JY has a different microphone in this recording.

I had a misc game on an actual LSAT I took in 2021. Misc games are good tests of abstract thinking and your overall mastery of LG fundamentals, plus they test your ability to not freak out upon seeing something unfamiliar. Drilling them like any other game is a good idea.

14. D - She uses typical talk-story techniques in writing English language stories, especially with the use of idiosyncratic Chinese speech. This AC is factually accurate, yet doesn't summarize the main point, only the last paragraph. I think coming off of reading the last para, I didn't have a great low rez of the entire structure.

A - Despite what critics say, her writings were based on Chinese American oral storytelling, particularly the form of the talk-story. Yep, this properly synthesizes all the paragraphs. Comprehensive and descriptively accurate.

17. B - Wool is simulated by using cotton cloth in a special way. The qualities of the Chinese talk stories, told in Chinese, are written in English. This is great.

E - Cotton and linen are woven together to save a few bucks. The latter part doesn't analogize to anything (should've been a red flag), and English and Chinese aren't combined/woven.

4. MSS

A - Injunctions only when an employee will probably revel proprietary information. No, we have no information on WHEN the courts should issue injunctions, only information on their efficacy. I think I got confused by the mish-mash-ness of this AC.

B - There seems to be no effective way for companies to protect trade secrets and the rights of employees to find new jobs. Yes, based on ONLY the information in the passage there isn't a way to protect the rights of both parties. We can speculate all day as to what other remedies could work, but those aren't in the passage.

I plateau'd at a place around where you are over the summer and am now scoring in the mid/high 160s, so I think I know where you're coming from.

Likewise, I though I was learning a ton from every test, but I really wasn't. I'm guessing you have a decent grasp of the basics considering where you're scoring, but you probably have some other timing and form issues you aren't aware of given your plateau. I only learned of mine through working with a tutor who was able to identify some of my weaknesses, and I then saw my score improve.

The other thing I did to improve was increase my volume of studying significantly. In addition, focus on doing a written review of all flagged ACs. Your review needs to go beyond watching the 7Sage videos, start keeping a review journal so you can identify ongoing mistakes. Write out why each AC in your own words and explain why it's right/wrong. You know by now that the LSAT is very formulaic, so to get good there's no way around upping the volume. You should be drilling logic games, working up to doing a full section a day.

I don't know how much time you have to allocate towards studying, but improving about 10 points by October may be unrealistic if you work full time or have competing priorities.

From an endurance perspective, it's well worth taking a 4 section test. I studied for both the FLEX and the 4 section format, and think the 3 section sprint versus the 2 section/break/2 section feel very different, the latter being more taxing.

Odds are for the duplicate section, your performance will be consistent if the tests are from around the same time. It's not ideal to have your 2nd LR section be from the 40s, and the rest of the test be in the 80s. If there is variance however, be sure to investigate the potential source of it. I like to calculate my score with the individual results from the duplicate section, which represents a worst/best case scenario and gives a range as to what your score could've been.

Hope this helps.

I'm going to push back on some of the comments here, I think this is a perfectly fair question. Weakening questions are ultimately comparative in that we need to pick the AC that MOST weakens the argument. While I agree that D relies on certain assumptions (that I don't think are unreasonable) about the identical twin study, it's clearly the only AC that weakens the argument.

I've certainly been punished by other question types for making assumptions like the ones needed for this question, which is certainly frustrating, but not unfair. Weakening is a comparative question type, thus D is the best answer in context.

You likely aren't making the required inferences fast enough. Focus on foolproofing games you go over time on so that you can recognize the cookie-cutter inferences.

Also, try to do a game or two throughout the day when you're slightly distracted or tired. That's a good test of intuition and how deeply you've internalized the recurring inferences. Do a game when your morning coffee's brewing, when your dinner is in the oven, when you're on the bus.

It's easy to underestimate how taxing doing 4 sections in a row can be versus a problem set. You need to work on your stamina, consider drilling two full sections consecutively.

Anxiety can also be a factor. My scores on my PTs were improved when I shifted my mindset to focus on getting as many questions right as possible versus focusing on finishing the thing under time. Also try to PT in the same place and same time every week.

17. E under time, no flag for BR. I correctly understood the time theory hypothesis but failed to differentiate between A and E. A receives more support from the passage, and E is wrong ONLY if you take into consideration the critique of time-theory offered by the author. I think I missed this question due to misunderstanding the task at hand and wanted to find something compatible with a proponent of time theory. Read carefully!

18. D under time, D BR. D doesn't weaken because it doesn't show how latitude doesn't impact extinction rates. They found more species, so what? I eliminated E during BR because I thought "most" wasn't strong enough to weaken. If some species don't experience rapid extinction, why do I care? I care because this is a weaken question. The answers are comparative, and the argument can be weakened by an inch or a mile. Another question-type error compounded slightly with a comprehension error.

20. A under time, B BR. I had put 2 minutes into this under time so I guessed in order to move on to the next passage. A is wrong because we have no information on the author's thoughts on the relative plausibility of the critiqued theories. B stood out during BR because we know the author's favorite explanation accounts for the gradient, whereas the climactic stability doesn't. It would take lots of time to get into the passage to prove this AC out under time. This is the kind of question that rewards those who have high levels of comprehension at the end of the passage, and penalizes those who don't (me) by sucking their time. Comprehension error on my part, no problem answering untimed.

Do a full LG section every morning 5 days a week within 30 minutes after you get out of bed. In the evening or after work, BR and foolproof the games you missed. This will not be any fun for awhile, then it'll become less awful because LG will become your best section.

I did this for a month or so over the summer and tapered down once I consistently got -0/-2. I went -0 on both LG sections of PT 91 a few weeks ago.

You probably need more volume of both timed games and review. I'll say it again, LG is the easiest to learn.

Missed #22 because I misunderstood the task. I needed to describe the function in context, but I chose C which is infer-able from the given phrase, but doesn't accurately describe its function in context. Next time, I need to more carefully read the question stem in order to understand my task. Like LR, RC has many "right" answers for the "wrong questions.

Missed #6, tough question. I think it comes down to effectively separating the OPA and the author's argument. The OPA states that the artists were predictive of events to come. Our author only claims that these artists were maybe speculating about the future, which ISN'T prediction. I think the strength of "prediction" as a concept should have made this easier to eliminate, but I obviously missed this under time (and in BR). Lesson learned.

Missed just 18 because I can't read. My answer choice was descriptively inaccurate in relaying the author's view. The author thinks the effect of Br are unknown, and C comes to conclusion about them making it incorrect. E gets at this unknown.

I need to keep the OPA and author's argument straight in my head in order to answer questions like these. I'll take more time between paragraphs to push everything together.

D > A under time, A during BR. I chose A because I thought the demand for other brands would impact the demand for the store's brand, but there's no evidence to support this. I had to do mental gymnastics to arrive at line of reasoning, which is a terrible thing to do.

The better thing to do it take the more straightforward answer, that there's less yogurt in the world. Keep it simple!

#18 B timed, A BR. B is wrong because it's does not have the given criteria for it being "traditional history" which means it's strictly narrative or narrative with an emphasis on causation. A is perfect because the circumstances surrounding a discovery are important causal facts, this fits our given criteria. Think I missed this due to running out of time.

#20 D timed, D BR. D is incorrect because it doesn't accurately describe the rhetoric that's all talk, namely that philosophers of science can't join internal/external despite what they preach. We have no information to support what D's claiming. I missed the extended modified under time and B and failed to see how C is descriptively accurate. Think I missed this due to a translation error and ran out of time.

Interested!

I am interested!