There are positive numbers at the top of the priority of what i got wrong. What do the negative red circle numbers mean in the analytics section of prep tests?

I've been battling with LR for some time. I starting with 25 question drills, then noticed soon after that less pressure worked better for me so I began doing 10 question drills instead. Yesterday, for the first time ever, I got all 10 questions right and I feel like I'm finally beginning to understand the struggle that is Logical Reasoning!

Does anyone know how to delete PT history on here? I went through and did none of the questions on a PT because I wanted to get the analysis on just one question on that PT but I don't want this PT to mess up my analytics

I recently started gearing up to study for the LSAT and started with a diagnostic test to see where I am. I scored a 138 which is very discouraging, but I know it can be improved. I am needing a score in the high 150s/160, is it possible to achieve this with 3 months of studying? Any recommendations and advice would be appreciated!

I've really been diving deep in foundations to refine my understanding of conditionals. So, I tried to create one. Please comment where I made errors.

If you are a boxer, you will have good cardiovascular health. To have good cardiovascular health you must be diligent to your training. You cannot be diligent in your training unless you practice good technique.

CHAINED CONDITIONAL:

B->GCH->DIT->PGT

Please correct where incorrect.

Does anyone have any tips for reading comp timing? I have struggled to get the timing right for the reading comprehension sections; I do well on the questions that I have time to answer, but for two practice tests in a row, I have run out of time during the last passage. Does anyone have any methods for practicing RC drills to get faster? Will it come with time as I do more drills and practice tests, or are there any methods some people used that really helped get their timing down? Anything helps!

How do I select a drill with split passages? I don't see the option in the RC drill.

I'm encountering a weird problem where I'm missing way more 3 stars than 4/5 stars on LR. I guess this is a good problem to have since it's probably a mental thing; has anyone come across the same issue? Any fixes?

Hi. I am new here. I haven't found how to take the curriculum and what it consists of. Where do I get this? I have just been taking live classes. Also, my understanding is to take the curriculum first, then do drills and maybe one or two live classes a day. Is this correct?

And regarding blind reviews, how do I do those on LawHub? I am in a program that requires us to do PTs on LawHub but I imagine I can do some here too if they are different than those we have to do on LawHub.

Also, in this program we have a little over two-months to study for the LSAT and have to take the August exam so we can apply to law school in December. I have told them I do not think I will be ready by then because my initial two PT scores were very low. What do you suggest? I do not want to take the test if I am not scoring well and have that be on my permanent record.

Also, what kind of study plan will pull me up to a good score in this timeframe? To me, a 160 is a good score. But for now, reaching the median is progress. Thank you.

Listen and subscribe:

Apple Podcasts | Spotify

We're pleased to welcome Eric Revis, a new host and our resident expert on burnout, to the podcast to discuss how it impacts LSAT candidates. In this informative session, Eric, along with live instructors Bailey and Henry, will examine the common pressures that lead to LSAT-related exhaustion. The discussion will center on providing students with concrete, actionable information for developing strategies to combat burnout. Tune in to learn how to sustain your energy and motivation effectively throughout your studies.

Hi everyone,

Hoping to connect with people who are struggling to get out of the 140s and those who've succeeded. I did a diagnostic at the beginning of May to figure out where I was, and scored 140 (138 raw). After two weeks of consistent studying doing drills and listening to modules, I did my second preptest today and scored 145. Though I am pleased with the increased score, I'm a bit frustrated because I felt the burnout during my second RC section (I had 2LR + 2RC). My eyes began to glaze over the reading and I began skimming for important parts that I may be asked to answer and ultimately got an entire section wrong, which would've had at least a 5+ increase on my overall score. How do I get around wanting to literally pass out from switching my brain from looking for evidence/flaws to reading comprehensively?

I'm going through the RC curriculum and keep reading Kevin's suggestion to try to do the low res summaries mentally due to time. Timing in RC is 100 % an issue for me. Personally, writing down the summaries has increased my RC score but I am still short on time. I just find if I don't write it down I get panicky & get lost. I find it way harder to retain without writing it down. With that being said, if its really worth trying to do it mentally, I'll try but not sure its best for me. I comprehend things best when I write them down I think. What does everyone else do? What are your reasonings behind it?

No NBA team has ever lost a game when leading by 14 points with only 2:51 remaining. Since the Knicks lead the Pacers by 14 points, and there's only 2:51 remaining, the Knicks will win the game.

How do you get past that hurdle of my gut reaction in BR being to just stick with the answer choice I chose on the first go around? I feel like I'm falling victim to confirmation bias, like when seeing my chosen answer again the second time, I'm just automatically coming up with and reaffirming the same initial (albeit wrong) reasons I thought it was correct, and then glossing over what I first thought are issues with the true correct answer. So BR, at least so far, has been really ineffective at getting any improvement in choosing the right answers.

Hi everyone, I’m looking for a study buddy or group to join in Brooklyn NY. Studying is so lonely, the company would be nice! Plus like that can hold eachother accountable.

I live in Bedstuy, willing to travel around to diversify the study areas.

Let me know anyone who is interested :)

Trying to the August LSAT

I'm curious to see if anyone else has found themselves with an implicit bias against selecting answer choices A and E, particularly towards the back half of LR sections when the questions get tougher. I've found myself reading an attractive answer choice in both of those spots, and then thinking to myself "of course they'd place it there as a trap" ... sometimes it's actually worked really well, other times it obviously hasn't ...

Posting this to see if anyone else has become tripped up by the same mindset, and ultimately if anyone has any tips on how to spot those "traps" in I guess a more successful way?

Hello Everyone. Stick with me here while I explain. Endurance in RC (and the test as a whole) seems to be a big issue with me. When I do one RC passage at a time I seem to do very (4star passages & 160+ Questions correct) well. But when I read them back to back (full section ) I seem to loose focus and it starts becoming word salad. Im starting to see that endurance is a real issue here. How do I increase my endurance. Is there things I can do to make it to where I can sit for this whole 2.5 hour test and not get extremely fatigued!!

Any advice is greatly appreciated

Listen and subscribe:

Apple Podcasts | Spotify

Unlock your LSAT potential by going beyond practice tests and mastering the art of strategic drilling. In this episode, the 7Sage LSAT Podcast breaks down how focused repetition on specific question types can significantly boost your accuracy and confidence. Learn effective drilling techniques, how to integrate them into your study plan, and why this method is crucial for turning weaknesses into strengths. Tune in to discover how to drill your way to a higher LSAT score with expert advice from 7Sage.

My RC score is the only thing really holding me back from breaking into the higher 160s and low 170s and I find that like 80% of the RC questions I get on a PT are implied or stated questions (mainly implied). There's only one page in the syllabus for implied RC questions and I am not really sure how to drill them, does anyone have any advice about how to improve on these types of questions or what to do to practice them more often?

I'm seeking advice on Reading Comprehension. Oftentimes I'm reading and i comprehend each word but when I finish a paragraph I think "what the hell did I just read?" It's not that I don't understand what I'm reading it's just that sometimes it doesn't "stick". What strategies do you guys use to engage more deeply with what you read such that it stays in your mind? How do you retain the content of the passage as well as its purpose in the overall passage flow?

So far, these are the strategies that I try to use:

All this is what I am now attempting but still at times I find myself understanding words but not comprehending the whole.

Any tips from those of you to whom this comes a bit easier? Or, maybe more importantly, from those of you for whom this content is difficult but which you have improved on.

thanks in advance.

One of the major shortfall I'm currently having is questions that deal with intersecting sets. Really just sets in general. I really liked the link assumption tag, because it helped me work on logic chains.

All the questions I got wrong dealt with it. I was wondering if anyone else noticed having a similar deficit? Any specific questions types I should focus on?

I'm trying to make LR PDFs. Can someone please tell me if 7Sage still has the "Quick Copy" feature? It's gone when I make drills now. PLS HELP

Can anyone help me to understand whether weakening questions are (1) only supposed to address the logical relationship between the premise and conclusion, and (2) are subject to general flaw reasoning. I thought so, but two questions have been throwing me for a loop, both from Kim's The LSAT Trainer. They are:

(1)

"Professor Watkins just received a significant raise, and now Professor Jenson has requested one too. However, Professor Watkins was only eligible to get a raise if she received tenure; she recently was awarded tenure, and was given the raise. Professor Jansen has no desire to get tenure, is not on track to get tenure, and will not get tenure. So, Professor Jenson's request will likely be denied."

Apparently, the answer that "Professor Jenson is well known for the work he does in his field, and the school is known to give raises in order to retain professors who are significant in the areas in which they work" is a weakening response. I don't understand how this can be, considering it has no logical bearing on the connections between the premise supports or conclusion. If it simply said "The university plans to give him tenure regardless," would that be an appropriate weakening response? The same book warns that "attractive wrong choices strengthen or weaken the point but not the reasoning." Is this possible because the answer here provides its own reasoning (Jenson -> well known and well known -> raise)? Otherwise I cannot make sense of it.

(2)

"Medical Expert: For the past six months, we have been keeping statistics on surgery time for prostatectomies performed through traditional means, and through a new procedure that uses robotics. The study revealed that the surgeries using robotics took a average of forty-three minutes, whereas traditional surgeries took an average of over seventy minutes. The study involved sufficient enough mix of doctors and hospitals to guarantee that personal surgical skills and access to other types of equipment were not a factor in the study outcome. Therefore, we can conclude that in general it is faster to perform prostatectomies robotically than it is to perform them using traditional means."

Apparently, the answer "For the most simple prostatectomies, traditional surgeries take, on average, less time than robotic surgery" is a weakening response. I thought it was irrelevant, given this is clearly a part to whole flaw, but the book says that, because the fundamental flaw is that the stimulus ignores that different types of surgeries may take different time and that may be why the robot is faster (it could have just been getting faster surgeries), that this weakens the conclusion. I am confused, as it could be that some fraction of surgeries is faster without robots, but that does nothing to weaken the conclusion that /in general/ surgeries are faster robotically. Do very general reasoning flaws not apply when one is saying that a response weakens a conclusion? Is the statement "Most cars are red" weakened by the response "but my car is blue"?

To note, I don't believe these passages come from PrepTests, they were just made for the book. Please let me know what you think!

Hey all. I am looking to form a study/accountability group for the Aug 2025 LSAT. I currently test in the low-160s with a goal score of 168. I am located in Western Canada and can meet virtually 1-2 times a week. Also would be down to support each other through the admissions process!

Feel free to inbox me if you are interested and I will share details.

Thanks!

William

My RC score is holding me back and I have a lot of issues with timing. I'm missing questions on every passage, with more towards the later ones. What's a good way to drill RC besides doing whole sections?