Hi everyone! Because of other commitments, I have to take the October lsat in Spain. Has anyone taken or read about the Spain test center? I assume it won't be that different... Thanks!

Out of curiosity, do people generally label the LR passages (i.e. Premises, conclusions, etc.) or just do it mentally? I'm considering labeling the premises and conclusions in every passage to improve my overall speed at identifying these things, but I'm not sure if that's something that people use as an actual test strategy.

Took PT 38 Friday and finished BR today..

One thing that I've just realized up to this point in my studies: it's better to confidently complete 20 LR questions in a section than trying to rush through the entire thing half-assed... I tested this out and my LR really improved (5 more questions correct than my average, a big jump for me IMO). I bubble in D for the rest, but during BR I've gotten the correct answer for some.

I'm hoping that with time my speed will get better and I'll be able to answer all questions in a given LR section with a high degree of confidence.

Will there be, for example, scratch paper provided? Or should we bring our own? Pencils?

About a month ago, a user posted that they had scored in the high 170s on a fresh PT. Their method of studying was to take and retake a group of modern PTs. Does anyone know where I can find this post and/or can you tell me what the benefits of retaking PTs are? I have simply been taking new PTs.

Hi everyone, I'm taking the October test and needed some advice on if i should be doing the PT's in numerical order or if I should jump to the later years? I've read in some of the discussion forums that the later PTs are harder. Do you think I should just keep continuing in order or make the jump to the late 50s or 60s?

Can someone explain 29/4/5? (B) seems like it has the relationship backwards. In order for it to be the correct answer, shouldn’t it say that mainstream opinions are generally in the bland and innocuous ones? Because the other way around tells me nothing of what the mainstream opinion is likely composed. For all we know, the mainstream opinion is mostly composed of striking, insidious views. This is consistent with bland and innocuous opinions being generally in the mainstream– these opinions may compose a very small portion of the mainstream opinion.

Even with the negation test, I cannot understand this answer. So what if bland, innocuous opinions are NOT generally in the mainstream? What if they are generally in the violent anarchist view? That tells me nothing about how much of the mainstream is composed of bland and innocuous opinions. It could still be the case that mainstream opinions are composed ENTIRELY of bland and innocuous opinions.

I have never felt this frustrated with a questioN!!

I chose (E) because if we negate this, then surely, the argument that the opinions on television are the result of market forces comes into question. Of course, who knows, maybe the executives’ opinions just happen to be reflected in market-directed opinions, but considering how much weaker (B) is, I chose (E).

What am I doing wrong?

i have done 10pts in total and im taking LSAT in october and december.

currently plateaud at 155

Hi everybody,

I am in desperate need of help with the RC section. The interesting thing about my progress is that it is getting continuously worse. Back when I first started reading comprehension passages, I didn't follow a specific method. I just read through the passage, underlined some important things, and moved straight to the questions. I would get between 2 and 3 wrong. I have subsequently tried the Memory Method and another methodology, similar to the Memory Method, but I would add the extra step of quickly skimming over the passage one more time before moving on to the questions. Unfortunately, both methods have not worked so well for me. On RC sections, I can get anywhere from 5 to 9 wrong.

I am not sure what is wrong, perhaps it is burnout or simply a loss of confidence, but no matter which of these three methods I try now, I end up doing poorly. Time is also an issue for me; I am a rather slow reader and it takes some time for me to process the ideas, especially in the times when my mind is not focusing optimally.

If anybody has been in a similar situation and has found a way out, or if you can offer any specific advice, I would really really appreciate it. The October LSAT is coming so fast, and I am in great need of finding the best method for me, even if it doesn't guarantee a perfect score on the RC section.

Thanks!

-Nastassia

So throughout my (definitely rocky) studying process I've made lots of gains in the various sections of the test while also hitting various hiccups (many of which I've come here to complain or ask about). However, the PTing I've done in the last week exemplifies the worries I have for the October test coming up very soon.

So up until mid last week I was in a huge slump for a while, having really hard times on LR particularly (which had always been my good section), missing way more questions than usual (peaking at like -5 or -6, up from the usual -1 or -2, which I posted here about). At the same time, however I had made some definite gains on LG (missing between 0 or 1 per test) and RC (which shocked me because I heard it was very hard to improve on and I went from consistent -4's to -1's or -2's). So I was super stressed about that and being able to improve in time. Around this time I was fluctuating pretty heavily around 171ish a low of 170 to a high of 174 (so obviously still not bad at all, but what was worrying me more was the weird distribution where I was doing so badly on a section that I had historically done really well on)

Something suddenly clicked last week though. After two particularly rough tests at the beginning of last week, I had some kind of breakthrough and scored two 178s in a row. Obviously I was ecstatic. It was the first LR that had gone back to "normal" for me while I maintained my gains in LG and RC. This week's PTs started on Monday and I got a THIRD 178 in a row (again, ecstatic) while still maintaining consistency on all three sections (missing only 1 LR question, 1 RC question, and 1 or 2 LGs).

So my worries are mainly to do with what happened on yesterday and today's PTs which were radically different from the three 178s. Yesterday I went from only -1 on the previous 6 or 7 RCs to getting a whopping -6. At the same time, I got -4 on the LG section which, though admittedly harder, was still way more than I'm used to. Today basically the same thing happened, with another huge -5 on RC and -3 on LG (which was particularly frustrating because it is supposedly only a level 2 RC and the game that basically made me run out of time was only a level 3). The good news was that I maintained my LR strength and only missed 2 on each of yesterday and today, which was fantastic and in line with what I was doing before my huge slump. So yesterday's score was a 172 (obviously not bad at all, but admittedly lower than I'm comfortable with) and today was even worse, a 170 (one of my lowest scores I've had in a long time).

Now, obviously my scores have not been bad. I'm fully aware that my scores, even my so-called bad day today of 170, are incredible scores that are approaching the high 90th percentiles. So, I'm not trying to complain about them at all. What my primary concern is is my inconsistency this close to the test day. My personal goal is to come away from the actual test with a 175. If I could score a 175 on test day I would be over the moon, so it's not like I'm aiming for a perfect 180 here or anything. But with my GPA and the school's I'm looking at, a 175 would obviously be ideal and put me in an incredibly comfortable position. And the thing is is that the three 178s (plus the fact that after every test I blind review at or near 180) I just score tell me that I am at least CAPABLE of doing really well on test day and achieving my goal, but the fact that I can vary by sometimes up to 8 points in the span of a day, and the fact that I can go nearly 10 tests with an average RC score of only -1 or -2 max and then suddenly have two full tests in a row where I go -6 scares the living hell out of me and stresses me out. Obviously every test is different, people have bad days, and even a great LSAT taker's scores are going to fluctuate test to test, but it just seems that such a drastic difference, particularly in RC these last two days, is something other than that.

Any help/advice would be greatly appreciated! Thanks so much, this forum has been a really great resource for when this test has gotten me really stressed!

I feel like I am not grasping the fundamentals properly, I am rarely able to predict what the answer choice will be until I get to the answer choices, although I have this general idea of what could be wrong with the argument. I am also missing a ton of level 4 and 5 questions. After 4 PT's I have narrowed down my weaknesses to Flaw, NA, SA, and even though it does not happen often MBT questions. I want to add that even when I am BR'ing I don't I still lack the ability of choosing the correct answers for those questions. Do you guys think this is a fundamentals issue, or it is lack of experience since I have only done 4 PT's?

I thought B was right during PT, but decided to try negating the answer choices during BR, and got distracted by C.

If you negate C, the gist of it would be that "optimism is NOT better than pessimism," which I think ruins the argument. If optimism is not better than pessimism, then why try to enable young people to believe in a better future? Or is it the "illusory vision" aspect of C that makes this irrelevant?

What am I missing here?

I continue to BR PT 39, and I got my ass handed to me on this one (seriously, did other people think PT 39 was much harder than 38)? I BR'd 9 points lower on this exam compared to PT 38, and I used a blank exam to BR.

Anyway, I don't understand at all how A is the correct answer for this one. I picked E (during the exam and during BR), and here was my reasoning (this is from my comment on the video):

I don’t understand question 25 at all. In line 3, it states that Internet users believe that access to information should be free. How would charging people for information (answer choice A) be a compromise? This seems to go against the core principle of the Internet users as established in the passage. Also, wouldn’t charging people further promote the idea that the information is a commodity (line 60)? To me, this answer choice is no compromise, but a full rejection of the Internet community and full acceptance of the publishing community's ideals.

Additionally, how is E not a better answer choice? Research is already exempted under the current laws, so current copyright holders are presumably familiar with this idea. Also, this keeps with the tradition of the free access to information. Yes, the free information wouldn’t be to everyone (only those conducting research), but it’s a compromise! I fail to see how A works at all, let alone is better than this answer. It seems to me that both sides would agree to this.

Okkkayyy. So. I just wrote #72 and received a 160, which is on the lower end of my scoring, as I have found I typically score in the mid-160s. The 4th logic game ruined my life haha.

Anyways. Earlier in July I was scoring in the high 160s, but I've since seen a decrease in my score. I also have found I've increased my stress/anxiety when testing a LOT and that really interferes with my ability to stay clam and continue on through the sections when I encounter a tough problem. I think that my problem really lies in a combination of that, and lacking a firm strategy as I'm moving through the exam.

I'm wondering what you think is best moving forward. I do plan to write in October, with the intent of re-writing in December, or just not writing in October at all. I did write last December and received a 155.

My RC is consistently between -8 and -11 with the lowest a -5.

My LR sits between -4 and -6 wrong each section.

My LG is between -2 and 0.

What do you suggest to do at this point? Right now, I think it's too close to game time to really change anything drastically. Should I continue drilling my weaker LR areas (flaw, SA, NA)? Should I focus more on trying to improve my reading comprehension?

Also. I had read on here that sometimes... people just read 3 passages with the most questions and then guess on all the remaining answer choices for the last passage. Is that a good strategy for me moving forward? I know that RC is a big problem for me, so maybe I should focus all of the 35 minutes on making sure I can get 3 passages all correct, and then take a change with the last 5-6 questions in a passage I don't answer?

Thoughts! Thanks. Feeling pretty discouraged, but trying to just push on. I also should mention that my BR average on my last 7 exams has been a 170.

Guyssss I took my 10th pt today and I got the same as my 2nd ever score!!! And thst one was basically a diagnostic. Is this normal?? I did feel like I was not very concentrated but even when I feel like I didn't concentrate I don't do this bad!! So sad especially cuz I have been studying a lot :(((((( *cries*

ok people

@Jengibre and I and others will be READY to BR with you at 7pm ET tonight. Go take that PT. Add me on skype (nikkers625).

Hi all. What type of clock is in the actual testing centers? I feel like it's very different keeping track of time on an analog vs digital. Any thoughts?

If following is true, what can you say about "Typically, Most likely, Almost certainly, Undoubtedly, and Purely"?

Many: 3 or more

Some: More than 0%

Most: More than 50%

Thank you in advance!

hi, I just wanted to know if you can get a good score (155+) and only do two full logic games in the lsat

Man, I got murdered on this PT (after completely destroying PT 38). I thought the RC and LR were nightmares on this PT. Anyway, I cannot figure out how C is better than A for this question. Here is my reasoning for this question:

This is a flaw/descriptive weaken question (specifically in S's argument).

R: If you are more diverse in experience, then the more you will understand the need for compromise. Therefore, to become a politician, a person should have a diversity of experience.

S: To be worthy of public trust, it's not enough to only have diverse experience. Such a person wouldn't necessarily be worthy of public trust.

What I am looking for: I know we only want S's flaw, but R is missing the link between compromise and becoming a politician. For S, she doesn't actually say anything. She pretty much goes "no, diverse experience isn't enough because it isn't enough." S also equivocates "becoming a politician" with "worthiness of public trust."

Answer A: How is this not it? S gives an opposite point of view (you don't need a diversity of experience) and she gives no reason for it (S gives absolutely no evidence; in my mind, S's second sentence is completely redundant of the first).

Answer B: S never talks about what is beneficial.

Answer C: How is possibly the credited answer? Yes, S attributes a view to R ("as you suggest"), but how is the second part of this answer choice correct? Where does S explicitly or implicitly say that the view is more vulnerable than what is actually expressed? I don't see anywhere where S remotely says something like "R, your belief about diverse experience is very vulnerable to critics."

Answer D: Personal vs. relevant? S doesn't mention this.

Answer E: Flexibility? S doesn't talk about this. Also, S doesn't actually talk about politics, only "worthiness of public trust."

Help much appreciated.

I couldn't pick between A and D and finally chose A. But the answer is D.

I kept trying to find out why A is wrong, but I still don't understand why A can't be an answer.

If A is an assumption, I think it all makes sense at all just like D.

Why A is wrong and D should be an answer?

Please someone explain me.

Thanks!

I'm having trouble with the following question from Superprep, A:

L: People's intentions cannot be, on the whole, more bad than good. Were we to believe otherwise, we would inevitably cease to trust each other, and no society can survive without mutual trust among its members.

Stem: Most vulnerable to which of the following criticisms?

A (correct) - It fails to rule out the possibility that a true belief can have deleterious (harmful) conseuqences

My analysis:

The author claims that if we believe that intentions are more good than bad, we would cease to trust one another and as a result without this mutual trust we would not survive. We are surviving, so we must not have the belief that that intentions are more good than bad.

There is clearly a gap between believing and the truth of a statement, but I cant put my finger on the flaw. I would normally say that the flaw is that just because a belief can't be true, doesn't mean that the underlying element can't be true. This, however, doesn't line up with the flaw stated in A.

I usually take a timed PT and then do the whole PT again untimed (BR all questions). Afterwards I review the answers for all questions using LSAT Analytics. For explanations, I use JY's videos for the questions I got wrong in the BR, and I use Manhattan for the questions I got right. This process is taking hours upon hours.

I want to do 2 PTs a week but that's not happening with this process with a 3-4 hours/day LSAT study time allocation. I also desire to drill LR and follow @pacifico LG drilling technique.

Your advice is very appreciated

I actually understand C and how it is the answer, I am more confused around making sense of its meaning in a practical way, as it stands I need a way to understand how it was put it into practical understandable language (ie positive form) I watch the video and the answer choice was translated as : an ideal bureaucracy will always (never elminated) have (without eliminated) complaints about a problem that are not covered by regulation.

I'm just not sure what rules he was using to get here. Like when I come across these type of statements in the future, I need some method for dealing with them. Because I would have likely eliminated all the nots in the statement and I know it is wrong. Why did never become always instead of some times, and why did he elminate both without and never?

Would the negation test for this be:

an ideal bureaucracy will never have (without eliminated) complaints about a problem that are not covered by regulation.

or

an ideal bureaucracy will always/sometimes [not sure which one] (never elminated) have permanently without complaints about a problem that are not covered by regulation.

I have taken 3 PT's so far. For my BR I re-do the section without looking at the answers. Here is my problem.

I did not get to the last 4 questions during my test so I missed these and 3 others. On my blind review I got the last 4 correct and the ones I missed, but heres the catch. I missed 5 questions I got correct because I chose a different answer in BR.

What is the solution? Just study more? I am somewhat frustrated by this Lol.

Thanks as always. Hope I am the only one in the library tonight. Smoke a cigar/have a beer for me.