Hi everyone, just wanted to share a review tip that has been really helpful for me. I have found it really helpful during some of my review to talk through sections outloud in real time, recording my entire process on a voice memo app (Macs have a really good one built in). This process allows me to get a real picture of my thinking and process for every question. I found that way to often I was reviewing questions and the only feedback I had for myself was "oh man this was so obvious, what a stupid mistake" but this didn't help me understand why I actaully made that mistake, or why I preffered one answer choice over another.

By doing this for sections and pts, I have been able to allocate review time much better, and to accurately diagnose my wrong answers without the hinderance of hindsight clouding my process.

Good luck, and hope this helps someone.

To take a practice test for the first time to see my starting point to take my improvement, should I just take a prep test on 7Sage or where should I take this test?

Hi!

I've been studying for almost 3 months (1st with the core curriculum and then with drills and live classes), but my PT scores haven't changed. I notice I do understand the test more, but I'm struggling to decide how to structure my study moving forwards. Should I target slower understanding or drills with more pace? Some guidance would be appreciated! Currently planning on the February LSAT>

:)

-Grace

I just scored a 147 on PT127.

This was my first time taking a practice test. In many ways this is my diagnostic. My goal is a 160 on test day. Any advice or thoughts?

Hi guys, just curious what do you do to get into that laser focus and flow state? Should I drink coffee or energy drink or some kind of supplement? I seem to zone out sometimes during my PT's unfortunately. Thanks for the help!

I just reached the Practice block sections of 7sage. I generated the blocks and was curious how 7Sage determines what questions and topics they give you? Do I need to manually edit my preferences, or does it use analytics from previous drills/practice questions I did during the curriculum. I want to make sure I am practicing in the weak areas as well as hitting all different question types.

As the title states, I just need a bit more clarification on how to know when I need to find an answer that asks me to identify the missing link, rather than an answer that, if negated, would weaken the argument.

I recently attempted this question and was stumped to find that I needed to find an answer that was the missing link.

Hi everyone! I'm wondering if anyone has advice for struggling with the PTs in the 150s. I know a lot of prep companies etc. say that there isn't much that is different about these newer exams, and it's oftentimes just test anxiety that makes people do worse, but I uniquely score below my median only on certain exams in the 150s (specifically 150 itself, 151 and 152 were most difficult for me).

For anyone else who has this issue, were there specific question types, etc you worked on drilling? I'm wondering what I can do or hone to make sure that this no longer is somewhat of a blind spot for me. For the most part, I get tripped up in these RC sections, but also on LR questions with atypical ACs (as opposed to one question type more so than the others).

Just did it and each section dropped like 8 points, it's actually depressing. Hopefully someone might know why that is or maybe my skill went randomly down.

Hey everyone! I am a junior in college and I am just now starting my journey in preparing for the LSAT. I am a division one athlete so time is limited but I am willing to put in the work to get a grade that represents my abilities. I was wondering if there are any tips or recommendations that y'all swear by as I am starting this process!!

I do well on most other stems but MSS is the most difficult one by far on every prep test i get them most of them wrong or all wrong but i do a lot better with every other stem, If you know a decent strategy to help with this please say it below. Thank You

I noticed the You Try questions are not included in the analytics overview by default, but was told by support that you could manually toggle them to be included. I don't consult notes and try to mimic test conditions as closely as possible whether its a drill or a You Try question and when I toggled all of the questions to be included, my drilling accuracy when from 44% to 69%. Happy to see that jump up since the pool went from 17 drill questions to 149 comprehensive questions but wondering how I should understand this information. Did I skew my data to be more comprehensive and useful or did I give myself leeway? ( As I type this out I will say, maybe what I didn't consider was that the analytics may be more useful when I get to my PT weeks and I won't want the You Try data included, but let me know your thoughts!)

side note to dev team: It would be cool to have a select all + filter option to where we could filter for the specific types of q's we want in analytics (ex: able to filter between You Try + PT + Drills and see different cuts of data to help measure performance pre-PT by relying on You Try and Drills, and then being able to just see PT results during PT stage.

Hi everyone! First post here.

Decided to write my question here because honestly I didn't know where else to direct my question (that said please let me know if there is a better forum for these types of inquiries.)

My question is: can anyone please help explain how the "Most Strongly Supported" (MSS) questions in LR and "Implied" questions in RC are different? I've been approaching them pretty much as identical question types that can be approached with the same type of reasoning mode (e.g. spectrum of support diagram) but it seems like -- having gone through hundreds of these questions thus far -- there is actually a small but significant difference between the two question types.

Would welcome any advice on this (+ moral support is also welcome!) from my fellow LSATers! Cheers and good luck to all :)

Good afternoon everyone. i've been studying for the LSAT for at least a year now and i've been practicing using Lawhub and 7sage. As of now my LR sections barely improved and im still between 10-15 per section. If you scored high, what have you done better that is different? how do you read each question? I got a test coming in January but im gonna probably register for March because that is my last real chance for a good score

Currently my only high priority LR question type is Conditional Reasoning, and Causal Reasoning is one of my only medium priority.

Are the only lessons on these question types the foundational ones?

So I am doing a WAJ, but how do I use it effectively and when should I review it and whatnot. It would help a lot thanks!

If i plan to take the April LSAT for the first time, what should my studying look like right now? I currently have the core curriculum on 7sage and it is set to finish with all the foundations & what not by the beginning of February. Then, I go into practice for 8 weeks and final prep for 1 week before the lsat. Should I be simultaneously practicing drills while doing the foundations curriculum?

I finally am starting to see this all pay off before the January test! Got my first -4 and -2 on BR for an LR section! After an embarrassing slump in the November test, I think we're all in for a treat in January! (Knock on wood). Shoutout the new WAJ feature in the notes, it's been so good to force myself to reflect.

relationships

• comparative

• some intersection

• relatas: 

  • cause vs effect

  • paragraph 1 vs 2

  • phenomenon vs hypothesis

• support (relatas: premise vs conclusion)

  • aim: persuasion (subjective)

relationship 2

(clauses linked together to emphasize relationships)

• disjunction

• conditional claims (sufficient and necessary condition)

  • indicators

    • unless

• causal claims (cause and effect)

  • indicators

    • because

• analogies (one thing is like another thing)

  • source vs target clause

  • indicators

    • just as

comparatives

• two things that stand in comparison to each other w one of two coming on top

  • a vs b (what are you comparing)

  • quality/characteristic of comparison

  • identify “winner”

• negative comparatives

• when comparatives have “no” or “not” there may be no clear winner

  • ex: allison is not taller than jake

• implied comparatives

  • no than in the statement

    • ex: tom is feeling better today, cafes are busier during the morning rush

• relative vs absolute

  • comparatives are usually relative without making absolute statements but context can sometimes imply absolute qualities

    • ex: jake is not taller than allison and they play basketball

    • they are likely tall, but it is not absolute

• equivalence

  • i am older than you=you are younger than me

arguments

• an argument consists of premises and a conclusion that aims to persuade

  • support structures the argument, and support depends on assumptions

    • assumptions are a “forgotten” premise that can be subtle

    • less reasonable assumptions render an argument vulnerable to criticism

    • Valid arguments (on the LSAT) require no additional unstated assumptions for the conclusion to follow from the premises.

      • Invalid arguments require at least one necessary assumption.

wonder “what the author wants me to believe” and “why should i believe this”

conclusion indicators (words followed by a conclusion)

• consequently

• therefore

• as a result

• clearly

• it follows that

• accordingly

• we may conclude

• it entails

• hence

• thus

• we may infer that

• it must be that

• it implies that

• that is why

premise indicators (words followed by premise)

• given that

• seeing that

• for the reason that

• owing to

• as indicated by

• after all

• on the grounds that

words that are followed by a premise but also contain a conclusion

• for

• because

• since

types of questions

• Must Be True questions 

• phenomenon-hypothesis

  • causation logic

subconclusion: claim that receives and gives support

• Premise: All dogs are adorable.

• Premise: Fluffers is a dog.

• Sub-conclusion: Therefore, Fluffers is adorable.

• Premise: All adorable things are cute.

• Conclusion: Fluffers is cute.

  • sub arguments make a complex argument

context (used as referent for referential phrase)

• table setting

  • information explaining a premise

• other peoples position

  • an opposite conclusion they claim is incorrect

• concession

  • making the opposing argument before the other can

context transition indicators

• but

• however

• yet

• some people say

concession indicators

• despite

• in spite of

• although

• though

• even though

• even if

• notwithstanding

• while

clause

• subject

  • gerund or noun

• predicate

  • verb/object

subject vs predicate noun modifier indicators

• that

• who

predicate modifier indicators

• of

• by

• in

• for

(where, how, when, why )

predicate object indicator

• the

object clause

• that can be used to make a clause the subject

  • indicator

    • that

  • ex: scientists discovered that the sky is blue

referent

• stands in place of something that appeared earlier

• negative: not that (other/otherwise)

rhetorical questions

• implied declarative statement for dramatic effect (more persuasive)

logic

• formal

  • form of argument matters more than content (valid/invalid)

  • includes

    • conditional logic (sufficient/necessary conditions)

    • logic btwn sets

      • supersets, subsets, intersecting sets, and membership in those sets

  • main concern is what must be true

• informal (typical of reading comprehension

  • all other types of logic

    • causation

    • analogies

    • generalization

    • scientific reasoning

    • rule application reasoning

    • cost-benefit analysis

    • misc

  • subject to be made stronger or weaker

    • how well supported

sets

• set: abstract collection of members

• membership: something belongs to such set

• when a set is inside a set

  • superset: larger one

  • subset: smaller one

sufficiency vs necessity conditions

• subset membership is sufficient for superset membership but not necessary

• superset membership is necessary for subset membership but not sufficient 

• subset is to superset as sufficiency is to necessity

  • if dot is in cat-set, it is sufficient to know the dot is inside mammal-set

  • membership in a mammal-set is necessary for membership in cat-set

    • membership in mammal-set is not sufficient for membership in cat-set (membership in cat-set is not necessary for membership in mammal-set)

conditional argument (formal argument)

• when sufficient condition is true, the necessary condition is also true

• Membership in Set A is sufficient for membership in Set B. X is a member of Set A. Therefore, X is a member of Set B

conditional indicators (logical indicators)

• the idea immediately following the conditional indicator is the sufficient condition

  • If X, Y

  • when

  • where

  • all 

  • every

  • any

  • the only

• the idea immediately following the conditional indicator is the necessary  condition

  • only

  • only if

  • only when

  • only where

  • always

  • must

truth vs validity

• truth is property of claims (true vs false)

• validity is property of arguments (valid/invalid)

  • validity: if (or pretend that) all the premises are true, then the conclusion must also be true.

“lawgic”

• → establishes a conditional relationship

  • sufficient condition (left side) to a necessary condition (right side)

• subscripts represent membership of set

  • L^J represents Luke's membership in the set of Jedi.

• conditional argument shape:

  • categorical syllogism

A → B

x^A

____

x^B

OR

• modus ponens

sufficient → necessary

sufficient

____

necessary

Hi all,

I have watch all the curriculum videos. I spent hours and hours and hours since June. I still be PT'ing at 135. My goal is to get 160

I have a few questions:

1. What am I doing wrong?

2. I don't want to watch any more videos. I'm sick of them (no offense) should I just drill from now on?

I just need advice.

Listen and subscribe:

Apple Podcasts | Spotify

In this episode, Bailey and Henry walk through the three habits that transformed their own RC performance and that they now teach to students aiming for 170+. You’ll learn how to orient yourself with the main point, recognize wrong answers immediately, and spot the key ideas that drive each passage. These are habits anyone can build with the right practice. Whether you’re rebuilding your RC foundation or fine-tuning for the next test, this episode will guide you step-by-step.

Is PT131 on the harder side compared to other PTs?

Hello, Im unfortunately experiencing above mentioned error. I reached out to LSAC directly and they advised to reach out to 7Sage as they see matching email addresses. Could you please look into this? I do not recall having another 7sage account.

is this possible or is it pure luck

I've been stuck in the low 160s for months--since August actually. I kept drilling and scored a 163 on my November exam. I took a month off before getting back on the LSAT train, and I scored this after not touching the LSAT for a month. Praise God!

For those who remain in a plateau: Keep going. It will eventually click.