I have been studying for around 25 - 35 hours per week since May. I started with a diagnostic score of 152, and after about 6 weeks of studying, hit a consistent score of 165 and saw some major improvements. However, the past two weeks I have been getting 160s and 161s on my practice tests which has resulted in a loss of confidence. LR has always been my weak point, but I have now seen a decline in my LG and RC sections as well. I am getting extremely frustrated because I thought I was on track to hit my goal of getting a 167+ on my LSAT in August. I am getting extremely nervous the test as it is approaching quickly. Has this happened to anyone and if so, what is your advice?

I am currently signed up for the August LSAT but I have not been testing close enough to my goal on my most recent PTs. I'm worried I won't be able to improve enough by test time. Should I reschedule and take the October instead? This will be my first time taking the LSAT but I am applying for law school this fall so October will be my last shot anyway. Would it be worth it at all to take August, since I'm already registered, even with the risk of a low score? #help

The title is pretty self-explanatory but I need help on #7. Why is E incorrect? And what makes A the right fit? I feel that I have no strategy when it comes to these argument completion style questions, especially when it comes to answer choices that just both sound right. I ultimately had trouble picking an answer at all because the entire passages seemed geared towards discussing how and why women were disadvantaged in the work force; the last sentence literally ended on women but both of these answer choices included men. Even the comments section for this passage contains unanswered questions as to why E is incorrect; one was from a former tutor posted five years ago.

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-7-section-3-passage-1-questions/

Heck yes.

This post is two-fold: I am looking for both a RC study partner and a tutor. The reason I am looking for both is ideally, I'd like a good study partner because I've found that studying with a person with a real stake in this exam is just different from studying with someone who is already finished but I am also trying to be realistic because it's exceedingly difficult to find someone who is both compatible and willing to meet up on a regular basis.

My requirements are: if you are a tutor, you must be charging a reasonable rate, the tutor (or study partner) must have taken the LSAT before or be scoring 170+ on your practice exams, must be able to not only explain why correct answer is correct but why the other four are wrong, must be willing to go over the passages line-by-line. NO manhattan prep or powerscore, lsathacks, or other online explanations during the session.

And of course, I expect basic honesty about your capabilities, whether you be a tutor or a potential study partner.

I am currently getting on average -4 to -5 on RC and I need to cut that in half. Please be understanding of my request and read it all before messaging me. This is not my first time looking for a tutor/study partner and I've had my share of crappy experiences. I need someone compatible with my needs and who has a real stake in this exam so we can hopefully work to pull each other up. I can understand if you're scoring -1 or -2 that you might be a bit averse to studying with someone scoring lower than yourself but explaining your thought process to someone might help you further master the material and I've heard from several that I ask really good questions so that might get you to think about the passages differently, which could make all the difference in the world.

Message me privately

Hi there!

I was wondering if anyone had any ideas/advice for the best way to take prep tests for the Aug 2021 exam with the added variable section. I've been using just the flex option on PTs (as that's what we're "actually" being scored on + the unscored section isn't always going to be LR) but I am now worried that my test stamina won't be what it needs to be for the actual 4 sections. Anyone have any tips or tricks on how to make a PT with an added 4th variable (or anything else that will help tackle the added unscored section?)

Thanks so much :)

Does anyone know when sign ups for the August 2021 LSAT is? I know registration has closed, but when do we pick the date and time of the actual exam? Thanks

I'm not understanding why this question is A. I can tell in some capacity why it is correct, but it appears to simply restate information already present in the question (treating diseases is more expensive than preventing them).

On the other hand, B provides information that, if untrue, would fundamentally break down the structure of the argument (if it's more expensive to treat than to screen but screening does nothing, you have no choice but to treat anyway).

Why is B incorrect, and why is A correct if it doesn't provide any new information?

For the available LSAT questions is there a way to post them and discuss? I clicked discuss but I do not think it allowed me to share the question.

Why is the Answer B? What rules out C? Thanks

Help

Admin Note: Edited title. Please use the format "PT#.S#.Q# - brief description of question"

I understand why the answer is A, however I do not understand why it cannot also be D. I know there is only one answer I am just unsure why D is definitively wrong. Thanks #HELP

Admin Note: Edited title. Please use the format "PT#.S#.Q# - brief description of question"

I think I understand what the premises are saying, but I don't understand where the author of this stimulus even got his conclusion. If we have luggages that don't contain explosives and only one percent give false positives (alarm goes off even though there aren't any actual bombs), then how can we conclude that 99/100 alerts=actual bomb threats? Shouldn't the proper conclusion be that there aren't any actual bomb threats in this scenario even if the alarm does go off because the luggages don't have bombs in them? I've always felt there was something wrong with the conclusion, but I just cannot put my finger on what is the actual problem and the abstract nature of E isn't helping.

Edit: Is the conclusion wrong because we don't actually know the proportion of hypothetical luggages that do contain bombs? For example, if we have 1000 luggages and none have bombs, then the conclusion would make no sense since there would be 10 false positives where the alarm goes off, but literally 0 have bombs instead of the 99% accuracy the conclusion is suggesting. I still don't understand which group is being substituted for which though.

I am working through drilling RC sections and PT11 S3 Q15 has me stumped.

The question asks for the assumption which the argument relies on, which means that the assumption shouldn't be stated.

I narrowed the choices down to (A) and (C).

I ultimately chose (A) because I found (C) explicitly stated in the passage (See lines 6-10 + 15-18, line 6-10 states that the only way for species growth in the manner that occurred in the deep sea mud is for there to not have been significant changes in climate, and then starting at line 15 he states that the amazon didn't have significant changes in climate. )

I don't see how a question can ask for an assumption the argument relies on, which I read as a Necessary Assumption then have the answer be a premise stated, not assumed.

Can someone help me bridge the gap here? I am clearly missing something.

#Help

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-11-section-3-passage-3-questions/

I think I get it? Non-individuals can buy cars too but what if answer choice e had stated that the proportion of individuals and non-individuals (i.e., corporations etc) purchasing cars were about the same (50/50) Would that make answer choice e incorrect or just less strong of a weakener? And why? Couldn't a small sliver of the population still drive up the average price of whatever commodity the stimulus chooses to bring up, whether it be cars or cheese?

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-26-section-3-question-24/

Hello! I have been studying since January using 7sage and took the June LSAT and received a 162 (162-168 range on PT's). I have not studied since, and am currently enrolled for the August but thinking of pushing back to October. I finally realized and recognized that I need to pay for outside help to reach my goal score of 168-170 after having anxiety about reaching out for help. I would love to discuss a strategy with a tutor and set out a schedule for the next few months, so please message me if you want a new student! (looking for 1/2x a week).

(Side note, not sure this is the best way to get a tutor off of 7sage, but everyone on JY's podcast seemed to do it this way so thought I would give it a shot. 7sage should build in "looking for tutor" as one of the posting categories!)

Thanks everyone and happy studying!

Does anyone notice that on newer PTs, there have been more instances of themselves comparing answer choices in LR and asking which is the better one? (Especially with strengthen/weaken questions.) This is just something I've noticed myself doing more often on the newer PTs, whereas in the older ones, once in a while there might be a question that makes me do that, but most of the time the wrong answers have a very definitive reason as to why they're wrong.

Would love to know if this is actually a trend with how the LSAT is changing.

Need help on this easy one. Stuck between C and E. Do not know why this is considered an easy one haha

Thanks 7Sage.

Hey guys - Does anyone have any general tips for Inference (author's perspective) or any inference on RC? It seems to be my weakest point and really wanted some tips on this.

So this particular question has about 8 years worth of comments and about as much time's worth of confusion regarding why D weakens the argument because it seems to be attacking a premise, namely the one stating that these painters have to eat sea animals on the way from Norway to these caves. My question is just how is D not just going after the premise of the argument? I thought we weren't supposed to do that but the vid explanation just accepts D as is.

The only observation I could make is that the premise isn't stating that the cave painters actually did eat animals, but that if they did make the journey from Norway to these islands, then they did have to eat sea animals. But even this principle or conditional is still a premise, so I'm still stuck. And the way the stimulus is written seems to confirm that the painters did make this journey.

As for the argument, I thought the stimulus was concluding that the rock paintings couldn't be a reflection of the painters' current diets because they didn't have sea animals (at last, none that were "unambiguously depicted") and they had to eat sea animals during the journey from N to those islands and my goal was to find answer choices that provided possible scenarios where the paintings did reflect current diets even if they didn't have sea animals on them.

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-33-section-1-question-20/

what is the best practice in between PTs? for example, I am planning on taking 2 tests per week till the august test but I work full time so i don’t have the capability of doing BR in one day (takes me around 2 days to do BR). If I’m just taking tests (and not scoring where I want) + doing BR in between is it enough? Should I try one test a week and drill the second half of the week? Any suggestion would be great! Thank you

My expected flaw for this question was : what if CEO are not representative of top management? Top management can include (CFO, VP, director etc...)

I found many of the answer choices are quite attractive. I was between D and E... I chose E because it match my prephrase. Two questions in short: Why is E wrong and why is D right?

I am not satisfied with the answer Manhattan forum provides, the reason they said this is not a unrepresentative sample is "I will not give you a standard poll or survey and expect you personally to decide that based on your subjective opinion of what constitutes a representative sample that the poll or survey is flawed"....

So polls can never be unrepresentative??

As my question for D: "CEO's claims are reflected in actual practice", how did they go from the popular belief is unfounded to presuming CEO's claims are reflected in actual practice??

Can someone explain why C isn't right

We know that she had to work hard on finding these docs because of how exceptional it is. So why can't we say it's scant

Admin Note: Edited title. Please user the format "PT#.S#.Q# (P#) - brief description of stimulus"

How is E correct? It appears to be supporting the conclusion not weakening it. My understanding of the argument's Conclusion is that it's telling environmentalists to relax because nature is going to adjust itself to the rising levels of the atmosphere.

E (if I'm understanding correctly) states that the Earth's natural adjustment process, which happens over the course of a million years, allows for the atmosphere to successfully cope with large short term variances in the carbon level.

How is this weakening? I leaned toward C initially because if carbon was just one piece of the atmospheric "blanket", then nature fixing just carbon wouldn't be enough to prevent the environment from getting dangerously hot.

I was wondering if there is any statistic or if anyone can speak from personal experience regarding the number of questions wrong a high scorer gets in regard to logical reasoning. I understand that it can depend from person to person and that you can make up for a low logical reasoning score by getting less mistakes in the other sections. However, in average I believe that there is a certain range of logical reasoning mistakes that high scorers make!

Thank you!

I didn't think there was a good answer...

Why is D correct? and what kind of flaw is this?

"Faden presumes, without providing justification, that the evidence for a claim has not been undermined unless that evidence has been proven false"

but I thought we are not allow to go after the truth of premise?

Admin Note: Edited title. Please use the format"PT#.S#.Q# - brief description of question"