statement that would directly strengthen: having less contact with the running surface increases running speed (kinda like a SA?). BUT maybe the particular question stem doesn't warrant an answer that would be on more traditional strengthening questions?

D) I'm not sure how this supports.

E) Not sure how this supports either.

I guess for this question I was looking for a more traditional strengthening answer choice which would kind of bolster the support between the already existing premise and the conclusion. But in the end I just kind of stumbled onto the answer choice which provided evidence that the premise in the stimulus was only a partial explanation.

Hi Jay! Would be more than happy to study together!

I had the same issue as you! What I implemented was saying a kind of "mantra" before specific sections. I kept it short, for example for LR I said "gap" in my head multiple times, for LG, I said "inference" and for RC, I said "active" (for actively read). I noticed that by doing this, it helped me change gears a lot quicker. By using the word, I helped myself focus on the specific component that was crucial to the section. I needed to focus on finding gaps in LR, needed to make inferences in LG and had to actively read for RC. Obviously you can use whatever words that work for you but I hope this helps!

I am not sure how long it took me but one tip that helped me was skipping. I would skip a question immediately if I didn't understand the stimulus or if I did understand the stimulus, went through the answer choices and was still lost. This helped me twofold. 1. I was able to grab all of the low hanging fruit. 2. On the second pass, I looked at questions in a calmer state (since I saw all of the questions already).

Hi! Here are some natural ways that I helped curb my test day anxiety:

I agree with what @ said. I believe the more practice and preparation you put into something, the more confident and therefore less anxious you are going to be on game day. After I bombed an official LSAT due to nerves, I read a book about why certain people seem to be "ice cold" or "clutch" more often than others (Kobe being an obvious example). The book stated that it isn't that they were overperforming during these pressure situations, but instead they were just able to perform the best of their ability and this comes from hours of preparation.

Breathe. I incorporated an exercise before every section I took. This was to breathe in for 4 seconds, hold the breath for 4 seconds, breathe out for 4 seconds, and finally hold again for 4 seconds. I did this cycle maybe 3-4 times before I started a section (they give you I think a minute before each section). This helped me calm my nerves a bit and kind of focus my thoughts.

Change your mindset. Yes, I know the LSAT is a really important test and sometimes this thought can dominate our minds. As a result, we need to try to minimize the importance of the LSAT in our heads (I understand that this is really hard). One way I did this was to take a piece of paper before a test started and wrote down all of the reasons why I should be happy. It could be being healthy, my parents being healthy, having a job that enjoy, having friends that I can trust... etc. This is just a way for someone to be like "okay, maybe the LSAT isn't a do or die situation at the end of the day".

I didn't do this but I read somewhere that someone watched Molly and Me before the exam and cried their eyes out. They said they went into the test pretty numb which I guess helped their anxiety?

https://report.lsac.org/VolumeSummaryOriginalFormat.aspx

In the above link for US LSAT scores, can anyone tell me what "ungrouped high LSAT scores" mean? I am just wondering how much of the increase in the number of 165+ scores in the link is due to high scorers taking the test multiple times since the earlier flex tests did not count towards the limit. Maybe they could have hit a 168 - 170 - 173. Are all three scores counted in the data or does it only count the applicants highest score?

Sorry for all of these questions lmao because I haven’t been disclosing my canceled lsat score on the “test results” section of my application when I wasn’t able to input a numerical value since I assumed they would just see my report anyways and now I’m getting paranoid lol

@ that’s kinda interesting. Was the space where you put your lsat information like one where they give you two slots (one to put in your month/year and one to put in a numerical value) or was it just a big blank space where you’re free to write anything you want. I may understand if it was the latter... if it’s the former I think you can make a pretty good case for yourself (I’m sure a lot of people have been confused in the past as well).

@ Yeah it is definitely good to be safe and disclose everything. However, I find it weird that they don't provide a "cancel" option and the slot doesn't accept anything except a numerical value. Due to this I think you can definitely argue why you didn't put down a canceled score (didn't want to put a 0 in case they were averaging since schools do get an average score; not having a cancel option + having to insert a numerical value makes it incredibly confusing + didn't know leaving it blank was an option).

But you're right at the end of the day I am not sure why they would care. They see your entire history anyway.

@ could you elaborate on that? UC Hastings is asking you to write an addendum because you forgot to include the score or because you have a canceled score on your report?

Honestly would like to know the answer to this as well. I have not been including it on the application since you need to include a numerical value into the slot and I didn't want to put "0". My personal feeling is that it doesn't really matter since they see all of your scores anyway but was just confused about that section of apps.

Great score! Thats awesome that you're not giving up on the 170+ dream score even when you got a 168. Just curious but are you thinking of applying this cycle?

I was in the same boat as you (no new PTs and was redoing tests). As a result, I started to look for things outside of just drilling/taking PTs. What really helped me was joining a study group. It was helpful seeing how other high scorers approached problems which you can add to your own arsenal. Learning a way to shave off a few seconds off specific problem types can potentially give you more time on other questions to push you to that 170 score.

Another thing I did was keep a LSAT journal. Every time I would study, I would write in the journal anything new I learned, a new flaw I saw, a new way to diagram, just so it was more cemented in my brain. For RC, I began dedicating about an hour to actively read. I made sure I was actively reading by having a pen on me and writing in the margins about anything I disagreed with/agreed with/found interesting. This helped me actively read during LSAT passages.