Hi, im starting my LSAT study journey with little previous knowledge about past tests and current changes. What are the sections to focus on if I plan on testing in January 2025? I heard logic games isn’t on there anymore? Thanks for reading and best wishes to all who come across this!

I’ve been studying for the LSAT for a little over two years now and I’ve made no progress on the logical reasoning, I always get half right and half wrong. I always get it down to two, consistently, then of course I always choose the wrong one, consistently. This is an occurring problem and then there are the little ones that I get wrong here and there, and I can’t even begin to describe those questions. Before anyone says I ought to memorize the questions types and the approaches and the this and that, the methods for particular questions and so on, my opinion on that is, it’s absurd. How can the LSAT be a predictor of critical thinking skills when one chooses to memorize each distinct grain of sand on a beach and the elements that make up those grains of sand, and that one has to approach each of these grains of sand with a different kind of mindset and identify these grains of sand by key-wording and sentence styles (the way it’s directed). It’s defeats the purpose of the LSAT and it has been stated as such by several lawyer types who seem well established, to approach the LSAT with a critical thinking based effort rather than a memory based effort. Nonetheless I’ve tried the memory based method and even then it’s absurd because each year the questions made by the LSAC association are different, right? Granted there are some questions that are thrown into the mix that have been used before in some LSAT at some time in the past, this I’m sure of, but it’s only some, and there’s no knowing those particular sum of questions, thus I’m back to square one which is to totally scrap the memory based effort because it’s not based on skill rather it’s based on prediction and patterns. So I’m committed to the critical thinking method, but I can only go so far, so what do I do?

The last month or so of studying for me has been incredibly frustrating as I keep getting wildly inconsistent results. I have been studying since May and have completed the syllabus and mainly work on drilling, doing sections of PTs or PTs in their entirety. When doing one or two sections at a time I can routinely get -2 to -4 on both RC and LR. However, when I take PTs, all of my progress seems to go out of the window. Even in the first sections of my test I can score from anywhere from -7 to -10. Just today I took a PT that was frustratingly inconsistent in the test itself, scoring -9 RC, -10 LR, -6 exp RC, -3LR. I've also noticed that I tend to score worse on more recent tests, whereas older tests I seem to do far better on. Here is a breakdown of the last few tests I took and how I scored form oldest to most recent:

PT 155 - 159

PT 149 - 163

PT 143 - 160

PT 110 - 167

PT 138 - 159

PT 144 - 163

PT 145 - 159

Has anyone else had similar experiences being able to crush individual sections but not being able to translate that into PTs? And has anyone noticed a trend of newer tests feeling more difficult than older ones? I really don't get test anxiety and I don't usually feel super fatigued after a PT, so I don't think my fall off is attributable to just the long format alone. Id appreciate any advice or insight, I am taking the September exam and really want to hit a 165 or slightly higher which I think is possible if I continue to work hard.

Confused on what the value judgments section of LR questions is and how I can practice these types of questions

Hey! I am having trouble understanding why A is incorrect. I do see how and why D works but I can't understand why A doesn't.

Here, we are given a correlation between the ad, price increase and drop in smoking. From the correlation, we get a causation that the ad is what caused the drop in smoking.

The flaw here is that the author overlooks all other alternate causes of the drop in smoking. In a strengthen question, an AC that denies an alternate causal explanation wins. For example, an AC that says or implies that X, an alternate cause for the drop in smoking, did not actually happen or that it can't be the cause will be the correct AC. And any AC that knocks out an alternate explanation for a given phenomenon automatically strengthens the proposed explanation.

Coming to AC A which says that the residents did not increase use of other forms of tobacco. Here, X i.e. the alternate cause, is given as people's increased use of other forms of tobacco. AC A denies this alternate cause.

The explanation that the 3% decrease in smoking happened because people switched over to other forms of tobacco seems like a valid alternate cause for the drop in number of smokers. (Cause: people switched to other forms of tobacco; effect: drop in smoking) It is such a small percentage and it is entirely reasonable that people switched how they wanted their tobacco kick. So, "3% people stopped smoking because they had switched over to other forms of tobacco instead" is a wonderful alternate causal explanation. Denying this alternate explanation increases the likelihood of ad causing the drop being true.

I get that D is better because it deals with the alternate explanation mentioned right there in the stimulus but how is A irrelevant?

TIA!

Hi all,

I have been studying for the LSAT since March. I started with a 143 diagnostic, and there was a slow and steady improvement since then. For the last 5 prep-tests, I have been scoring between 157-159 (BR 163 - 165) and I feel pretty confident with my skills to be in this score band. My goal is to score between 163-165. I registered for the September sitting which is in approximately 5 weeks. I feel like it's doable and within my grasp. Are there any tips or advice from people who were in my shoes, to overcome the 160 barrier?

I'm doing two sections daily and one prep test a week.

I would really appreciate any advice on studying tactics, warmup, test strategies...etc.

Hi, has anyone here taken LSAT Flex before and know how this room scan thing works? I know I have to clear my desk, but do I have to clear my shelf and drawers as well?

Hey guys, I've been studying for two months now and have learned all the foundations of Logical Reasoning. Currently, I'm scoring between -13 and -8 in the best-case scenario. Should I just keep drilling and focusing on accuracy, or is there another key to mastery at this point? Even with a solid understanding of the foundations, question types, and stimulus identification, I still find the test very challenging.

I PAY FOR THIS I WANT ACCESS......... RUDE

I have been going through the LR curriculum and get -1 in each section with the drills provided. However, when I go to take my own drills I am scoring poorly, and advice?

I have been studying for the LSAT using 7sage since early June and I was actually starting to improve the first 7 weeks or so. However, this past month my scores have dropped slowly with each practice test I take (a point or so every time). The steady decrease is concerning, as I am trying to take the test in September, and it feels like not a whole lot I am doing to study is working. If anyone has any advice to get my scores up, it would be greatly appreciated!

What do you guys think is better, drilling 5-10 questions on LR with a random difficulty level or drill untimed and timed sections?

What has helped you improved the most?

How have you improved with timing?

Does anybody have any helpful tips to improve on RC? it's my worst section

I am a very visual person and the test doesn't allow paper. I am having a hard time keeping track of the conditionals in my head. Any tips for figuring out conditionals during LR in your head?

Hi All,

First, thanks for your time. Secondly, I have watched videos, and supplement videos as well. I have completed all the “You Try” questions and got it all correct.

But, as soon as I attempt the drills, I am not doing very well. Any tips, advice, or notes you can provide?

Thanks in advanced.

When I read a Reading Comprehension passage, I always look for the main idea, like where the author’s opinion or argument stands. For Main Point questions, does the correct answer always show where the author stands? For example, if the first paragraph supports idea A, but paragraphs 2 and 3 support idea B, will the right answer for the Main Point question always reflect the overall support for idea B?

How would you translate a sentence into lawgic that has both negate sufficient & negate necessary indicators in it?

Ex: "No entry after 9 pm without a valid ID." or "One cannot bake a cake without flour."

Hi!

I'm less than a week out from the august LSAT test and am feeling burnt out and a little discouraged with my PTs. I know that I will most likely have to take the test again in October but still want to put my best foot forward. Does anyone have any advice leading up to the test? Any advice on getting over plateau I am at for Oct test studying?

I'm taking the LSAT this week, and I would just like to know when others are planning to do their writing sections. I'm trying to focus on the actual LSAT, but I can't help but feel like the writing section is looming over me. Are most people waiting to prepare and take the writing section after their August test date?

Consider this original statement: "Most people are white." Its negation is: "It's not the case that most people are white." i.e. 0-50% people are white. Isn't this the equivalent of "Most people are not white"?

In contrast, given: "Most people are not white" Its negation is "It's not the case that most people are not white." i.e. 0-50% are not white. In this case, I know the negation is not equivalent to "Most people are white". It's not a binary cut here. Compared to the first statement, what changed? I'm not sure how to think about this.

The question asks us to identify the best explanation for why these birds choose a wooden box. The given answer choice B only explains why the birds prefer the wooden box to "highly concealing woody vegetation" but fails to account for why the wooden boxes are preferred over open grasslands. Answer C seems to more fully resolve the question. Defensive behavior from 'nest builders' ( which I have taken to mean both the birds who next in highly concealing woody vegetation and open grasslands as the wooden boxes specifically wouldn't have to be a built nest.) Taking this assumption doesn't C answer the question more fully than B.

I get the issue is probably that my assumption goes too far. But the LSAT often requires us to make leaps in logic that feel much further than the wooden box vs nest builder assumption I've made here.

Admin Note: Edited title. For LR questions, please use the format: "PT#.S#.Q# - brief description of the question."

I don't understand the meaning of this phrase when used in answer choices for questions concerning argument flaws. Like does it mean that the argument is flawed because there could have been stronger use of this aspect that was taken for granted? Does it mean the argument is flawed because it drew a weak/misguided conclusion from this aspect?

I'm taking my LSAT around August 10th. When is a good time to finish up my studying?

Hi,

I am reviewing my mistakes on Prep Test 108, and I noticed that there are no Explanations for sec 4. Seems strange since there were explanations for section 1 which was ungraded. In particular I'm looking for an explanation on question 26. Thank you!

Can someone explain why E and not B is the correct answer? I am not totally convinced by the explanation given here. This is because the idea that the work is split equally is not explicitly used as "one of the argument's presuppositions." However, the relevance of West's conclusion to the premises is directly implicated as he clearly does not use the relevant evidence (the proportion of correct decisions made by the quality control workers). Any help would be appreciated.