210 posts in the last 30 days
I am a visual learner and I am really struggling on how to study for the LSAT. I'm usually a flashcard person but I've been told that's not a good way to study for this test. I have looked on youtube, tiktok, chatgbt, I can't find any advice on how to approach studying for the LSAT as a visual learner. Anyone have any tips or tricks?
Listen and subscribe:
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.
Was wondering if anyone had advice for how I can help this problem. I've been studying consistently since June, and have been plateauing on scores of around 155. However, my blind reviews have been going up, to where I'm now getting 170+ but not seeing those actual score changes on the timed version? Does anyone have advice on how to fix it? Is it just more practice with doing timing? I noticed one thing that I have trouble with is more of the logic ones like SA's, NA's, Mbt, etc where I get them wrong on the timed tests but get them right on blind review when I have time to work through them.
Hi everyone! I have made some progress on my LSAT score. I have been scoring low 160 and then high 160 or over 170 in the blind review. Any tips on closing this gap? The fundamentals are there it seems but the timing gets me I guess.
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!
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
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?
Hey! Looking for tips on how to decide what passages to do and in what order. Note that I don't get through all 4 passages timed unless I want to miss most questions (I'm ok with this, it's my best option to score-wise, and RC is a big struggle for me). I just need to get through 3/4 passages, but I can't tell which approach is best as far as picking which ones I choose to do.
If one of the passages I choose turns out to be the hardest of them all, it takes me much more time and not as much reward. I find myself scoring lower than I have to because the one I skipped was easier than one or more that I did. So, I'm asking for advice on quick ways to tell whether it's worth doing.
I know there's not much of a predictable order of doing them, but if you have any tips on how you decide to do it, please let me know (even if you do get through all 4, you surely want to save the hardest for last to get rewarded for points you know you can get)
For example, should I choose:
ones with the most questions
shortest passage
glance at question types to see if it has many that I struggle with/good at (I could see this approach eating up too much time)
length of passage
topic
Thanks in advance!
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
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'm studying for Sept and reaching a point where i'm consistently scoring worse on sections than I was 2 weeks ago and feeling discouraged. I took 2 days off and came back to do a RC section and got the worst score I've gotten in a while. I've been a bit burnt out for a while as I'm also finishing up a publication at my full-time job at the moment, so that might be a contributor. I don't want to waste anymore practice time, but I also don't want to make the problem worse by pushing it especially since I have a 168 from June and am really trying for a 170+. Posting for advice but also to vent a little bit lol
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!!!
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.
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!
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! :)
Listen and subscribe:
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.
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.
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.
Hi! I found that I am very weak in the more difficult questions involving conditional and casual reasoning. Where can I look for study material/ how can I improve my understanding to get more effective at answering these question types?
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?
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’m deep into the PT and drilling phase of my LSAT prep and have hit a wall trying to navigate the tag system in 7Sage’s analytics. Is there a centralized resource that explains each tag and links to the corresponding lesson or video for review?
I came across Albert Gauthier’s July 2024 blog post titled "New LR Tags in 7Sage," which was super helpful, but it only covers the new LR tags and doesn’t include links to explanation videos for most sections.
Right now, I’m working through my high-priority areas, but I’m getting increasingly frustrated trying to figure out what each tag even means and what lessons I should revisit.
Does a full tag reference guide exist anywhere on 7Sage? If so, where can I find it? If not, can this be something the 7Sage team prioritizes adding? It feels like such a crucial tool to help make targeted studying easier and make the analytics section more worthwhile.
Thanks in advance!
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.
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?
How do I get better at reading and understanding arguments faster?
