Hi guys,

I am looking for a tutor for the LG section, in particular, for MISC games. If anyone thinks that is their strong point, or if anyone knows someone where that is the case, please DM me.

Thanks so much!

Hey guys,

I took the test in NYC yesterday, and during the test, TWO times, the proctor would start reading this bunch of rules of the testing center and what you can or cannot do during the test WHILE WE ARE IN THE MIDDLE OF A SECTION.

Seriously, did this happen to anyone else? Is this normal? Because I could not hear myself think for the minute or two they were reading and felt like that was really unfair. Other people in the room was complaining too..

Is this now standard practice or something I could complain about?

Hey guys,

I was wondering if anyone has tips for LG on finding the floaters when you're just hit with a bunch of game pieces, usually like 8+ and then a bunch of rules that may or may not have mentioned these pieces. I know JY says to find the floaters each game, but I find that I'm spending more than I probably should to do this step each game, so if anyone has tips..

In addition, in many of the games, for questions you have to go back to the rules and see if they've been rendered irrelevant or if they trigger, on the videos JY just crosses out etc. But ofc we can't do that on paper, it was suggested that we cover it up with our hands but I find that's unhelpful esp when there's a bunch of rules. So does anyone have tips for some sort of systematic way to keep track of whether each rule was triggered/irrelevant for each question (when the question requires you to go back to the rules ofc not EVERY question) so that we don't just have every rule still staring at us while trying to eliminate those that don't matter. I do try to pare down rules and write them next to the Q when there aren't that many, so again, this Q is more for those games where there are just a ton of rules and you can't afford the time..

thanks so much in advance!

Hi guys,

I need some advice for studying for a retake (Jan). I got a 169 in October but I hope to break into the 170s.

I've foolproofed pretty much everything from 1-60s for LG, although I still freeze up on odd games.. And for LR, I can go anywhere from -0 to -5. For RC it's usually -2 to -5. October was my second take too and I really think that I should have some sort of plan to use my time most efficiently leading up to January's exam. Should I be studying individual question type? Should I redo PTs I've done before? (I do have about 10 clean PTs left though). I just don't really know how to go about this because I've been doing in depth BRs all along. I spend on avg 8-10 hrs BRing every PT I take and it's so frustrating when it doesn't seem to get me consistently over 170+.

Any advice appreciated.

Hello all,

I've been around the forums for a while but I have yet posted anything asking for others' advice on how to approach this test (usually only specific questions from the PTs) Recently I've felt I really hit a slump in terms of motivation. I got a 166 last October after studying for almost a year and since then has barely touched the materials, every time I do anything LSAT-related I lose focus very quickly (was super focused before I took Oct though!) Right now I'm trying to get myself together to prepare for either June or the July exam, and want to hear how you guys would approach studying at this point. I have all the basics down and had already gone back to the CC multiple rounds to drill specific question types. I usually go -3 or -4 on LR, -2 on RC and LG is just very random. Sometimes I'll end up with -2 and other times I will psych myself out and end up doing only two games. I've already fool-proofed 1-35 TWICE and seriously just don't know what to do at this point with this section.

Should I be drilling specific question types right now in addition to more fool-proofing? Should I get the LSAT trainer and read through that before doing more drills? Anyone have the trainer? Was it helpful? Should I keep PTing? (I've done a lot of the ones from the 60s and 70s already)

Any advice would be appreciated. My goal is a 175 although I know that's obviously ambitious, but better to shoot high amirite!?

Hey all,

Does anyone know how to translate this using the group 3/4 rules?

Earth's temperature would not rise had not fossil fuels been burned.

I just have no idea how to apply the rules here, if someone could explain what the translation is and why and which rules they used, that'd be much appreciated!

weaken: a cause b

a there b not there

b there a not there

Strengthen: a cause b

a there b there

b not there a not there

a not there b not there

Do you guys agree with the above? Are there other ways to strengthen/weaken?

For this question: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-72-section-2-question-02/

Why can’t B be correct? The stimulus just says toxic levels, then collapse, suggesting toxic levels are what caused the collapse, but it could just be a coincidence. Something else unrelated to the toxic levels is the cause of collapse (aka would have collapsed sooner or later even without use of irrigation). And so if we expose this gap, can’t we say well if it’s not the irrigation that caused the collapse how can we say irrigation would cause collapse in modern society?

Admin note: edited title; please use the format of "PT#.S#.Q# - [brief description]"

Hey guys,

This might be a dumb question and I don't know if anyone would know for sure I guess... but this

would be the exact model the LSAC will be using for the exam, correct?

And did anyone else buy the tablet to simulate the test? Was it worth it? And did you get the keyboard as well or you only need the tablet and pen.. And did you get the one with the larger storage or smaller if you're only using it for test prep?

Thanks a bunch guys!

Hi guys,

After finishing the CC and taking a few practice tests, I decided that I'll need to slow down and first drill individual LR question types before diving into more full PTs. I've been using the question bank and doing individual questions timed then leaving one full 35 minute section of JUST that one problem type to do. Afterwards I review the questions. But I still find that I'm struggling and average -8 per section, section of just one problem type that is (which i feel like shouldn't be happening cause I literally did just so many of the SAME question type). I'm wondering how you guys went about this? How did you drill Q types for LR? What helped?

Thanks so much!

How do you negate the following sentence?

For most bus drivers, the presence of a supervisor makes their performance slightly worse than it otherwise would be.

In the video for explaining this ac https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-63-section-3-question-06/

JY negate it to all bus drivers, presence of a supervisor makes their performance dramatically worse than it otherwise would be..but i thought to negate most is x you say 0-50% is x. or am I wrong?

Thank you!!

Passage: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-43-section-1-passage-4-passage/

Question: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-43-section-1-passage-4-questions/

Hey guys I have a question about #28. I thought it's not the degree of ownership that varies, it's the degree of use that varies, and depending on if it passes the mark as significant use or not, the institution either "asserts a claim to faculty's intellectual product" (line 41-42) or presumably not assert a claim if it's deemed not significant use. How can we say the degree of ownership varies? The passage never said how much of a claim depends on how much use, if significant use, the more of a claim. It only says asserts a claim if X, then it's reasonable to assume, if not X then not assert a claim. Either assert or not assert, not varying degrees of how much they assert a claim..

How can E be correct then?

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-39-section-2-question-17/

In the question above, JY says negates b (If the Japanese drive on the left side of the road, then they are not inclined to buy cars with left side steering wheels) to the following:

If the Japanese drive on the left side of the road then they are inclined...

But I thought If a then b negate is a some b, which means shouldnt the negation by There exists some Japanese people who drive on the left side of the road but are still inclined to buy cars with left-side steering wheels.

Since that means there are still Japanese drivers who choose to buy cars with right-side steering wheels, how does this make the argument fall apart? Maybe there are enough people who would still choose right side steering wheels which would then boost the sales enough to correct the trade balance?

I understand all other answers suck, this is the best out of the 5 ACs, but still trying to grasp the correct AC better.