Hmm, I think you might be printing the PT incorrectly. Games and RC are supposed to be on the same side on two difference pieces of paper if you print it one sided. In the real test booklet you won't need to flip it back and forth and I think that might be the concern you're trying to address? If you print double-sided, then print a blank page before the first page of the first game and that should work. Once you have the two pages on different paper facing you the same time, you won't have to flip it back and forth and only need to write out new gameboard when you need to. Hope this helps!

Is it wrong to think that "less likely to eat fat" /= "avoid fat"? Cuz that's what I thought was the flaw and went on choosing E. I get why A is right now, but is that I thought also a flaw? #help

@ Yea I was on a time crunch when I FP but that intensity definitely helped. 20 games is about 5 PT, you still have 30 to go :) I think after seeing more of the same layout it would definitely click for you. Maybe try draw out a board for each AC for the question you POE when you BR, too? That might help making the POE process faster if you can't spot the right AC right away. And if doing 20 games is too much a day just do 10. Take all the time you need to really understand the inferences then add on more after you feel like there are less and less game that you need to redo at the end of everyday. You got this!

When I foolproof for LG, I did 5 PT worth of games a day. I think dedicating a week or two to drill on LG will give you the most improvement. Here's how I FPed and maybe it'll help a bit.

In the morning, I would take 1 PT at a time and note down the time it took me and the # of questions I got wrong for each game. Then I'l BR if I circled any question, if not I check answer and watch video right a way. I would redo the ones I either spent too much time on or got too many wrong one more time before I move on to the next PT. Later, usually after dinner, I would redo all the games I circled (or any particular PT with too many wrong ACs), note down the time and # of wrong AC again. If there are games that I still struggle with, I watch the video again, redo one more time, then go sleep and come back to it again the next day before I start doing 5 new sets of PT games.

Now when I PT under timed condition, I'm able to get -2 or below unless it's those super weird one hahaha. But being able to finish conventional game with lightening speed buy you more time for those miscellaneous games. LG is also the section I BR first and the only section I BR every question, not just the ones I circle. I think that helped me remember what I was thinking at the time and notice at what step I made a wrong inference.

Hope this help!

I also just print out one clean copy and redo them on draft paper.

When I FPed, I would do 5 PT of new games every morning and note down the time and number of questions I get wrong in my note book. Watch the video explanation and then redo only the ones that I got more than one questions wrong. When I redo those games, I would do them untimed and draw all boards for all ACs. Then I would redo all 5 PT of games again after dinner on the same day. Again note down the time and wrong AC. The next day I would repeat only the ones I noted as "Too long" or "Too many wrong", before doing a new 5 PT set.

I was on a time crunch when I FP so this approach allowed me to finish all 35 in a week. I think the intensity definitely helped me drilling down certain approach in my head ^^. Hope this would help.

Honestly don't remember what LR question is in what section…but had LR RC LR LR LG. Praying real hard the last LR is real cuz I don't even remember how I made it through the third section T_T

YES! Good luck to all of us!

Got the question right but here is why I think A is wrong.

When I first read the stimulus I thought, well we don't know if the competing consultant's advice for LRG is to go ahead and use the ad. McKinsey can say go ahead and cut this useless department, but that doesn't mean BCG can't come in and say oh yea definitely cut it out but on top of that we'll do X and Y to improve sales. Given the assumption that the competing consultant's advise is a binary cut in relation to ours, we then further assume that LRG's sales dip is caused by their ineffective ad.

A. I had a different understanding of "competitor's ad" when I read this AC. It didn't make a lot of sense to me that the competitor's ad means an ad that we took from our competitor and end up using. Think Coke (competitor) and Pepsi (us or LRG). First of all, why would Pepsi hire a inhouse consultant from Coke to tell them what to do with their ad campaign? I suppose they could for the sake of trade secret but why would Coke let that happen? So that rules out the possibility that we used a Coke consultant (competing consultant) and took her advise and used a Coke ad (competitor's ad), unless we're in the LSAT world in which any thing is possible.

Then it reads, our consultant is wrong to assume that our sales would not have been lower without Coke's ad, as in an ad Coke created and used for their own sake. So we get it is wrong for our consultant to think that sales (would be lower → with Coke's ad). In other words, she didn't consider the possibility that we could have even lower sales AND without Coke's ad. Like what? That just sounds irrelevant, and I think it makes a lot more sense to see how irrelevant it is if we understand competitor's ad like that.

Like what JY said, A wants us to think that sales would have been lower still without competitor's ad. To me it seems like a case where Coke (competitor) did such an awful job with their new ad that Pepsi (us or LRG) was able to take a gain from Coke's campaign lost and face a less severe dip in its own sales, regardless if Pepsi launched its own ad.

Hope this makes sense :)