When I was still studying, I would run the videos on 2.4x speed when I wanted to learn. When I want to appreciate JY's humor, I slow down to 1.7x. In real life though, JY's 1.0x speed doesn't seem out of sorts at all.

My mind is not often blown. I got a 172... WOOT! I had hoped for a nice even 173 to be on par for HY... but this is still fine.

For me these were important:

Writing out LR answer explanations for ones I got wrong, or felt were ridiculously difficult and guessed, but got right. Sometimes I've had to stare at an LR question for 30 minutes to fully understand where I went wrong. Then you just have that moment of epiphany and it all makes sense... sneaky sneaky LSAC.

Taking my weakest section as the experimental during ALL PT's. For me it was RC, which I got down from a -5-8 to a -2-4. Probably be LR for you, so take an experimental section for each PT. Try to look for the harder ones if you're feeling daring.

Keep practicing LG. If you EVER get ANY wrong in LG, you have more work to do. I am guilty of this myself. On Feb LSAT, I had to guess on 3 questions... probably ruined my mid 170's chance. So keep going even after you hit -0.

Thorough blind review. For me, it was redoing every RC section timed, and listing line references for each answer/answer choice right next to them. Also, on LR, going through the section timed again (loosely) and spending time on the difficult ones. After time is up, stare at the ones you still can't figure out (for up to 30 minutes if necessary).

I was in a similar situation for my first take. Fire alarms at hotel + no sleep = BOMB THE LG. I knew it wasn't my best (or even close), but I was set on being done and applying. I kept the score. It was a 163. I wish every day that I cancelled it. Taking in June won't be so bad, provided you have the materials to last till then. Also, taking in Japan in Sept/Oct doesn't sound impossible. I would personally cancel, but that is just me. You will end up taking it again anyway. No reason to look stupid on your application (like me). There were 12-13 question in the last 2 games. You answered 3, that leaves 9-10 guesses. So in all likelihood, you will be going -8 or higher. That is a big deal. If you avg -3 on LG, then you are going to be 3-4 full points below where you should be.

@monicapolissk533 said:

Does anyone remember how many questions were in the last game?

7 total. :( I remember counting with dismay.

Also, did anyone feel confident about the Napoleon question? I thought the beaker question was tricky, but reading the wording REALLY closely the wording helped me answer it, I think. Not with Napoleon.

WARNING: this is a long post. Disregard if you don't like reading.

MY order was: LR LR RC LR LG.

I posted last week that I'd take ANY sections for LG but 5, and lo and behold... Also, as a preamble, I NEVER finish LR with more than 2 minutes to spare after my first run-through. I hardly ever skip and go back, except for 1 or 2 in the last 2 or so minutes. Usually go 0-3. RC is my weakest. Usually go 2-4 wrong. LG pretty decent. Usually 2-3 wrong. Sometimes -1.

MY impressions:

1st LR: starting with coffee question. Incredibly easy LR. I blew threw the section in about 25 minutes then came back and br'ed a bit.

Probably 0-1 wrong.

2nd LR: I don't really remember which questions. Also easy. Done in ~27 minutes. Then reviewed. This was experimental I think.

Probably 0-1 wrong, though it matters not.

3rd RC: official one. I thought it wasn't bad at all. Even on the easy side. Barely finished after going back to answer a tricky question from Indian passage (pretty typical timing for me).

I found Bumblebees easy (if you are familiar with all/most of the RC passages, this is reminiscent of an earlier passage?). That was a gift to me.

Indians and Romans: Also easy, just a bit difficult to get at the Indian authors main idea. He seemed a bit jumbled.

Civil trials: One of the easiest law passages I have ever seen. I thank God for this passage.

Liberal environmentalism: I had a bit of trouble with one question on here. A global question actually... but I think the answers were just poorly worded.

I'd say 2-4 wrong.

3 LR: that Napoleon question!! Tougher LR. Mostly because of that damned Napoleon question. Finished in about ~29 minutes and reviewed, then went to Napoleon again. I hate that question. Aside from that, I think 2 or 3 questions were challenging.

Probably 1-3 wrong.

5th LG: Official. Toughest for me.

G1: ordering game = easy. JY would say 6 minutes?

G2: Vase Game = medium 8-9 minutes, if you figured out the inferences in the setup. Without that, probably a 10-12 minute game.

G3: 12 weeks = not a problem. It was just a unique twist. A LOT of counting... 7-8 minutes for this one.

G4: INTERVIEWS: this one is it. I only had 6.5 minutes for this and it was NOT enough. about 10 would have been just right. difficulty lay in the last question mostly, but others were very time consuming.

Probably 3-5 wrong. 3 guesses :(

LG first for me. I like taking them freshest. then LR 2nd, RC 3rd. LR 4th, and EXP 5th.

@31451

I took PT's with RC as experimentals, allowing an RC RC back to back, just cause I am deathly afraid of such a situation. I figure I'd better prepare for it in advance.

Question. I'm not currently doing a 7sage Course right now, but I'd still like to buy the explanations for PT 79. I understand how it would be a really good deal for someone with a Course right now, especially an ultimate or ultimate+, the extension would be more than worth it. However, for me, only being to access it for a month might be a bit problematic, say if I need to review it later, past Feb 15th. Is there any way for me to get a bit more time only to view PT 79 explanations?

@zkchrumz991

I think our approaches are fundamentally the same, the only difference being that I keep the sufficients separate, whereas you combine them. In retrospect, I like the idea of combining them like you did, it certainly makes taking the contrapositive simpler. However, I find that my mind generally doesn't tend to combine multiple sufficients into one; I think maybe it conflicts with my internal logicometer on the LSAT, which usually says that if you simplify something you tend to lose some degree of precision. That having been said, I don't think that is the case here. Thanks for your take.

@jtannous2451

I definitely NEVER review my warm-ups pre PT. And they are mostly redoes of old sections anyway, which should be 0's anyway (hopefully). That way, my confidence doesn't suffer (Cause I usually blow through the section in 28 minutes, making me feel very smart :) ).

I am now officially a double-delayer, which is very tough. It is really only in my plans for revenge against the LSAT (173+ sounds like revenge to me) that I find solace. Hopefully I will be able to write a story like this one at that time... thanks for sharing.

@jhaldy10325

Funny you should say 1 year 3 months. I'm right around the corner from that. Feb will be 1 year 4 months, though I only studied for about 6-7 of them... and the first 3 were wasted on a Kaplan course...

@gregoryalexanderdevine723

I'm experimenting with exercise as a warm up too. Just need to make sure I don't tire myself out too much, but still be warmed up. Still working on it.

Thanks all for the advice!

I was in a similar situation about 4 months ago. RC always killed me. Rarely did I get -4 or less. I started using RC sections from PT 1-20 as my experimental in timed PT's. I read a 180'er a long time ago did the same thing. To really drill RC, even though I hated it and found it boring, you should double up on it on test day. Especially if 2 RCs come up on test day, you will be super stressed. Anyway, after several months, a lot of BR'ing and some note/markings style changes, I go 0-3 wrong. I took PT 36 a few days, but was super burnt out by this time (too much warm-up... I actually have a post about that ha ha), and I got a -3, even though I expected more like a -7...

In summation, one month isn't very long. I would recommend using ONLY RC as your experimental sections from now on. And BR RC EXTREMELY thoroughly. Also, as @jhaldy10325 says, repeat sections are key. On my BR, I pretty much redo each RC section more or less timed (I allow myself to go over, if I need to) and I write line references for each right/wrong answer. THEN I go over each question untimed if I feel it's not 100% right or if I need A LOT of time to think on said question.

Best of luck. I'm sitting in Feb too.

@gregoryalexanderdevine723

Your post was much appreciated. I think you are my LSAT role model.

I find that I fail to see easy games for what they are when I'm doing PT's, and I end up spending 8 minutes on them, thinking to myself "it can't possibly be this easy, I'm missing something". How did you come by such discernment skills? Mainly by doing and becoming more familiar with the types of games/questions/answer choices? Any specific advice for doing so?

P.S. PT 77's game 3 actually did kill me (metaphorically and mentally). It was my first take.. I went -7 on LG mostly because I didn't heed above advice. At that point, it was goodbye 170+...

@7sagestudentservices

Thank you for the assistance. I'll try to remember the format.

@jknauf572

For the not both, I'm referring to what JY calls the group 4 logical translation (not both rule). He uses it here https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-6-section-4-game-4/ on question 24, which I just watched coincidentally. If we say "no cat is a dog", what we're really saying is that there is no thing that is both a can AND a dog. If it's a cat, then it cant be a dog, cause no cat is a dog. If it's a dog, then it can't be a cat, contrapositive, no dog is a cat.

Also, I think that the error in the problem is that the author is assuming that the following situation is impossible, "People with heart disease take the medication but are not under medical supervision." I find his formal logic to be fine, no flaw there. Just making sure that the logic is actually engaged is the problem. Which is what B does, albeit a bit convolutedly.

@jknauf572 B: No (negate following conditional) migraine sufferers with heart disease will take the new medication EXCEPT (I just translate this to unless in my head but, either way, this is negate sufficient, so we get rid of our already negated statement, two negations = a positive) ---> under careful medical supervision.

I could be wrong, but I don't think that the except can directly negate the necessary here, because there is already a sufficient attached to it. We agree up to "If migraine sufferer with heart disease -> will NOT take the new medication." The except (i just read as unless/if-not) negates the condition immediately following it and makes it the sufficient, because the necessary is already set up as "will NOT take the new medication". If we use the "unless equation" as you say (which I am not sure is allowable), then we end up with "If migraine sufferer with heart disease + If they are under medical supervision-> will NOT take the new medication." Which, as you say, reinforces the FL in the problem, but as I said above, I don't find the FL in need of help, it's making sure that the FL always triggers. So, in summation, I can understand where the interpretation comes from, and it's purely coincidence (maybe? tricky LSAC) that it reads that way when we do some fancy (fallacious?) negations.

As an aside, I love it when the autocorrect tries to tell me "contrapositive" should be "contraceptive" or "contravention", but completely leaves my apostrophe-less conjunctions alone! Oops... Also, convolutedly is definitely a word, though more of a British variant apparently.

@bswise2931

I think redoing old LR (1-30) for warmup will be perfect for me. Plus, that way, BR is a snap (or should be). Thanks!

@gregoryalexanderdevine723

I might end up in the same boat. I tried warming up yesterday with 2 sections (LR+LG) and I felt overworked. So we'll see if it gets easier or not.

@jhaldy10325

As an aside, how long did it take you to hone your skills to a high level? As in # of PTs or months, whichever is more indicative.

@rahelaalam514

I love the "Now I just relax and do 3 sections for warmup". And just to make sure, the sections you warmup with are sections you've done previously?

@seema731

Well, trial and error is a beautiful thing. If at first you don't succeed . . .

Thanks for sharing.

@bswise2931

Glad to be of service. If I've got a question, chances are someone else is thinking the same thing too, so we can kill two birds with one stone, right?

Everyone, thanks for the replies.

@bswise2931

I find I sometimes have that problem in the first 5 on LR. One of the questions (usually the abstract types, MOR, role in argument, etc), which I get tripped up on though I know it's easy. Do you normally include an LR section for warmup? If so, how do you feel about redoing LR? For me, I find that I breeze through 90% of the questions, which always seem fresh in my mind (even after a year), and I only really have a moderate challenge for the tough 10%, making me feel like I'm cheating. Well, the point isn't to be challenged by new problems but to just get in the groove, so I guess a bit of cheating should be ok?

@jhaldy10325 How long did it take you to find your sweet spot? Also, do you self-identify as the LSAT solving mode warmup'er, as opposed to the LSAT timing mode kind of person? (Borrowing @rahelaalam514 's theory) In other words, you are usually fine on timing, its just the solving mindset needs a bit of easing in?

@rahelaalam514

Very, very interesting! I am working on a sleep schedule and daily work-out (easier said than done...) When you say back to back PT, do you mean 4 35 minute sections in a row, then 15 minute break then 4 more in a row? Or something like 3 sections first, then a break, then 5-section test after?

I think I tend to be the LSAT solving mode kind of warmup'er. I generally don't have problems with timing (at least that which warming-up solves). 99% of the time I am pushing myself to go as fast as possible when I am in a section. Now that I think about it, it wasn't always like that. It took a while for me to be able to flip that switch. That's more of an 'empty your mind' and focus type of deal, though.

Last 2 questions, I promise (for this post :)): Do you reuse old sections to warm-up? Do you BR warm-up sections, and if so, to what degree in relation to the actual PT?

@seema731

At this particular moment the thought of 3 sections of warm-up is converging with thoughts of baked Alaska and creme brulee... you might be on to something. Did you do a lot of experimenting before finding the sweet spot for warm-ups? And your experiences with said experiments? (some torching involved, perhaps?)

Thanks for the comments. @jhaldy10325 thanks for the link. I feel like I've read Pacifico's post sometime before but forgot about it. I think I will go get myself a binder now.

I'd recommend against the hotel. I'm opting for the drive myself. Had a nightmare scenario last time with a hotel. At home, much less can go wrong. I'll have enough trouble sleeping as it is, without worrying about loud people partying, dogs barking, fire alarms being pulled, etc. My personal suggestion only.

1. My name is Chris (we've met before, actually, at one of the 7-sage events in Manhattan, I talked to you and JY about "Thinking, Fast and Slow); I graduated from a SUNY college 2 years ago, major in German Language/Literature (studied abroad in Germany for a year) and minor in Business Management (pretty much what I was focusing on for a major when I decided to go abroad for a year instead). I'm currently interning with a judge to see the law in action.

2. Biggest worry: I have a large gap in my resume, about a year and a half, during which I traveled a bit. Also, bombed LSAT last December (funny story...) with a 163, so when I get a 169+ next month I'll write an addendum.

3. Idea 1: overview or poignant anecdotes about my internship and how it has shaped my idea of the law.

Idea 2: discussion of my life as a student abroad: adapting to a different culture, taking a master's business course while abroad and 2 Ugrad level con-law classes.

4. Not attended.

Looking forward to chatting with you again.

The LSAC could have rephrased the answer choice to be what you were thinking, but that is the conclusion. You cannot generally argue with the conclusion. You need to attack the evidence/assumption, which you don't have to assume are true on the LSAT. Also, if the answer choice for a flaw question were, "The scientist's conclusion [insert here] is totally full of it.' That would be either too easy, or misleading, depending on the flaw, and I would be wary.