It appears I have trouble starting any type of drill. The "start drill" button is greyed out and isn't clickable. Am I doing something wrong? Lol

Hi, I am having a hard time with when they give you a principle and application in the stimulus and then ask you to find an answer that justifies the application. If anyone knows how to explain how to do these please let me know

Hello everyone, I need advice please.

So I completed the logical reasoning section in the curriculum and I seem to have a firm understanding of each question type what it's asking me for etc.

Issue about when I do the section Untimed I seem to do very well only missing four (This was just on one section) probobly should do another untimed.

But when I just did a time section, I missed a lot more. So endurance definitely seems to be an issue because once I get to the end of the section, it feels like my brain is mush. Timing seems to be an issue.

So I just need solutions. I want to figure out if it's the foundational principles that I'm missing or if it's just timing if it's just timing, does anyone have suggestions on how to work on that?

Does anyone have a suggestion to Figure out if it's the actual concept, I'm missing or if it's the timing.

Any advice would be greatly appreciated .

I am dying on these NA, SA, PSA questions. I don't seem to know what the QS is wanting me to look for in the AC's. I get one right and 3 wrong. I do great on MC, MSS, PAI, and strengthen. I seem to struggle once I reach NA, SA, PSA, and weaken.

What is the QS really asking me to look for? Which of the 5 AC's MBT? or Which of the 5 makes the stem most true? I feel like there has to be an easy "NA for dummies" explanation that I am missing. JY's basketball example makes perfect sense- 'I can't be one of the greatest BB players alive if I don't know how to dribble'. That makes common sense. Then I get on a live class and there's a question about something I have never heard of with ridiculously convoluted language and that BB does nothing to help me identify the correct AC.

Can anyone put this in basic terminology that makes sense? I understand the difference between NA and SA- 'beating the NBA all star team single handedly vs do I know how to dribble' but I cannot seem to understand what the questions are wanting me to do. I also feel like I am struggling more on the topics that JY didn't provide videos for. Please tell me I am not the only one feeling this way.

I am struggling with flaw questions, sometimes I know what the flaw is but can't really put into words and other times I am just completely clueless even on easy questions. Any tips?

Necessary Assumption has been an absolute headache for me. I tried the negation test and it's still not clicking. Any tips on how to approach these questions types?

Does anyone have any good tips, tricks, or processes that helped them memorize the types of flaws? I am having a hard time doing so. Thanks!

I've been studying for a while but I still really struggle with conditional logic. I've re-done all the core ciriculium, done the conditional logic drills, and found the Loophole to be helpful as well, but I'm looking for some other conditional logic practice drills. Let me know if you have any suggestions!

Is there content to teach about specific LR tags? I found a blog post defining each tag, but I am still unsure how to go about handling problems with these tags. For example, ElimOpt is my highest priority and I am reviewing questions with these tags to to piece together what it means, but if there is a video/something explaining how to approach ElimOpt problems, that would be helpful!

I’m gradually grasping several crucial concepts and developing my intuition. Even when I make mistakes, I identify my errors and comprehend the concepts well and in less time.

However, I’m having a large problem: I’m unsure whether it’s more advantageous to read the stimulus first or the question stem. I’ve seen varying opinions, with some suggesting that reading the stimulus first is better, while others promote the opposite approach. What do you guys do, and what are the benefits of doing that approach for you?

When should someone begin to focus on their time during drills in addition to accuracy

I am consistently getting 80% when I select for highest difficulty level on MC questions. Is it worth continuing to focus only on MC questions, or should I move on to other topics? Not sure what the ideal strategy is.

Help I am having trouble dealing with both conditions…the sufficient condition and the necessary condition in the pasaje of MBT, MSS & MBF. When I go to look for an answer I get confused because I always see extreme language like “only if, always & others”. And those anwears only benefit the neccesary part so I end up discarting them. In the blind reviews I even get them wrong. Do you guys have any recomendations? I think Im looking for the ideal anwear & I know its not present.

Admin note: Edited title. Please do not post threads or comments in all caps. This is against the Forum Rules. Thanks!

I'm struggling to figure out a way to take an entire PT section, 1-25, without taking the entire Practice Test. Does someone know how to filter it this way? I found an older post detailing it but I think the formatting of this website must've changed as I couldn't follow along

Hello, Im trying to review the quantifiers section in the Logic of Intersection set. I want to know the difference between the quiantity of each word. I remember I once saw a video here with a scale explaining the Number each word represents. Can someone Point me to that Lesson? Thank you in Advance!

Like in lesson 5 why can you not conclude that the conclusion could be morally right by using the contrapositive?

Currenly I have around -6 on LR section under time constraint, but after BR I can get to around -2. I realized the mistakes I can easily fixed and most time even marked is when I encounter MBT or Parrallel questions types which uses formal logic and for me requires diagraming as I am not used to formal logic yet.

I understand maybe to improve the speed on these questions requires time and practice but I also realize when I translate them into formal logic, they start to look like math to me and the meaning is lost. I do get the question right but I am worried with that my intuition will never get trained and I always have to waste time to translate those into math & diagram to get them correct, which might result in not finishing the section.

So my question is just on how I should practice those questions? Should I continue to diagram out each time, and my intuition will actaully grow with it? Or should I start trying out diagraming out in my head and apply more meaning to it? Would it faster for some people to actually diagram out during the actual exam?

Thank you for answering in advance.

An example in this post is from a live class so it MAY BE A SPOILER****

Hi! I am continuously running into issues with conclusions regarding sufficiency and necessity. I completely understand the structure of Lawgic, and I can chain conditionals with no issues using Lawgic, my issue is when sufficiency and necessity lead to a conclusion, and I cannot conclude the argument is valid or draw a conclusion. I can write it out correctly, I just don't understand what it really means..

Example:

Exercise 2: Evaluating Argument Validity

Is the following argument valid?

The vote to grant Chancellor Palpatine emergency powers will not pass if Senator Amidala delivers her speech. Amidala cannot deliver her speech unless the attempt to assassinate her fails. Her assassins planted a bomb on her starship but unbeknownst to them, she was not on the ship when the explosive detonated. Therefore, the vote to grant the Chancellor emergency powers will not pass.

The argument is not valid because of the Lawgic: (I have the structure down)

SAS → /P

SAS → AAF

AAF

/P

Where I am getting confused is the explanation that is provided: "Satisfying a necessary condition yields no valid conclusions." So when can we yield a valid conclusion?? What condition should I be looking at to conclude whether an argument is valid or not?

Another example:

Biologist: We know the following things about plant X. Specimens with fuzzy seeds always have long stems but never have white flowers. Specimens with curled leaves always have white flowers, and specimens with thorny seedpods always have curled leaves. A specimen of plant X in my garden has a long stem and curled leaves.

Q: From the biologist's statements, which one of the following can be properly inferred about the specimen of plant X in the biologist's garden?

I have all of the Lawgic correctly written down:

fuzzy seeds-> long stems

fuzzy seeds -> /white flowers

curled -> white flowers

thorny seedpods -> curled leaves

x has a long stem and curled leaves

The answer: it has white flowers but lacks fuzzy seeds.

HOW??

I understand it has white flowers, but how is it not "It has white flowers and thorny seedpods."

Is it because if there are curled leaves, then there are white flowers (curled leaves -> white flowers), the fact that having curled leaves is in the sufficient means that white flowers has to follow?

And thorny-> curled means nothing because curled is not in the sufficient?

If something is satisfied in the necessary, you can't conclude anything from that?

I have literally spent HOURS trying to understand this (and understanding other examples further down LR). I don't want to move past chaining conditionals until I can completely understand this, so I'm stuck in my studying. I'm actually struggling so hard. Also is it clear what I'm getting confused on... ?? I can re-edit if this is too all over the place sorry :(

Hey guys. I'm enrolled to take the April LSAT, and am consistently scoring 168-169 on prep tests. I can't seem to break into the 170s and do not see any particular patterns in questions I'm missing. Sometimes I'll get -1 and -3 on LR, sometimes -3 and -6. Reading comp I miss about 4. There have been a few cases where I've simply been rushed for time and misread a question, but my results just feel inconsistent so I don't know where to focus my energy. If anyone has any advice please let me know!

Loking for a reliable study group for the LSAT of June 2025

Post your favorite LSAT question. Why do you like it?

Super vague question but how do you recommend to study for reading comprehension? I get like 16 problems wrong each time. I just always feel way too rushed to comprehend the text. I've got a good understanding of LR but lost of where to start with RC.

Trying to find a good resource to help work on my memorization of conditional indicators. Thanks!

I missing about 4-5 on an LR section, but about 2-3 of those are within the last 5 questions every time. Is there something that I am not picking up on?

I've been blind reviewing and want to identify the question categories I get wrong most, and these come up often but I dont know what they entail. If someone could give me examples that would be great too.