Didn't communicate properly. No, not studying anymore. Was just going to try and hold a review session on pt70. Trying to offer something and I think holding a session where people could ask questions about a test or ask me about my studying process would be useful.

Misspoke because its not blind... So, just R-ing, not BR-ing.

Found an old thread if anyone's interested: https://classic.7sage.com/discussion/#/discussion/3595/mbti-type/p2

I'm an intp.

@

Princeton offers a JD?

Excellent work! I was in a similar position when I first started. Make sure to leave plenty of room for pting. I'd try to plan for 25-30 tests if you're set on maximizing your score!

Translation is pretty mathematical. If always indicates a sufficient condition. This is my thought process for parsing out the sentence:

A is good if (it) satisfies B

A is good if (A) satisfies B

[A is good] if [(A) satisfies B]

A satisfies B --> A is good

I wouldn't try to break down the sufficient condition of "A satisfies B" any further.

If you use the problem as an example: satisfies 2 things --> good theory --> 1 thing

--> other thing

Satisfying the two things is sufficient for it being a good theory, but those things are also requirements...so each is a necessary condition for it being a good theory as well.

Foolproof lg, try to anticipate answer during BR before looking at answer choices.

2a. I'd return home and not take june/july test

2b. Wouldn't think so...

2c. I avoided burnout by taking a day off a week to do the stuff I'd forgone for the LSAT and I also just love the LSAT

3. I think the LSAT trainer is pretty good. I think making sure your BR is top notch is maybe the most important. Make sure you have all the parts dissected and understand how they relate to one another before checking with any outside source.

I would give yourself time to do 25-30 tests and make sure you're skipping a lot, so the questions you're getting wrong timed you might have time to go back to at the end of the section with some fresh insight that was before reserved for BR.

I think @ is right. The idea is to understand the argumentative structure of the passage and use it to try to make sense of gaps in your understanding of the content. This way your understanding of the passage is relative to the argumentative structure rather than just regurgitated facts.

+1 what Sami said.

Foolproofing I think really helps build your intuition on when to split and into how many sub-gameboards.

I'd take a day or two off for some wellness and know that your high BR is indicative of your high level analysis. The question when you hop back into it is what steps you should follow to get closer to that score. My hunch would be that you might want to be skipping more as to leave more time at the end for the questions that you got right during BR but wrong timed.

How do you study for RC? LR?

I'd make sure you're able to execute what I think are some of the most fundamental skills for those sections: dissecting arguments, understanding the relationships between its parts, and finding flaws.

Hope this very general advice helps.

How I would pause when reading it, as indicated by the commas.

The ways by which you may get money, almost without exception, lead downward. To have

done anything by which you earned money, merely is to have been truly idle or worse. If the

laborer gets no more than the wages which his employer pays him, he is cheated, he cheats

himself. If you would get money as a writer or lecturer, you must be popular, which is to go down

perpendicularly.

I studied phil. and think the best way to get into it is to explore your interests and the various branches. I think interest is extremely important to get you through the hours of analysis of a small amount of written material.

Congrats on the LSAT score! You should apply everywhere you'd be happy attending!

I think the sentiment echoed throughout this discussion is probably right. Law school admissions officers know they're admitting more than a number. So, once you meet the numbers cutoff, you have to be liked. So, while you could get a numbers boost, nothing is going to make up for a lack of likability.

I’m not sure that every sa allows for a perfect prephrase but I would think that someone with high level analysis could do a pretty decent job to get to at least a vague prephrase or thought of how the connection ought to be made without ever looking at an answer choice.

I see. But how would you know which one to use when multiple answer choices target multiple premises? They build the answer choices to lead you in the wrong direction. Wouldn’t you just be left at square one if it weren’t for your analysis of the stimulus?

Are you saying to use answer choices to test which premise to use?

If so, I would recommend not doing that unless you’re desperate (which happens on the Lsat). Rather, get good at analyzing the passage before looking at the answer choices. The answer choices are designed to f u up... “It’s a trap!”

Your analytical skill will improve through rigorous br.

-Ackbar

Heller there,

I would be tempted to advise against using any hard and fast rule to identify which premise to use to link the conclusion. Rather, view the conclusion as your destination and think of the premises as your path(s) to get there.

P1: inc well being —> morally right

P2: red well being (—) morally wrong

C: leave well being unchanged —> morally right

How are we going to get to this unchanged business from premises that specify increasing and decreasing? Think of the contrapositives. Not increasing could mean decreasing but also mean leaving unchanged, same with not reducing. But if you find the contrapositive of premise 1: ~morally right —> ~inc well being, we would only be satisfying a necessary condition if things are left unchanged, which doesn’t tell us whether the action is morally right or wrong. However, if we do the same with premise 2, leaving well being unchanged tells us that something is not morallly wrong (not reduce well being (—) not morally wrong). Now we’re going places!

So the furthest we can go from the supplied premises when we’re trying to leave well being unchanged is concluding that something is not morally wrong. But this is not the same as being morally right. But, answer choice c makes it so. So, I quickly took both premises into account and decided one was taking me places and the other wasn’t. I’m not sure that that analysis could be avoided with a rule of thumb.

1luv

-Sam

Congrats on the improvement! I probably wouldn’t have given the same advice to hold off on pting. I think closing gaps between timed and br scores has a lot to do with test taking strategy. Do you make every second count? Do you have significant pauses throughout the test?

I’d make sure that you’re in tune with when you should or shouldn’t skip. If you get to a question that isn’t flowing, then come back to it later. Try to save time at the end to get the questions right you’re getting right during br.

Breaking into the 170s is not unrealistic but your timeline would stress me out. I’d make sure your test taking strategy (skipping questions) is on point. This helped me achieve consistency in my scoring and made me adaptable to each test. How rigorous is your br? Can you point to your weaknesses on each of the sections?

I say NA!

For the conclusion to be drawn it must be that case (it is required that...) x is true.

Conclusion follows —> x assumed = na assumption question.

Definitely cut yourself a break. Everybody has their own life timeline. Consistent scheduling is really important. How many tests have you taken? What are you struggling with specifically? How many are you missing per section?

Make sure to plan for a lot of tests with rigorous br. I’d try to set aside 20-30.

Happy to help.

Make sure you have a key to label parts of the argument. I always underline my conclusion, bracket premises, and leave the context alone. See where you are before you look at the answer choices on br. Do you have any anticipation of what the right answer will look like before looking at the answers? If not, I would keep working on building that anticipation before grading the test.