Coming back to review this, I think a problem I have is pulling necessary assumptions from sufficient assumptions in the stimulus. In JY's example, he points out that a sufficient assumption for his basketball argument is "I've won the MVP award ten times in a row." So when we have our argument (I play basketball, therefore I am the best player in the world), would a necessary assumption be "No unskilled players become MVP?"

I agree with the majority of other posters, in that practicing for a longer amount of time definitely helps with stamina-- or at least it did for me. I am also pretty susceptible to zoning out and being unfocused if I'm not constantly vigilant about what I am reading. Logic games is no problem (usually) since it is more tactile, but let me share what I do when I often become unfocused on RC/LR:

Reading Comprehension:

If a passage bores me (typically the art-based ones), I try my best to make it the most interesting thing possible. More often than not the material in a passage is new to me, so I try to take it as a learning experience and constantly say to myself "Huh, I didn't know that!" or "Why would people criticize Kate Chopin? Her writing style is awesome!" or something. In addition to that, I am a notetaker and I constantly underline/search/summarize key statements and relate them to other key statements. Latching on to transition words when you are unfocused is also very helpful in getting back on track. I would say don't do the note thing if that's just not your style, but at the very least it helps refocus and gives you a cheat sheet for the questions.

Logical Reasoning:

For me, these are my worst sections just because going from one argument to the next can be taxing. Unlike LG/RC, you don't have a solid body of information you have been working with for multiple questions. I have seen a great improvement since my diagnostic, though, by 1) identifying the question stem, and 2) making NOTES! Looking at the question stem and consciously saying "Okay, this is a sufficient/necessary/RRE/MBT... etc." grabs my attention and shifts my focus from the previous question to that specific one. From there, if I find myself lacking focus or understanding, I do the same thing as RC and begin circling key terms that play a part in the argument. Latch on to transition words to help identify the conclusion, or make diagrams that help illustrate what exactly is going on. (Even when it isn't conditional logic, I find myself diagramming, typically in MBT questions.)

Basically, increase that stamina by getting used to taking a 5-section test, and then be engaged with every question. Having something concrete to use as a checkpoint in a question or passage is extremely helpful. This is what has worked for me (someone with a very short attention span), but ultimately just find what you can latch to in a passage/stimulus and I think you will beef up your stamina in no time.

For someone that struggles to focus on the LR sections, I have found that reading the question stem first tends to work for me. It puts me in the proper mindset for what I am looking for in the argument (main point, weakening assumptions, etc.) and helps me understand the information they throw at you a little more. It's improved my LR score a bit if that helps!

@ said:

Trying desperately to figure out which of my LR sections was experimental. Those of you who had only two LR sections: do you remember having a Justify question about how kids aren't going to grow up to be into literature b/c of the prevalence of T.V.?

I think I remember this one, and I had only two LRs. Fairly positive it's real.