Do not follow voyagers guide. It comes down to understanding the essence of what u read in under 4 minutes so that you can answer general questions quickly and have time to look back for specific questions. Little to no markings are needed.

Plus if you buy from 7sage you get the PTs in convenient pdf form making it a sinch to print and reprint sections you are having particular difficulty with. I love being able to print a copy of a game whenever I feel like and have a fresh go at it.

Find the gap and fill it with the answer choice. Basic assumption questions will have a small hole in the argument in which the correct answer choice will fill perfectly. Sufficient assumption questions will fill it as well...and perhaps overfill it since the correct answer choice can more than compensate for the gap in the argument. i.e. Tim has a dog, therefore Tim is needy. The correct answer for a sufficient assumption could be..... Anyone who owns a pet is needy.

Here Here for 7sage!

The book reviews and obituaries from the Economist are also very LSAT-like

Ya there's an article in this week's issue about nanotubes (cylinders made of carbon). It sounds like it was taken straight from an LSAT science passage.

Oh I see. Well every LSAT question out there, no matter the year, will help you understand the test better. So I applaud your resourcefulness.

you need to internalize all the basic LR technique so that when you review the questions you missed, they were only genuinely difficult questions that evaded routine reasoning strategies. then you know that you have nearly peaked.

I don't have the question in front of me but I hope you have reserved a year for studying if you are starting all the way with Dec 1991 lol. The test has changed so much and there is so much material that I can't possibly see how you will be able to devote the necessary time to later material while starting with 1991 unless you plan to take a year to study for this thing (which is not necessary to achieve a great score). Anyways.... to each his own... all the best!

i.e.

"in order to hit 170, you must dedicate yourself to the lsat"

If you fail the necessary condition of dedicating yourself to the lsat, then you cannot hit 170.

By the way congrats. I remember hitting my first 170+ score. I started the test at 12:30 a.m. got done a little after 3. Treated myself to some french toast at Denny's afterwards :) It was a great feeling.

It's burnout.... Took me about a week to snap out of mine. Btw... try reading Michel Foucault's "Discipline and Punish" during your days off. It will simultaneously blow your mind and make most RC passages seem like a cake walk afterwards.

Yes and if someone could shed light on when to split the game into multiple subgameboards before attacking the questions that would be really helpful. Thanks.

I believe B is, or approximates, the error of a mistaken reversal.

While it is true that "some" (line 3) mushrooms make use of this branching process to create beta-glucans that do slow, reverse or prevent cancerous growth (according to the stimulus).... can we logically infer that if an extract does this then it must definitely be capable of producing beta-glucans. All we know is that some mushrooms use branched polymers to achieve this effect... not that all mushrooms that achieve this effect must therefore be capable of making branched polymers.

And C, in my opinion, doesn't overshoot but is instead directly inferable from the 2nd and 3rd sentences. It is slightly confusing however on account of the referential phrasing: "antitumor activity" can be equated with "increasing-cell activity" because we are told as much in the last sentence that the method in which these beta-glucans work is "not by killing cancer cells directly but by increasing immune-cell activity". The 2nd sentence however says that this "antitumor activity" increases as the degree of branching increases.... thus we can conclude that immune-cell activity increases as the degree of branching of beta-glucans increases.

Hope that was helpful!

I second your thinking about taking the October test as good practice even if you end up canceling or not scoring as well as you hope. Law schools, especially nowadays, only care about the highest score you can report since that is the only score they are required to report. I think the days when they could be picky enough to discriminate between candidates with multiple scores / cancels and those without are almost completely over due to the dwindling applicant pool.

I'm loving the video clips of J.Y doing the LR sections as creepy as that sounds. Gives me a better sense of how much he diagrams and thinks about particular questions in real time. Nice job.

You need to go in with a warrior mindset and know for certain that one of the answer choices is definitely correct, the other 4 are wrong, and you don't wanna goof up on a question that will make you wanna smack your own head when you go back to it and realize it was one you could have gotten right.

Hey I just took practice test 59 myself. Section 2 was DEFINITELY harder. As further confirmation of this, you could see on Manhattan LSAT's LR forum that the vast majority of inquiries and posts pertained to section 2 and not 3. Also I'm quite sure that PT 59, with an unusual 14 point curve, featured harder than normal LR questions since the other sections, in my opinion, were of average difficulty.

As for how to approach Flaw, one good way to assess your skills is to see whether you are accurately spotting the flaw b4 you even get to the answer choices. If you are not able to do this for the vast majority of flaw questions, you haven't attained a sufficient level of familiarity with this question type to systematically attack it. I would suggest you review the 7sage lessons that pertain to identifying flaws in order to get better.

MSS is basically a mind twist that is meant to confuse and intimidate you (at least the harder ones). Almost always the correct answer is one that accurately combines premises within the stimulus to arrive at a supported conclusion. They mainly try to trick you by providing tempting, but ultimately unsupported, answer choices. You should maintain a strict standard when it comes to these questions of what can be directly inferable from logically combining the premises in the stimulus. By the way this method works for even the most difficult of MSS questions. The correct answer choice will of course be more subtle, but will not contradict anything in the stimulus and will always follow logically from what is already given.

Only question I got wrong on this section.... but i really don't give a @#$!

Given the declining medians scores across law schools, postponing may actually be justified for many of you, especially if you think you will be able to raise that score above a 160. However (in reference to KS's post) don't spend too much time going over prep material. While it is tempting to think that rereading such material will increase your score, there are diminishing returns from doing so. Honestly I think any increase in score will come from familiarizing yourself as best as you can with the tricks of the test under timed conditions. If you are still getting the simpler questions wrong in any of the sections, congratulations you can count on a definite score increase with enough dedication in review.

If you are getting the trickier one's wrong, it's still best to stick to reviewing the test but it becomes even more important to understand what the fundamental errors in your reasoning are that are making you miss those questions (this really only becomes a primary concern if you are aiming for a 170+ score). You will never see a repeat of those tricky questions again, only a repeat of the reasoning mechanisms that allowed the correct answer to be correct. For those of you not consistently scoring in the mid 160s, there are probably some fundamental strategy issues you need to work out since, in my experience, about 85% of the questions on the test are ones that can be gamed more or less through improvements in basic tecnique as laid out in most prep materials.

This passage convinced me that the test-makers are as interested in trying to intimidate us as they are in testing our reasoning ability.

more limited than* those held by the candidates. Meaning, even in the best case scenario that the wealthy only influence the candidates in proportion to the amount of representation the party they back has in the overall population, that line of reasoning fails to take into the possibility that the parties have more limited views and would thereby limit / compromise the views of the candidates through the wealthy donors.

Think about it like this: Lets say the population is 50% Republican and 50% Democrat, then according to the argument, 50% of the wealthy are Republicans and the other 50% of the wealthy are Democrats ("their percentage in the overall population" refers to the various political parties' representation in the overall population. So the wealthy are members of such parties in proportion to each party's popularity among the overall population). The argument's claim (remember to always return to the core of the argument) is that it is false, due to this consistency in distribution, that candidates' views would be compromised. This is presumably on account of the fact that, while the candidates may be beholden to rich people, those rich people are distributed in proportion to the political party's representation among the overall population.

The argument illicitly assumes however, that this proportional distribution is a good enough reason to trust that the candidates' positions won't be compromised. But (as J.Y might say) Who Cares! that the political parties are proportionately represented among the wealthy? Couldn't the candidates' dependence on the wealthy compromise their position regardless of whether those wealthy people stick to the party line? (think Koch bros and George Soros vs. all the rest of us who don't give a shit and would rather watch the Daily Show instead of Fox or MSNBC)

Answer B directly addresses this vulnerability by stating that political parties' positions might be less varied than the positions taken by the candidates. That is a real possibility, and thus regardless of a consistency in distribution among the wealthy to the various political parties, that really doesn't do us any good, since the political parties themselves may take positions that are more limited those held by the candidates. Answer B severs the link between political parties and candidates that the stimulus attempts to blur. And that is why Answer B is correct, in my opinion.

I concede your point. Thanks.

I concede your point. Thanks.

Hi J.Y. I'm referring to question 12. It is the last question of the passage and it asks for the author's attitude. I was curious what exactly in the passage indicated to you that the author endorsed Gluck's point of view. I was unable to find any explict tone/attitude indicators in the text myself. Thank you.