Archive for category LSAT Tips
Getting A Top LSAT Score
Posted by noah@atlaslsat.com in LSAT Prep, LSAT Tips on December 31st, 2009
Whenever I met new students I used to ask them what their “goal scores” were. I ended up hearing “180!” a bit too often, so I switched to asking this: “What is the minimum score you’d be satisfied with (and not take the LSAT again)?” This question provided a better sense of the student’s goals. So, the true goal is to get YOUR top LSAT score. We’d all like to get 180s, but it’s just not possible for us all to realize that dream. If you disagree, I also have a bridge to sell you.
So, this strategy/pep talk is for those who are nearing LSAT game day and are not scoring a 180. Let’s say you’re scoring 168-170 on your latest preptests, that means that you’re roughly missing 7-12 questions between the four “live” sections. And let’s say you’re pretty strong with the games and RC - perhaps 1 wrong in each of those usually — but you miss 3 - 5 in each of the LR sections. If we’re a 6 weeks from the LSAT, there’s no reason whatsoever to assume that you can’t improve on that, but if you’re 3 weeks from test day, it’s time to face the facts: you’re probably going to score within the lower range of your recent preptests. So, at that point, if you’re not happy with such a score, do not take the LSAT!
If you are happy with that 168, then start practicing getting your top score. This means that you should practice getting ~10 questions wrong. Most importantly, practice making those 10 incorrect the 10 questions you find difficult. In other words, don’t get easy questions wrong and don’t leave yourself rushing on tough questions that are within your reach. Instead, take educated guesses on the really tough questions that you know — through experience — you’re probably not going to get right. If you allow yourself to do that — instead of throwing 2-3 minutes after that question — you’ve bought yourself some time for the challenging question that is within your reach.
If you practice taking the test this way, you are much more likely to find yourself scoring at the top of your practice range instead of towards your bottom.
December LSAT - Final Tips
Posted by noah@atlaslsat.com in LSAT Gossip, LSAT Tips on November 30th, 2009
The LSAT is less than a week away, and people are often asking for final tips about test day. Here’s my best of:
1. Easy does it. Don’t take any full preptests within the last two days. The brain is a muscle, let it rest. Take a few timed sections each day up until 3 days before the LSAT, a couple untimed two days before, with a bunch of review of work you’ve already done. And the day before just re-do LSAT sections you have already done. On the morning of the LSAT, re-do one easy logic game on your way to the test center to get your brain moving. Caveat: if you know you’ll do better with momentum, go right ahead and get momentumming and go crazy on the LSATs the week before. Some people like to do a six-section LSAT a week before test day to make 5 sections seem easy.
2. Pack-up the night before. Get all your pencils sharpened, print out the ticket (and make sure your printer doesn’t cut off any part of the ticket), and find that analog watch your dad gave you years ago. Make sure you know how to get to your testing center – there’s nothing worse than freaking out on your way to the test. Plan to arrive early and to enjoy a coffee outside while you do a warm-up section, or a crossword puzzle or something that is fun and slightly intellectual.
3. Warm-up mental stretches. Bring some light warm-up LSAT material with you to the testing center. I suggest bringing some tough questions that you completely mastered. Before you enter the testing center, just run through the questions one last time, toss the paper into the recycling bin and head to your room. Don’t bother checking your work. The reason to do this is that you don’t want to use the first section of the test as your warm-up. You want your logical thinking already moving when you start section 1. The brain is a muscle, so warm it up just like you would your legs.
4. Eliminate, eliminate, eliminate, eliminate. On all but the easiest problems in LR and RC, you should generally eliminate 4 answers. If you’re going down the answer choice list, and (B) seems to be the answer, act suspicious – assume you’ve been duped – and go and look at the rest of the answer choices, seeing if you can eliminate them. It’s too easy to “shut down” your brain once you think you’ve found the answer. Unless you’re scoring 180s, face it: the LSAT is fooling you some of the time. So look for the wrong answers, not the right ones. This is probably the most important piece of advice I can give to students who are just looking for a way to freshen up their process if it has hit a plateau.
5. Move along. If you are stuck on a question, take comfort in the fact that most everyone around you is probably struggling with that question too! Some of your neighbors will spend 4 minutes on that one question, and others will move on and devote time to questions they can tackle. Those who move on probably will do better and keep their cool. So, make an educated guess, bubble it in, circle the question number, and move on. If you have time, come back to it.
6. Focus! If you find yourself meta-thinking (i.e. “wow, I’m taking the LSAT and it’s really tough, I hope I’m doing well . . . shoot, I really need to focus! I think I bombed that last logic game. Dang, what if I can’t focus . .”) you need to get back to work! One easy way is to read the passage or question to yourself aloud (very quietly obviously). Some people understand better when they hear information. Another way to do it is to start writing on the test – “Conclusion!” “Why?” “Author’s opinion!”.
7. Try something. For logic games, if you are into the 2nd or 3rd question and have been struggling the whole way there, you may have not made some important inferences that could “un-lock” the game (and by the way, not every game has important inferences built into the scenario, sometimes there all in the conditional questions). Lay out 2 possible scenarios with the elements, and question yourself along the way: “could E go anywhere? Why not?” This might help focus your thinking. This isn’t usually the most ideal route to unlocking a logic game, but if you’re stuck, you’ve got to do something!
8. Throw out the rules. You’ve probably spent a lot of time learning diagrams, logic rules, etc. During test day, feel free to abandon ship if something is not working. The best test-takers are flexible with their methods. That said, don’t throw out your general approach to the test, that’s your routine that will see you through section 5.
And I still stand behind my night-before-the-LSAT recommendation: Watch Legally Blonde, 1 or 2.
LSAT Weaken Questions - Logical Reasoning
Posted by dan@atlaslsat.com in LSAT Tips, LSAT content on November 13th, 2009
Weaken questions can operate in a few different ways. Let’s look at some examples.
Sep 09 Exam, Section 4, #2
Here’s the basic logic given in the argument:
You can always keep your hands warm by putting on extra layers of clothing (clothing that keeps the vital organs warm).
THUS, to keep your hands warm in the winter, you never need gloves or mittens.
This argument is a sound argument – no flaws or assumptions. If you have another option for keeping your hands warm, then you never truly need gloves or mittens.
In this case, the correct answer actually attacks the main premise. The correct answer says that sometimes (when it’s really really cold) putting extra layers of clothing on actually is not enough to keep your hands warm. Notice how this contradicts the premise. So, to weaken an argument you can attack a supporting premise.
ANSWER TYPE 1: attack a premise
Sep 09 Exam, Section 4, #10
Here’s the basic logic given in the argument:
Most people don’t eat enough fruits and vegetables to get their daily requirement for vitamins.
THUS, most people need to supplement with vitamin pills.
This argument is NOT a sound argument. It makes a pretty big assumption: People can’t fulfill their daily requirement of vitamins using some other source aside from vitamin pills.
The correct answer could attack this assumption by negating it: People CAN fulfill their daily requirement of vitamins using some other source aside from vitamin pills. This would definitely weaken the argument. However, it’s more likely that the correct answer will be a little tougher to spot. Instead of just outright negating the assumption, it will probably give an example of a source of vitamins other than pills. This is exactly what the correct answer does in this case. It says that many foods that aren’t fruits and vegetables have the vitamins that fruits and vegetables have. This obviously weakens the claim that you would need pills to get those vitamins.
In this case, the correct answer attacks an assumption by introducing a counter premise. In order to see it, you’ve got to be able to spot the assumption first.
ANSWER TYPE 2: attack assumption through counter premise
Jun 09, Section 2, #9
In this case, a single claim is made without any supporting premise:
Reducing meat consumption will not significantly reduce world hunger.
In this case, the answer won’t attack a premise because there isn’t one. It’s hard to attack an assumption because we don’t have a P - C relationship (assumptions usually lie between the premise and conclusion). So, this must be a different type.
Here, the correct answer simply raises a counter premise, an outside fact that seems to indicate that the claim could be wrong: The amount of land needed to raise meat for one person could grow enough grain to feed 10 people. If this were true, maybe, just maybe, we could put a dent in world hunger by eating less meat.
ANSWER TYPE 3: introduce a counter premise.
To see if you’ve got it, take a look at section 3 (LR) of the Sep 09 exam, #24. Which of these three types is it?
Assumptions and Flaws: Focus on the Argument Engine
Posted by dan@atlaslsat.com in LSAT Prep, LSAT Tips, LSAT content on October 13th, 2009
Do you struggle with assumption and flaw questions? Do you often choose answers that seem right, or relevant, but end up being wrong? This may help.
Consider the following argument:
Many respected entrepreneurs assert that insufficient capital, capital required to cover operating expenses in addition to initial start-up costs, is inevitably a factor in the failure of start-up businesses. However, all of the failed start-ups with which I’ve been involved have failed as a result of executives’ lack of expertise in the product or service that the company provides. Thus, insufficient capital is not a factor in causing start-up businesses to fail.
If this were followed by a question that asked you to choose an assumption, this would be a pretty tough question. The average test-taker attempts to memorize, or “learn” the entire argument, and then gets distracted by answer choices that seem relevant to some particular part of the argument that ends up not mattering so much. This leads to wrong answers.
The strong test-taker has a clearer sense for what we’ll call “the argument engine,” and knows that everything else will likely just provide a context for that engine. The correct answer will usually relate or connect the two parts of the engine. The incorrect answers will generally sit outside the engine – irrelevant. So, what’s this engine thing all about?
Let’s turn this argument on its head and start over.
We spend a lot of time deconstructing arguments. Let’s try looking at things in reverse order. Let’s actually construct this argument from the ground up. We’ll start with the conclusion:
Insufficient capital is not a factor in causing start-up businesses to fail.
Now, let’s add a premise to support this conclusion:
All of the failed start-ups with which I’ve been involved have failed as a result of executives’ lack of expertise in the product or service that the company provides. Thus, insufficient capital is not a factor in causing start-up businesses to fail.
To make this argument more LSAT-like, we’ll add an opposing point to the beginning:
Many respected entrepreneurs assert that insufficient capital is inevitably a factor in the failure of start-up businesses. However, all of the failed start-ups with which I’ve been involved have failed as a result of executives’ lack of expertise in the product or service that the company provides. Thus, insufficient capital is not a factor in causing start-up businesses to fail.
Let’s put in some background information, just to add some more language:
Many respected entrepreneurs assert that insufficient capital, capital required to cover operating expenses in addition to initial start-up costs, is inevitably a factor in the failure of start-up businesses. However, all of the failed start-ups with which I’ve been involved have failed as a result of executives’ lack of expertise in the product or service that the company provides. Thus, insufficient capital is not a factor in causing start-up businesses to fail.
Now we have a full argument. Notice that the more we add the more confusing things become. The more words we read, the less we’re able to focus on the things that really matter.
To fight through the confusion, try thinking of the LSAT argument as a car. The engine is the most important part of the car; it makes the car go. The chassis of the car simply provides a frame, or a context, for the engine.
Likewise, the most important part of an LSAT argument, the engine of the argument, is the simple relationship between one supporting premise and one final conclusion: P à C. Everything else, opposing point and background information, simply provides a frame or a context for this simple relationship.
Let’s go back to the example we introduced above. Before we added the opposing point and the background information things were pretty simple, right? We had one simple premise leading to one conclusion:
All of the failed start-ups with which I’ve been involved have failed as a result of executives’ lack of expertise in the product or service that the company provides. Thus, insufficient capital is not a factor in causing start-up businesses to fail.
This is the engine of the argument! We can paraphrase it:
start-ups I’ve seen failed b/c of lack of expertise –> thus, lack of capital not a cause of failure
When we see the engine, or core, of the argument in simple terms, any flaws, gaps, or assumptions become more obvious. In this case, the author assumes that there cannot be more than one reason why a start-up fails.
If you have trouble with assumptions and flaws, try focusing on the engine. Try constructing the argument from the ground up: find the conclusion, find the one premise that directly supports this conclusion, and then recognize that everything else just provides a context for this engine that you’ve just identified.
Once you have your engine, you’ve defined the scope of the argument. The correct answer will generally fall within the scope of the engine.
(ADVANCED NOTE: Sometimes more difficult questions involve a three-part engine: premise –> intermediate conclusion –> conclusion. In a case such as this, you’ll need to examine the logic in two parts. First, look at the premise –> intermediate conclusion relationship. Is there a gap or assumption made in this part of the engine? Next, look at the intermediate conclusion –> conclusion part of the engine and ask yourself the same question. The simple difference here is that there are actually TWO engines at work. You’ll want to check both of them.)
LSAT Prep Course Review with Ann Levine
Posted by noah@atlaslsat.com in LSAT Gossip, LSAT Tips on October 7th, 2009
We just did an interview with Ann Levine, and admissions consultant,
http://www.lawschoolexpert.com/podcasts.html
A very fun conversation. Some of the big themes: what sort of score increases to expect, how to choose a prep option that’s right for you, and some of the myths about LSAT prep.
This is our first chance to work with Ann, but it sounds like she has a lot of sound advice for navigating the law school application process smoothly. Check out her blog: http://www.lawschoolexpert.com/podcasts.html
A very fun conversation. Some of the big themes: what sort of score increases to expect, how to choose a prep option that’s right for you, and some of the myths about LSAT prep.
This is our first chance to work with Ann, but it sounds like she has a lot of sound advice for navigating the law school application process smoothly. Check out her blog: http://www.lawschoolexpertbook.com Looks useful . . .
Final LSAT Tips
Posted by noah@atlaslsat.com in LSAT Tips on September 25th, 2009
I thought I would add one more tip to a previous posting full of tips for those about to go and take the LSAT: http://www.atlaslsat.com/blog/index.php/2009/06/03/final-lsat-tips/
Bring some light warm-up LSAT material with you to the testing center. I suggest bringing some tough questions that you completely mastered. Before you enter the testing center, just run through the questions one last time, toss the paper into the recycling bin and head to your room. Don’t bother checking your work. The reason to do this is that you don’t want to use the first section of the test as your warm-up. You want your logical thinking already moving when you start section 1. The brain is a muscle, so warm it up just like you would your legs.
And I stand behind my night-before-the-LSAT recommendation: Legally Blonde, 1 or 2.
Good luck!
LSAT Help: Diagnose This Student’s LSAT Problems
Posted by mike@atlaslsat.com in LSAT Tips on August 31st, 2009
Lots of people struggle with the LSAT, but few take the time to figure out what the real problem is. For each of the following scenarios, try to assess what the test-taker did wrong before reading further.
Scenario 1: Logic Games: An Unconditional “Must Be True” Question
The test-taker has notated all the constraints for the game correctly and made a few initial inferences. The second question is an unconditional “must be true.” He looks at choice (A), and doesn’t see why it should be true or false. He looks at (B) and feels the same way. Looks through his diagram and notes again but can’t make a determination. The element mentioned in answer choice (C) isn’t even on his diagram! He starts to panic, and thinks of going back to answer choice (A) and starting over, or double-checking if his diagram is correct…
What do you think? What did this test-taker do that was so wrong? Don’t read ahead until you have a guess.
This scenario involves one of the most common misunderstandings that test-takers have about the games section of the exam. Many test-takers, even after reading books and taking courses, work under the assumption that there is an exact ordering(s) or placement(s) of elements dictated by the constraints. Based on this exact ordering, or placement, answer choices must be true, or must be false.
Though the collection of constraints for some games can lead to a limited and absolute set of possible scenarios, this is not the nature of the great majority of games. Furthermore, thinking about the games in terms of these limited and absolute scenarios puts you in the wrong mindset for answering the questions.
The reality is, most LSAT games are designed to only give you part of the picture. The primary decision is therefore not between what must be true and what must be false, but rather, what can be known, and what cannot.
If a question asks what must be true, it is likely that there is one answer about which we know something with certainty, and four about which we don’t. That is, these problems are designed for you not to uncover anything significant about the wrong answer choices.
The test-taker should have trusted in his work and known that there was nothing wrong with not knowing anything with certainty about the first three answer choices. If he understood the constraints correctly, and made the right inferences, chances are that one of the two remaining choices will be something that must be true. If they aren’t, there are other steps he could take at this point (such as coming up with a hypothetical to review what must be true) that wouldn’t require him to retrace his steps.
Scenario 2: Logical Reasoning: Assumption Question
The test-taker has read through the argument, and correctly identified the conclusion, the supporting evidence, and the opposing points. He doesn’t totally understand the author’s point, and he is unable to anticipate a potential answer, but he understands the argument fairly well and feels okay going into the answer choices on what seems to be a very challenging assumption problem. He looks at choice (A). It is clearly wrong, so he crosses it out. He looks at (B). It is somewhat related to the conclusion, but he doesn’t see how it fits into the argument. He crosses out (B). He looks at (C) – it has nothing to do with the subject matter. Clearly wrong. He crosses it out. He looks at (D), which seems pretty close, but there are a couple of modifiers that just don’t seem right. After thinking about it a bit, he crosses (D) out. He looks at (E)…
Guesses on what’s going to happen with (E)?
(E) could be the right answer, and he might end up seeing that quickly and confidently… but unfortunately, that’s not very likely. The argument is a challenging one, and he’s already struggled with a couple of the answer choices. We’ve got all the signs that this is a hard problem, and, for most hard problems, the right answer will not be obvious. Remember, the test-taker couldn’t predict an answer. How will he know when he sees the correct one?
Most likely, the test-taker is going to feel a little bit uncertain about (E), or he’s going to know that (E) is incorrect. What will he do at this point? Does he pick (E) because he’s crossed out all the other answer choices? Or does he start over and review all the answers all over again?
Neither option is desirable, and both can be avoided if you are consistent in implementing a two-step elimination process. Just as it’s a mistake in logic games to think of answers as true or false, it’s a mistake to approach logical reasoning answer choices, at least in the first go around, as correct and incorrect.
Rather, you want to separate out the answers that are not clearly false from those that are. Again, this should feel very different from thinking about answers as being right and wrong.
A reason you want to make sure to build in this first step is that most logical reasoning problems, even the most challenging ones, have at least two or three answer choices that are clearly not in the realm of possibility. That is, those answer choices are so irrelevant to the argument at hand that, even if you don’t understand the argument completely, you can rule out those answer choices. It could be, say, in a “weaken the argument” question, an answer choice that doesn’t relate to conclusion in any way, or, in an “application” question, an answer choice that is missing many of the components of the original argument. Even though these questions as a whole may be very difficult, analyzing some of the answer choices will generally not be.
It always behooves you to be zeroing in on an answer choice, going from a overall understanding (say, the point of the entire argument) to a specific one (the degree of individual modifiers, for example) along the way. If you can consistently get rid of obviously wrong answers correctly and efficiently, you give yourself the best chance possible with the relevant answer choices.
In this example, the test-taker should have eliminated (A) and (C) but kept (B) and (D). Remember that this seemed like a challenging problem. Many times, in challenging problems, the right answer is not one that you can anticipate. So, it may look wrong at first.
Imagine the test-taker had taken a different approach to the elimination process:
In the first round, he gets rid of (A) and (C) quickly, but leaves (B) and (D). Without the burden of having to prove one correct, He spends less time reviewing (B) and (D) — they are in the realm of possibility.
If (E) turns out to be a possibility, we’re down to (B), (D) and (E). If it doesn’t, we’re down to (B) and (D).
It is at this point that he looks at the remaining answer choices in depth:
He looks back at (B). Though he didn’t completely understand it at first, now he sees how it connects to the argument. He tries to think about the opposite of (B) – a good way to test an assumption answer – and the opposite ruins the argument — a good sign. He looks at (D) again, and now the modifiers clearly seem too strong. And (E) is not nearly as relevant as (B). He picks (B) with confidence and moves on….
If you are not using a two-step process, you are forcing yourself to think of the specific and the general at once, and you will invariably end up wasting time during the exam. A two step elimination process can help improve your confidence, pace and accuracy.
LSAT Answers and Explanations
Posted by noah@atlaslsat.com in LSAT Prep, LSAT Tips on July 24th, 2009
As an LSAT teacher you end up explaining a lot of LSAT questions. We’ve actually designed our forums to focus on providing an easily searched bank of explanations to any LSAT problem – www.atlaslsat.com/forums . (We figured we’d save a few trees by not printing an entire book of them, plus then all those studying on their own have a place to go.) I will say, however, that I’m always a bit cautious when I find a student asking for the explanations for an entire test. I always wonder – and sometimes ask – whether the student has reviewed the work on his own first. The best students first review the test themselves. A couple of tips on reviewing your work:
1. Mark which answers you can easily eliminate and which ones are tempting.
2. Note any problem that you find difficult, find yourself guessing on, or that you find takes too long.
3. When you review your work, review all the questions you answered incorrectly, and all those you noted above (see #2).
4. For the questions you review, ask yourself the following:
- Do I understand the question (this includes the stem and the stimulus, passage, scenario, etc.)?
- Why is the correct answer right?
- Why is each wrong answer wrong?
- How could I have approached this question differently? Is there a more efficient manner? Is there a more intuitive approach?
5. Now look at the explanations that we provide. Do you agree with us? If you disagree, write to us on the forum and let’s discuss.
6. Keep a log of the questions you need to work on, and re-solve them later on, striving to solve the in the way you wished you had solved it the first time.
7. If the problem is still stumping you, try to write a similar problem about a different topic. You can also try to teach someone else.
Good luck with your prep! And don’t hesitate to post a question on our forums – www.atlaslsat.com/forums, we have tons of explanations already written, saved in a folder, just waiting to be posted. But don’t be lazy, do the work yourself first . . .
Speeding Up On the LSAT
Posted by noah@atlaslsat.com in LSAT Tips on July 13th, 2009
A lot of folks struggle with timing on the LSAT. Clearly, if the test were un-timed, we’d all find it a lot easier. Since we have only 35 minutes per section, if you’re having trouble finishing on time, it’s important to address your pacing.
There are several reasons folks struggle with pacing:
1. Not enough full practice under time conditions. If you’re just starting out, your mind is probably not used to the pace at which it needs to work. I know that I generally equate a good read with a slow read — but that simply doesn’t work for the LSAT. You probably can speed up considerably by just telling yourself to speed up! From now on, every problem you try should be done with a stopwatch. Also make sure you’re throwing in full practice tests along the way. Don’t wait until you’re done learning all your strategies to work on your speed.
2. Ineffective strategies. Some ways of tackling problems would work just fine if the LSAT were untimed but breakdown under time pressure. For example, in logic games, writing out all the possible scenarios doesn’t work for the vast majority of games. In reading comprehension, you simply do not have enough time to do a full re-read. In logical reasoning, you can’t wait until you’ve read the question to start thinking critically about an argument you’ve already read — you need to be reading critically from the outset.
This problem turns up more frequently with folks who are not using a book to study with, though even those who are in a course can fall prey to this problem if they don’t do timed practice, which often forces them to realize that they must indeed use the strategies they’re learning about.
3. Lack of automaticity. There are some tough questions on the LSAT that are going to require more than the typical amount of time. To “buy” this time, a significant number of questions must be relatively easy to do quickly. To achive that, the plan of attack needs to be practiced until it doesn’t require a conscious initiation. Some people think they should only focus on the questions that are difficult for them, but it’s also worth practicing solving the “easy” ones very quickly. This will also help a great deal with the questions that would otherwise send you for a tailspin; knowing how to start and what to look for is crucial.
4. Test anxiety and poor time management. Unfortunately, some of those who would otherwise do very well on the LSAT score well below their potential because of test anxiety. There are a lot of techniques for batttling this, ranging from desensitization (high-pressure practice tests) to meditation (deep calm breath while bubbling in . . .). If you suffer from this type of anxiety, don’t wait until the last few weeks to work on this. Incorporate it into your prep from day one.
As for basic time management, know your timing benchmarks and practice using them. You can’t just say “I’ll be careful on the test, but this is just a practice test.” You must practice your timing plan. You also need to have a personal strategy. When I face a tough LR problem, I answer it, circle the problem on my test and move on with the plan to return to it when I finish the rest of the test. I rarely find time to do that, but it’s comforting knowing that I’ve planned to do so! Most importantly, my plan allows me to keep moving.
Here’s a basic guideline (and be reasonable, if you’re shooting for a 168, use the top guidelines):
For 165+
LG: 7, 8, 9, 10 (one game in 7 minutes, one game in 8 . . . and the first game isn’t always the easiest, so don’t rely on that)
RC: 7, 8, 9, 10 (one passage in 7 minutes, one game in 8 . . .)
LR: First fifteen in 18 minutes, last 10 or so in 17 minutes
For 175+
LG: 6, 7, 8, 9
RC: 6, 7, 8, 9
LR: First fifteen in 15 minutes, last 10 or so in 20 minutes
Good luck!
June 2009 LSAT - Logic Game Tips
Posted by noah@atlaslsat.com in LSAT Tips on June 15th, 2009
If you took the June 2009 LSAT, or if you’re reading the blogs, you have no doubt be thinking about one particular feisty logic game. Since it’s bad form to talk about LSAT question specifics, let’s keep this extremely general.
From what my sources tell me about the especially tricky game, what made it particularly difficult was the number of issues at play. Basically, the LSAT took elements of various game types and threw them together. The diagram, therefore, provided few people the big break-through inferences they hoped for. This is common of more complex 3-D ordered numbering games. The takeaway is to prepare to be unprepared. Strict executors, as usual, are punished. LSAT logic games mastery is all about flexibility.
The other big issue that people reported was that there was not enough room on one game to write out all the diagrams. That’s a tough one! It goes to show you that you must practice with real LSAT questions — and without scratch paper. Practice writing small!
In a class I taught last night, I was very impressed with how the students showed how a generally “clunkier” strategy (spelling out scenarios to eliminate on a “must be true” question) actually worked extremely well for a certain question – it actually worked faster than a more “elegant” solution of following the inference chain. This sort of refusal to accept orthodoxy is ideal. The key to working on this is to re-play games in different ways. See if you can do it faster a different way. Don’t become a logic game dinosaur.
Try out this game to flex your muscles: http://www.atlaslsat.com/lsat-logic-game-9.cfm and take a look at our LSAT Logic Game Strategy Guide to see some other tips: www.atlaslsat.com/lsat-books.cfm