Hey guys!! I'm looking for a study buddy/ accountability partner. I'm taking the LSAT in October and trying to apply to TTU law. I hope all of you guys get a 175 or higher!!!

Listen and subscribe:

Apple Podcasts | Spotify

7Sage Live Instructor Max shares the changes that transformed his prep, from sharpening his conditional diagramming to tightening his grammar skills. Learn how you can apply his techniques no matter where you are in your LSAT journey.

Anyone in Texas want to start a study group??

Hi,

I'm located in MD. I just started studying for the LSAT and would love to start a virtual study group if anyone is interested.

Thanks

Hi! My question is about the Question #5 on Skill Builder - Negation 3 in the Foundations module----

The original sentence is: "Chess is the most appropriate analogy to reporting on political campaigns."

I understand that a proper negation would be something like: "Either something else is a more appropriate analogy for reporting on political campaigns than chess is, or something else ties with chess as being the most appropriate." or "It is not the case that chess is the most appropriate analogy to reporting on political campaigns."

However, I was wondering why wouldn't a simpler negation like "Chess is not the most appropriate analogy to reporting on political campaigns" be sufficient? Is there a meaningful difference between the two, or do they functionally mean the same thing in formal logic?

Thank you so much for your time and help!

Are the analytics that prioritize by tags made only from data from PTs, not including drills or sections? I think it would be nice to see the analytics that include how I did at least in timed sections if not timed drills in addition to the PTs cause I don't really want to be taking a PT all the time to see which areas I should try to focus more of my attention on.

If these are really only made with solely PT data, I feel like the lack of PTs I've taken so far is skewing my analytics. However, I don't want to be blazing through all of the PTs and burn out mentally to get a better sample of how I'm doing.

The analytics feature is super cool and useful for sure, but I think it would be a nice feature to at least add a filter where I could toggle to add more data into these analytics with questions from drills/sections if I wanted to!

I often click on the "high priority" question types for logical reasoning, and I'll do a drill of maybe 10 "Must be true" questions, but the system doesn't include any of my drilled questions into the data for how I am performing on those questions. This leaves me a little confused about what the "personalized drilling" is doing if it is not connected to analytics. I'm using new 7sage if that helps.

I just got done taking the LSAT at an in person test center and it was so loud. I had the headphones on but the proctors sat on the other side of a glass window talking about their lives almost the entire test so loudly that I could barely think. I took the test at a center because of the horror stories I've heard of online tests. If I knew it was going to be so loud I would have just taken it at home and asked my family to get out of the house for two hours. If I file a complaint do I have a chance at getting this score canceled and getting a retake? Or am I being ridiculous here?

Hi! Have noticed a trend among some of my recent wrong answers, wondering if anyone has any insights into this. Twice in one LR drill, I got the question wrong because I was unwilling to equivocate two terms. Ex: The stimulus was talking about “a new trend in the writing of history”, and the correct AC used the term “interpretation” to mean the said new trend. Again in that same section I missed a question talking about “experience” in the stimulus, with the correct AC using the word “expertise” instead. 

The first question was a MSS, and the second a PSA… both rated as lower difficulty levels. The correct ACs were the ones I had originally been drawn to on both, but steered away from due to not wanting to falsely equivocate different terms! Any insight into this or advice would be very helpful!

These questions both came from PT127.S3, questions 3 and 15

hey there im new one here if there's an actve group on whatsapp or instagram could you please share the invite link THANK YOU

Parallel questions have been a huge flaw of mine in PT and drilling, does any1 have any tips that will help me not be utterly confused?

Hi all! I’ve noticed a pattern while studying LR — it’s not specific question types that trip me up, but rather the hardest questions at the end of the section (usually the last 6–8). I tend to get those wrong, even when I do really well on the earlier ones. Any tips on how to get better at those tough, high-difficulty questions? Would love to hear what worked for you.

Hey guys, I find i struggle with these two concepts. Is there a way to learn more about them aside from just drilling this question type?

As the title implies, I don't really train RC that much, I've been focusing on LR in order to get my average down to ~ -5, and hopefully -4, before August test, but I rally haven't drilled RC much, maybe 1 passage for every 40 LR questions. RC is much harder to improve on for some, and I was so tunnel visioned on trying to improve my LR, that I think my RC average of ~6.5 has only consistently gotten worse, with my worst preformance being over these past 2 days, when drilling a couple of spotlight 1 star passages I've gotten 4 or 5 wrong on each. Maybe Im just really bad at spotlight, as it is my worst passage, but I keep being shocked by the results of the passage, seeing ive gotten almost all wrong on a 1 star. Any tips?

I have 2 questions regarding the order of the sections on the LSAT regarding LR vs RC.

First, is an experimental LR as equally likely to occur as an experimental RC? Meaning is 3 LR, 1 RC as common as 2 LR, 2 RC?

Second, if there are two LRs and two RCs, is a certain order predominant:

Ex: LR-RC-LR-RC or RC-LR-LR-RC

I'm asking because I'm curious if its possible to get LR-LR-RC-RC which seems especially brutal! Thanks.

Hello,

When I log in, it says that my LawHub Advantage subscription is expiring in a couple of days. Does anyone know if I need to renew it to continue using 7Sage? Thank you! :)

Can someone explain the difference--if there is one in fact--between causal and conditional relationships/statements? Seemingly, A causing B is the same as saying if you have A, then you must have B. In effect, the sufficient condition is the cause for the necessary condition; without it, the necessary condition wouldn't exist. Therefore, a conditional relationship is a valid causal relationship. There are no competing hypothesis nor potential for the cause and effect to be swapped with each other.

Not sure if the above is true. Please comment with your observations.

I saw a message from David earlier about feedback on the new site. I really like the site—the analytics are detailed and offer valuable insights into testing performance. However, I noticed that the expected accuracy is incorrect.

A report comparing my progress to that of other users on the site would be helpful for understanding where I stand on the learning curve. The expected accuracy and percentage in the Priority by Tag analytics are a great addition.

In the example below, the average number of questions per test is calculated by dividing the total number of questions (29) by the number of tests taken (4), which should result in 7.25 questions per test.

Listen and subscribe:

Apple Podcasts | Spotify

Getting a 170+ on the LSAT doesn’t require superhuman intelligence—it requires learning how to think like someone who consistently scores in the 170s. In this episode, we break down what that mindset looks like: slower, more methodical, and laser-focused on clarity. If you’ve ever felt like you're rushing through sections, second-guessing yourself, or missing the forest for the trees, this one’s for you. We’ll talk about how the "170 Brain" approaches Reading Comp, Logical Reasoning, and even test-day decisions. It's not about being perfect—it's about thinking differently.

Looking for advice from folks on when they diagram a question (if you diagram at all) and when you don't. I've been studying Condr questions a lot recently and some seem impossible without writing formal logic down. However, I've also fallen into the trap of forcing formal logic into questions that don't need it, and therefore making the question harder to solve. PT117.s3.q9 is an example. What do people do about this?

I am struggling horribly bad with the sufficient assumption questions in the sufficient assumption module. I don't know why I can't get it at all. I don't even understand what I'm not understanding.

Does anyone have any life saving advice with sufficient assumptions? Or a video that helped them understand?

Any advice on closing the gap from timed sections to PTs?

On timed sections, I'm regularly score between -1 & -3. However, when I take a PT, I totally bomb and score -6/7. What gives?! And how can I get my PT sections to look more like my timed practice?

Hi. I'm planning on taking the test in October or November ! And I'm in need of a study buddy in the Charlotte area that is open to meeting up and doing zoom calls as well.

Been struggling to understand Lawgic. Well into the 7Sage Curriculum and just always seem to get lost on questions where I have to map conditionals out. Anyone have any advice besides going back through the core curriculum? Ideally, I just want a worksheet (with answers to check) where I can just drill mapping conditional sentences/paragraphs out.