Got my scores back and actually scored better than any of my PTs to date - a 179. I've prepped full time since June, so had about two and a half months of study time. I took every PT 60+ and nearly solved every single logic game publicly available during that time.

So I'm going to pivot towards focusing on my app materials for the time being.

Shoutout to the super friendly folks on the forum as well as the explanation videos, test taking UI and analytics 7sage makes available.

I don't know if I'm qualified to give tips, but here's my 2 cents

Logic Games are all practice. You have to drill them till they "click." Once they click, they're all actually pretty similar to each other. Yes, even the crazy mauve dinosaur game will click eventually. It may never become trivial, but it will start to make sense.

Use the analytics feature on Logical Reasoning. Seriously. It saves so. much. time. This was the most useful feature on 7Sage for me. It isolates what question/difficulty combinations trip me up regularly. You can filter the results to only include most recent X tests, which will make the analysis more representative of your recent performance.

For example, I saw in the analytics section in my final run-up to the test that I consistently made errors in difficult (4-5 bubble) Weaken, Parallel Flaw, and Necessary Assumption questions. So I replaced PTs with focused drills on those types of questions & difficulty only. The Problem Set feature is very nifty for this. And about 100 questions per type later, I began seeing significant improvement.

Happy to answer questions if interested. May come back to return the favor by helping folks with harder questions.

Best of luck all!

I've taken the LSAT 4 times now, 144, 159, 159, and I just got my August LSAT with a 156. What doesn't make sense? My PTs were always 170s. I don't want to take this test again, I can't put myself through that stress again. I graduated undergrad in 2017, and had to take some time off for financial and health reasons, I really want to start this cycle. My GPA wasn't that great, 3.4. I was aiming at UNC and University of Texas at Austin but obviously I am far below their median this time. Should I even apply? How is it viewed when you get even lower points on a test you've already taken 3x? Is it even realistic to apply to schools whos median is far above our scores?

Hey 7Sagers,

Here's the official August 2021 LSAT Discussion Thread.

**Please keep all discussions of the August 2021 LSAT here!**(/red)

Rules:

✅ You can identify experimental sections. 🙆‍♀️

You can say things such as the following:

❌ You can't discuss specific questions. 🙅‍♂️

You CANNOT say things such as the following:

I understand why the correct answer choice is correct because if robots were the only things going out to space, then why do we need to know anything about human limits but I don't understand why B is incorrect. Isn't the stimulus making the assumption that astronauts share these human limitations? Am I reading this wrong?

So putting aside the fact that I feel like an idiot for missing question 1....why is B incorrect? When I read it the first time, I thought it was correct because if someone were trying to maintain their reduced weight, wouldn't a diet be a poor option for them because once it's over, wouldn't they go back to eating their pre-diet level of food and gain weight?

Someone on the Manhattan forum mentioned that this choice uses the word "should" and therefore it is wrong, but I didn't think that was good enough of a reason. I do see that the stimulus doesn't talk about recommendations or what people should and shouldn't do but if answer choice C had said the word should, the content of this choice would still make it correct, wouldn't it?

How do i benefit from the wrong answer journal if i don't even understand how I got the question wrong? obviously, I got it wrong because I didn't select the correct answer and if i know what i did wrong Im sure I would have selected the right answer Lol ..... if anyone can advise me I would really appreciate it. :)

Hi 7Sagers,

First of all, congratulations to all who received their target score from the August administration today.

I'll be the first to admit that I am not in that category. On various forums and social media accounts, I've seen a number of folks describing a phenomenon that is similar to my experience, so I wanted to relate that information here to see if others have encountered it as well.

I started studying about one year ago, using a combination of 7Sage, LSAT Trainer, and more recently, the Loophole. My first ever diagnostic was 150, but by the end of the study year (August), I was consistently scoring in the mid-to-upper 160s, even on the most recent practice tests. My last ten PTs ranged between 164-168, with the more recent exams being closer to the 168 mark. During the actual administration, I felt fairly clear-minded and confident. I know now that my first section was experimental, and I felt that the sections actually played to my strengths fairly well.

So, I was pretty devastated to get a score this morning in the mid-150s. Basically, my PT average had dropped by ~10 points, and I'm pretty shattered. However, I'm also surprised to see so many others sharing a similar experience on various threads. Because this exam is undisclosed, it's really hard to gains specific insights into where things went so awry.

So here's my question - and I promise it's not bitter blood - but rather a recognition that others have recounted a similar experience during this administration: could the LSAC have overcorrected the curve for the past August administration?

.

Has anyone had their icons turn gray yet? I took the LSAT on August 15th and scores were scheduled to be released today, 9/10. However, I’ve seen online that people say your icons should go grey on the day of score release and then sometime that day you will actually get your score. But my icons are still green..

Long story short I have been with a tutor since MAY trying to learn a method where you hardly read the passage (only first sentence of each and last sentence of passage) then for every question it’s basically a word search

I’m finding this method just doesn’t work. I’ve been questioning for months whether im an idiot or not but after practice testing with this method and getting 4 correct because her instructions lead me to the wrong answers I think I should change. The worst I did with powerscore method of ViewSTAMP was -9 so missing this many with this new method i’ve been paying for months is really upsetting. Sometimes her method works, for example certain passage sets I will only miss a couple but I really can’t afford to take this gamble anymore. Her method is not consistent with all passages I am finding.

Anyways, i’m testing in October and I NEED advice on how to improve by then in that section even if that means dropping this method and doing something else. What did you do for RC? It’s my worst section and I kind of suck at reading. Whatis easiest for you to understand the passage and helps the most when answering questions. Any advice you can give or tips for me to try is much appreciated

Thank you

So I've been struggling with reading comp... my first diagnostic I got around 8/27... after practicing for awhile I was able to inconsistently get a few points higher. I have now started reading actively and I find this is helping a ton. I'm up to 17/27, but the question types I am now struggling with are inference. Anything that requires me to infer something from the passage I can't seem to wrap my head around. I've never been a strong reader and RC has been a challenge to improve on. Just wondering if anyone has any advice for inference questions, or RC in general.

Hi everyone,

I just completed my first PT after going through most of the CC. My scores are quite worrisome. My BR is far better than I could have ever imagined, but my timed score is far lower. I got -13 on logic games when timed, but only -1 on BR untimed. I am taking the LSAT in October and November. How can I fix my logic games issue by then?

This link will send you to a screenshot of my scores: https://i.imgur.com/qNAihT3.png

Hi everyone, I'm having trouble with the timing on LR. There's no particular question type that I get stuck on- it's usually the difficult ones in the section. It takes me around 40 minutes to complete a section with 3-4 question wrong but when I hurry I get around 7-9 wrong. I'm kinda stuck not sure what to do, any advice would be appreciated.

Hi everyone!

I wanted to start this as an emotional support thread. I am sure I'm not the only one anxious awaiting my score on September 10th! Let's throw out some positive energy! I hope everyone is focusing on their mental health and well-being during this time!

How are you all feeling?!

I didn't understand the explanation for the right/wrong answer choices on this one at all. Can anyone help? I initially chose (C) on my PT and I still don't understand how that could be wrong, especially in contrast to answer (A).

Thanks!

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

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-64-section-1-question-17/

Can someone explain why the answer is D and not E?

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

Hi everyone, I'm new here and I've been stuck on 158 since over a month. I could really use your help. My main problem is the Logical reasoning section. I get over 10 incorrect answers.

Hello, 7Sagers!

Been awhile, hope everyone's easing into a nice LDW :)

I posted this on the question's discussion board but was hoping for a variety of views if possible, so I wanted to repost this here. Here's part of the post I was responding to:

...In answer choice E) however, look what happens if we negate it. Acme’s move to OV WILL be accompanied by a significant pay raise.

This is a necessary assumption because if we knew this specific point, then there is the POSSIBILITY of a gap in the argument.

The argument wouldn’t be 100% deducible that the workers won’t be able to afford the new location. That is also the reason why the LSAT writers specifically wrote SIGNIFICANT. Hope this helps

And my reply/question:

Hello, would you be able to clarify something?

I agree that the existence of a possible gap in the argument would obviously weaken it. But it seems to me that said gap could only be said to completely invalidate the argument if we knew the possible gap were an actual gap.

I know this may sound kind of fuzzy, but as an example, if for (E) it had said, “Acme’s move to OV will not be accompanied by a significant enough pay raise to allow Acme employees to afford housing in OV,” that to me would be a clear invalidator, a true gap that “destroys” the argument as we like to say around here.

But in negating (E) as it stands, we have, as you said, allowed for the mere possibility that the conclusion may not follow if we assume certain things about what (E) is getting at. For one thing, (E) is banking on the assumption I mentioned, and maybe others.

I don’t disagree that (E) is the best of the bunch, and the only one of the bunch that could remotely be considered the correct answer. But I guess the puzzling part is this sometimes hazy spectrum b/w “greatly weaken (w/o destroying)” and “absolutely destroy” and where a negated necessary assumption is allowed to fall within it. In my view [destroy → weaken], but the reverse is not necessarily true, and I just don’t see (E) meeting the “absolutely destroy” threshold…

This has been a recurring issue of mine & your help is appreciated!

Link to discussion: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-68-section-3-question-18/

🙏

When I first did this question, I crossed everything off and was left with E. I almost chose it, and then I thought it felt a lot like a trap AC...

The stimulus is telling us that if a resource becomes scarce, new technologies that create the ability to use new resources arise. As people start using these new alternative resources, the demand for the original resource declines, and whatever amount is then present in that original resource can be sold to those who still want it. Then they give some examples of things that were once the sole resource for a thing, but were then supplemented by other resources. The author asserts that bc new technologies are constantly replacing old ones, (conclusion:) we can never run out of natural resources.

E says that the biological requirements for substances like air and water will not be impacted by technological change. I thought, at first, this meant that "there are some resources that technology cannot replace". But then I second guessed myself and thought, "what do we really care if the biological requirements of that thing-- not the thing itself-- is unaffected by technological change? Even if technology can't change the fact that water needs hydrogen and oxygen to be water, couldn't technology develop different resources that could replace water and air in the future?" Couldn't we use other liquids(not water) or other kinds of energy(not air) to, for example, power things? Is the assumption here that water and air, as necessary for life, are not interchangeable with anything else? Like, if water runs out and technology can't replace it, we CAN run out of important natural resources?

Using the example in the passage of trees: sure, the biological requirements of a tree -- what makes a tree a tree-- is not affected by technology. But we can make steel or plastic, a new substance entirely, to serve the same purpose of that wood.

I ended up choosing C over E after I re-read the ACs because I was thinking that if companies won't invest in the new technologies, they won't be created in the first place. I didn't love the words "at first" and I knew my reading of the AC was assuming things, but I just thought that E was sort of irrelevant but attractive.

What am I missing? #help

I wish there was a way to have all logic games on one pdf? can Seven sage please do that ?

I'm struggling to see how the "substantial" in answer choice D is justified. This AC does match the passage best when compared to the other choices, but it seems a little too strong to assume.

The question asks what's the function of the a phrase that states "people have a positive moral obligation". How in the world can I make the assumption that having a "positive moral obligation" = "substantial moral obligation"?

Anyone willing to work together on a blind review for LR questions ?

Hey,

I've heard that sorting for your weak LR types and drilling these questions can be highly beneficial. My question is -- should I have experienced these questions within their full sections before employing them for drills? Or can I safely use material from untouched, old PTs and still get a lot of value out this practice? I'm writing the LSAT for the first time in November so I fear I won't have the time to work through all those ancient PTs, but I don't want to waste valuable material needlessly.

If it's no issue, where should I draw the line for which old PTs to use for this purpose? (pre 52, 40 , 30 etc.)

Thanks

I am now scoring about -3 on LR, -2 on LG, but -7 on RC. I'm lost. So what is the traditional, maybe cliche advice that can help me with reading above a 3rd grade level?

Without a doubt, reading for structure is one of the simplest and yet most powerful strategies you can employ when reading a passage. However, does this always apply?

Typically, a passage will be broken down into several paragraphs composed of several sentences. With most passages usually being four paragraphs. This is easy to keep track of and read for structure. What do we do when a passage has many paragraphs composed of one to two sentences? This seems to be an exception to the rule. I have continued to read for structure while going through the passage, I just don't try to memorize where things are, since I find that to be unduly difficult.