I almost always do considerably better on the experimental section than on the scored one. Generally speaking, improvement is still happening on LR questions, but it's infuriating for my scores to be somewhat static because I do better on the unscored section. Anybody else experienced this and/or found a fix for it? Is the experimental easier?

Hey everyone, I'm scoring around low 160s and having a lot of trouble with Flaw/Descriptive Weakening questions. Even after reviewing the core lessons, I'm having trouble identifying an approach beyond this test: "1) descriptively accurate 2) describing the flaw." I feel like this approach is vague, and it rarely singles out an answer for me. Anyone have some tricks they can share for approaching those 4/5 star Flaw questions? Thanks.

How should I be reading the target times for RC?

Final bits of crunch prep before the Feb 8th LSAT, and I'm struggling most with worrying about time. I noticed that RC Drills have both a Target Time Goal for the passage AND the questions, so how should I be interpreting the time? Is the target time that's listed under the passage specifically for the passage? and separate from the target times of the questions?

Say, for example, my elapsed time for a passage was 3:33 but the target time is 8:53. That target time of 8:53, does that include the questions for the section as well? or is that solely for the passage itself and I should be taking that and adding the additional target times from the questions to gauge the overall target time for a RC section.

AC that is descriptively correct but somewhat falls short of MP (but isn't completely off)

vs

AC that is stronger than what the passage said (but doesn't contradict), but except that captures the MP

Here's the example of the two

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-121-section-3-passage-2-questions/

AC A and D in Q6 are the example of the former and the latter, respectively.

I believe D is stronger than what it was said in Line 52~53 (Indeed ~ Intention), because

D is saying that "unconscious revelation" is guaranteed to happen, while the passage only gives it as sufficient condition (unconscious revelation → more authority)

Some might say that the passage is actually trying to guarantee "More authority & Unconscious revelation", but I believe it was given as a conditional relationship, because Q10 is to see if we have understood this relationship.

So back to my original question, do ACs like D always win ?

(I know we don't have do look for "perfect" AC when it's "most accurately" question. I just want to know which quality weighs more)

I feel like I'm getting burned by questions that don't use the exhaustive formal logic to solve them.

For example, PT 126 Section 3 Question 14 uses 'most' in a 'most strongly supported' context -- here, validity of invalid/valid argument forms involving 'most' are basically irrelevant, despite the fact that the curriculum exclusively focuses on 'most' in that context. The correct answer choice makes the stimulus more likely, but it doesn't prove validity.

This is a recurring problem across several PT's. For example, see PT 127, Section 2, Question 24. Just like before, pure formal translation and logic doesn't get you the answer. Additionally, see PT 127 Section 1 Question 25. Again, where simply doing 7sage's formal translations and logic doesn't get you the answer. PT 139 Section 1 Question 22 is another example where simply translating 'most' and looking for a 'lawgic' inference doesn't guarantee success. As an additional example, I would argue that in PT 120 Section 1 Question 24 trying to translate the 'most' 'lawgic' actually gets in your way than if you just focus on the other elements of the stimulus.

The curriculum doesn't even cover that there's sometimes a more easily understand application of the word 'most.' For example, PT 119 Section 3 Question 9 uses the phrase 'the most common response' to indicate 'the #1 response.' PT 138 Section 3 Question 4 also involves this verbiage; 'the most polluted cities' are used to indicate 'the top polluted cities.'

There are also questions that reference the word 'most' but in a very irrelevant kind of way (understanding 'most' has very little to do with the reasoning to get the answer right). For example, see PT 131 Section 3 Question 7. PT B Section 4 Question 18 involves the useage of the word 'most often,' and again, formal 7sage lawgic has no answer for how to deal with the application of 'most' in this kind of question..

There are also answer choices that involve your understanding of the application of 'most' with probabilities (and what they can and can't mean). For example, PT 133 Section 3 Question 21. Another example where you need to be confident in 'most''s limitations and strengths as a strengthener is evaluating answer choice D in PT 19 Section 2 Question 18.

PT 151 Section 2 Question 12 involves a very weak usage of the word 'most' to weaken a question.

TLDR: I feel like I don't have a grasp of the word 'most' when it is not used in a formal lawgic context on the LSAT. I find it hard to push out inferences for these questions, especially because the curriculum doesn't really teach 'most' outside of a 'lawgic' context. I added a TON of examples (from across 12 prep tests!) and there are many many more I didn't include. Any advice? Tips? Recommendations? Thoughts?

I am having trouble with MBT questions. This should not be that difficult, but I do not see how the correct answer comes into fruition from the stimulus. Can someone please help.

I know we always say practice practice practice and it will get easier, but I really struggle with reading efficiently on reading comp despite the practice. I am not a fast reader and it takes me a second longer to truly understand a sentence. If I do an untimed reading comp passage, I almost always get every answer correct..... but it will take me like 15-20 minutes. Then, when I do timed, I get almost 50% wrong. Help!! How do I read more efficiently on reading comp?

I'm going through the core curriculum and I got most of the drills from the W/S/E module wrong. it's crazy.

I feel very comfortable with the theory and strategy for this question type but when it comes to drilling, I miss so many of them! What is happening?

Sighh... Guys I'm really struggling with PSAr question types. I understand the idea of "rule and application", and I know the 4 groups for necessary and sufficient indicators, however I am not quite sure I grasp how I am supposed to approach PSAr question types. I frequently end up with two answer choices left where at least one would be correct, but I always pick the wrong one. Ik we should be looking for a rule where the premises in the stimulus triggers the rule, but I keep getting it wrong. Maybe I'm not approaching these properly? Idk, I'm soo confused and frustrated, please SOMEBODY lmk if I'm missing something, or a way to approach these questions🥲.

Hey everyone:) I am just starting my LSAT studying journey, with the intention of taking the exam in June. I have been told about making a Wrong Answers Journal (WAJ), but I wanted some feedback on how others went about it and how it helped them. Did you write down the answers manually? Did you create a doc that you copied and pasted? How did you review the answers during your studying sessions?

Thank you for your feedback and best of luck to everyone on their journey!

I am retaking after getting a 165 on the Oct. test, and I am anxious about difficult LR sections. A predictions video online said that they are adding more formal conditional logic and questions about numbers. Does anyone know of any sections that have more questions like this? I felt like the October test was much more difficult than PTs but it could have also been my anxiety.

I am almost through the foundations section of the 7Sage curriculum. I do not understand lawgic and I am disappointed in myself. I decently understand it, however when we put it all together to draw valid conclusions, I get lost. Is this normal? Should I move on to the logical reasoning section or relearn everything in foundations?

A trend I'm noticing on my recent practice tests (in the last 2 months) is that most of the LR questions I miss have the Causal Reasoning tag. I've been working my butt off to try and improve on this type but for the life of me I can't seem to get any better. I've reread the Loophole's chapter on CausR, the PS Bibles, gone through the 7sage lessons, and have been drilling 5* causal reasoning questions multiple times a day with thorough reviews of the answers and yet I keep missing these questions when it comes to a practice test.

Has anyone been in a similar situation or have any advice to offer?

This is causing me a headache.

For those who have taken an official test before, what do you find works for you in the final weeks leading up to it? Do you stick with your study schedule, ramp things up, or take a break? Any suggestions??

And good luck to all those who are taking the January test!

I switched gears in my studying to focus on RC, while focusing on RC and completing the RC hero course, I took a step back from LR. Prior to my switch, I was getting -6 to -8 on LR, now as I've tried to tackle the entire test - I've found myself getting -8 to -10 on LR. I take the test in two weeks, is there anything I can do to help improve my LR to where I was before? I'm not even sure where I'm going wrong anymore. I keep a wrong answer journal to review where I go wrong, but it doesn't seem to be helping. I've read loophole, LR bible, did the whole 7sage curriculum, so I'm unsure of how to move forward, and I don't want to spend any more money on prep since my test is so soon. My most common wrong questions are NA, SA, and Flaw. Any advice would be greatly appreciated.

I just got a question wrong because I was confused about bi-conditionals so I just want to clarify

If A(----) B, that does NOT mean that B(---)A, right?

The contrapositive of a bi-conditional in the form A(-----)B is /A(----)/B

Is this right?

I can get the easier WSE questions right, and the occasional 4/5 star difficulty questions right, but I have yet to get 5/5 on a hard difficulty WSE drill. I am getting frustrated. Does anyone have any advice on how to approach these questions? I feel like the method to the madness here is vague and therefore much harder to nail down.

Now that logic games won't be featured on the LSAT anymore, should we just skip the logic games curriculum on 7sage?

I know that there are a few logical reasoning questions out there that require you to be able to diagram conditional statements. So is there any part of the Logic Games curriculum we should look at, just in case?

Thanks all!

I'm extremely comfortable with the LR sections, and on average with my current methods I'm getting around -3 per section. What are some uncommon, or otherwise hyperanalytical methods to improve to -2 or less consistently?

Hi all,

I recently answered a question (PrepTest 112 - Section 3 - Question 26) during a drill that confused me. In short, there was an argument about a fifth force (as opposed to the traditional four) existing within scientific models of the universe. My confusion results from the question's phrasing: "which of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument that there is a 5th force?"

I found this phrasing confusing, as it is not clear to me which argument it is referring to. Is this asking for the answer choice which most strengthens the idea that there is a fifth force? Or, more specifically, is the question asking to identify the answer choice which most strengthens the argument provided in the stimulus which concludes there is a fifth force?

These two possible arguments referred to by the question are quite similar. They have identical inclusions, and one includes the other. And, through process of elimination, I arrived at the correct answer. But I am concerned about questions of this nature appearing again. How do you interpret this? Is it clear to you?

All opinions are invited and appreciated!

Thank you

I'm absolutely over the moon!!! From 151 in September to 162 now, I'm so proud of myself!!

So thrilled with the results I was able to get. Previous administrations I just screwed around, didn't really have any structure, and while I got good results, I knew I could do better.

The syllabus really gave me comfort in the logic underlying the test and the analytics 7Sage offers are so much deeper than everything else I've tried. By the end I was actually loving drilling sections every morning, I am going to miss it. Not going to miss waiting for results though.

Thank you 7Sage!

Hello, I wanted any suggestions about stuff to read outside of LSAT material that is similar to RC so I can get my brain used to that sort of reading. Any suggestions of books, news outlets, etc? The economist is one I hear but now its a steep price to pay so am looking for something cheap! Thanks

Taking the October LSAT here in a week. Nervous, like most, but I am confident in the time and work I have put in. Five of my six PTs are at or above my goal score so I'm just hoping for consistency.

I actually feel pretty comfortable with LR at this point. Not too surprising considering how great the new curriculum is and how long it spends going over every question type. RC is a totally different story. If they are easier passages I can score as well as a - 3, but more often than not I am struggling to finish all four passages and ending up anywhere from -7 to -12. I will try working on that this week by just drilling as much as I can.

According to analytics, a huge area of emphasis for me is implied questions. Maybe it's easily explainable due to me consistently not finishing passages, but any advice/tips are greatly appreciated considering how frequently these question types come up on the test.

P.S. If you are taking the October LSAT, good luck! Just apply what you have learned and see where it takes you. Don't let this test take control of you, even if you start off with a rocky section. You CAN bounce back.

I am looking for someone who has completed the RC HERO course and wanting to work on some passages together. Let me know if you are interested.