I don't think they are explicitly approved or forbidden, but it is clearly an analog watch, which is allowed. Anyways, they didn't check shit at my testing center, I could have had a two-way video watch.

Wow, the older LG are soooooo much harder. Superprep C... f my life. The last game is actually really easy but it takes you a second to get it, or for me, 7 minutes lol.

Hey guys, I have followed this thread for a little while. Great insight, serious posters dedicated to this test, and people willing to help each other. I would like to become part of this study group.

Welcome timmy!--but aren't you already kind of a savant? I've seen your work on the MLSAT site and elsewhere here in TLS... I thought you were a professional LSAT tutor or something.

Anyway please help us hahaha

I do hope to become one! I strive everyday to encounter something that I question, and I hope you guys can fill me in on what you know.

Thank you for the kind words.

Older LGs as in which ones? As I understood it, the 40s were the easiest, and have grown worse from there.

I'm having issues. I'm not sure how or why but flaw questions are suddenly giving me trouble. I've been drilling them and I'm up to #70 in the Kaplan mastery series. Does anyone have tips with flaw questions besides pre-phrasing the flaw? I find myself overanalyzing now and sometimes reading the answer choices differently. This never used to happen to me before. Flaws used to be my favorite.

Well, I'm strictly talking about the ones from the superprep book. Yes, ones in the 40's are very easy.

@Fashion
Have you tried approaching flaws like a necessary assumption question? That is essentially what they are doing, forgetting some piece of information necessary to reach the conclusion. This is especially true when the wording of the question is "fails to consider", the answer will be the necessary assumption. Also, if the steam states "takes for granted that", than you can apply the negation technique of the necessary assumption.

One tip I can give is that when dealing with flaw question stem answer choices, those with the framing of "fails to consider" can be critical in success of answering the question.

Failing to consider certain things in arguments may not be a flaw in the reasoning used in the argument. Many incorrect answer choices will state things that is true of the argument but is not representative of a flaw.

It would be helpful to know what types of flaws you are having trouble with and what answer choices you are selecting.

Yeah this is interesting. Do you have a link or a deeper explanation for all of these common framings on Flaw question ACs?

For instance, I'm wondering if "presumes, without providing justification, that" is the same as "takes for granted that," and if so then we can (as you say) negate the AC and see what it does to the stim. And wait now that I am taking a closer look at your post, just to clarify: "fails to consider that" is the negated form of the necessary assumption already, right? So we don't need to go ahead and negate that again, we just check that it destroys the stim's argument, right? And if I am right that means the "fails to consider" CRs should be the easiest right answers to spot because they've already taken a step for us.

You are correct in everything you said.

So I've gotten -1 each on the last 5 LR sections I've drilled. Not sure if I should feel satisfied with the consistency or shoot for PERFECTION.

I guess since I need above 175, I know my answer......................

Everything you said is correct. I like to think of it as a negative and positive statement. Fails to consider is a negative (they failed to do something) whereas presuming without justification is a positive (they did something that is unwarranted). So yes, if it is a positive than we can negate the statement and if its a negative statement than we know the correct answer is going to be a necessary assumption. Personally, I find that the negative statements are easier because I am so used to the negation technique in necessary assumption that I can treat the question literally the exact same way.

Do you guys/gals notice a huge difference in scores just due to the way you are approaching the questions? I noticed today that during my LR timed section I was very passive and almost following the statement along and wouldn't be able to prephrase as well. I swear, this test is so much about your mindset its pretty unbelievable. You literally need to attack the questions and be looking for their fuck ups.

Definitely.

Ah, great tips guys! I haven't heard about the whole negative/positive statement in the prompt as being related to negating answer choices like necessary assumption questions. I'll try that technique and go back and do the flaw questions I have been missing.

Honestly I was in the wrong mindset last night while doing flaw Qs. My BF was playing call of duty with lots of shooting and my head was hurting. I wasn't spotting the right flaws. I was finding different flaws such as thinking it was equivocation but in reality it was a causal flaw in a diff sentence. Usually I'm on point with these so I'll give it another shot today.

My problem is that I'm always worrying that I'm not doing enough. When I'm doing LG, I tell myself I need to do LR. When I do LR, I tell myself I need to do more RC. At work, I tell myself I'll just do a RC passage but I'll get distracted and do something else. It's all in my head.

This is a common sign of burn out, you feel as if you aren't doing enough when you more than likely are. Just relax. You don't necessarily need to take a break from studying or anything, but just internalize that its a long process... marathon not a sprint!

Oh, and about your boyfriend... ditch the zero get with the hero (me)

Blehhh, been working Role of Statement, Parallel Reasoning, and Method of Argument all afternoon. That shit sucks.

Those are three sections that I really need to drill on once my Cambridge LR by question type book comes in... UGH.

I just did 9 LGs - all basic/advanced linear. Timing is still SOMEWHAT of an issue. I can do the easy basic linear ones in under five minutes, but some of the advanced ones take me 9-11 minutes still. I missed 2 questions, and they were both on advanced linear - balanced. I am going to have to find even more to drill with. I really want to master the linear games before moving to grouping, but maybe I'm getting close enough? What do you guys think?

For some reason I thought that you were a retaker, but maybe I'm thinking of someone else--yeah if you haven't seen grouping games before I would go ahead and get on that. It's taken me a long time to get good at them (though I was using faulty methods at first), so practicing many many times is kind of key. I wouldn't worry too much about the linear games--you're already pretty solid/precise and it's not like they have two advanced linear games in a single games section anyway.

Grouping. Yeahhhhh

Aw, man! Just took PT 58 and I'm a little disappointed, but I guess I'm making progress.

LR1 -4
LR2 -1
RC -1
LG -1
Exp LG -1

Raw: 94
Scaled: 173

Could have been so much better, I know it. I really feel like I'm on the verge of a sustained score breakthrough here, but damn I just want to it happen already!!! Going to take a break from PTing for maybe another four or five days to get back to LR. I think I've handled my RC problem, so that's good to get out of the way. And LG remains solid.

Damnit why can't I get my shit straight with LR!? I feel like I'm really good at it, but it's just not reflecting in my scores...

On a more positive note I made a 177 on PT 39 (whose sections I have taken over the last four PTs as experimentals). So that's cool.

Pithypike? I made the one month switch yesterday too. It was rough going from 4-5 minutes a game to 13... I hope these get easier quickly

I wouldn't beat myself up about a 173 (though I don't know your PT average). Be sure to carefully review those LR misses! Why did I pick the wrong answer? Why is the correct answer correct and my answer choice wrong?

Hahaha thanks prince . I am going away for the weekend but I'm still taking LSAT stuff with me to probably drill some flaw and parallel Qs and hopefully a few games and RC pasasges. This stuff just gets boring and as a retaker, I am trying to find more ways to get pumped up again like I used to be.

I feel like I already took the past 2 weeks "off" since I have only been studying for an hour each day... I have nothing planned until June 11th after this weekend so I'll be 200% focused.

I am a retaker lol, but it's been over a year and I've forgotten everything I learned/figured out. I also never read the of bible before, except for 20 minutes of flipping through it at b&n to get a general idea of how to set up and diagram.

Also, I apologize if this has already been discussed since I only skimmed the first 20 pages or so, but are most of y'all splitters (let's say GPA <3.5) as well? Just curious.