I've been struggling the most with conditional reasoning questions, and have rewatched the lessons a couple times and done some drilling but still don't understand. I take the LSAT in a little over a month, does anybody have some suggestions for a quick way to improve on these?

I know those questions are usually the curve breaker ones and I keep choosing the second most popular answer every single time... Any tips on how to approach this problem?

Even though I'm going slow and parsing out passages, often times I get W, S, E questions wrong because I'm not making the same kinds of assumptions they make to get to that answer choice. Maybe it's also because I just started W,S,E questions like a week ago in the CC, so it's still a little new to me. What has helped you most with making reasonable assumptions? The assumptions explained in the lessons sometimes feel very arbitrary.

The shocking moment you're going through a passage, and totally certain you're going to get at least half the answers wrong but end up getting a perfect score. I closed my laptop and went to bed.

I just started studying for RC. Does anyone have any thoughts on whether it's best to (1) give myself extra time during drills so that I can "learn how to do it slow before learn how to do it fast," or should I (2) stick to the exact time that I'll have on test day so that I don't get too used to/comfortable with that extra time?

I'm not too sure what is the difference between weaken questions and flaw questions. If we're describing a flaw that the author makes in their reasoning, for example that they take for granted an assumption, then wouldn't it be that if this answer were true (like the unstated assumption was actually false), then this would weaken the argument since it would undermine the conclusion? I feel like the intent of these two questions kind of overlap, like is pointing out a flaw in the author's argument not the same thing as trying to weaken it?

For lawgic, Necessary_"is essential"Sufficient?

The category of questions in logical reasoning that I have had the most trouble with are parallel or analogy questions. I am wondering if it would be worthwhile to, upon coming across them in the test, flag these questions and move on and come back to them at the end of the section. The questions are massive time eaters and I feel like my time could be better spent elsewhere. And even still, I will be coming back to them at the end anyway. I'd love to hear of any insights into this. Thanks.

I'm two days into my LSAT studying and I'm on fundamentals. I'm planning to take the test on June 7 and once more in August if things don't quite go well. I think I have time for this. I just wanted to clarify if this is right:

Premises-Provide evidence

Conclusions-Rely on evidence in order to derive an opinion??

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

This specific topic in LR is the one I struggle the most with, and I’m hoping someone has some helpful tips or advice on how to approach it. Any insights you can share would be greatly appreciated!

Hi all,

I'm currently doing the drills for Logical Reasoning and am finding trouble locating the proper tag for the Role Questions (e.g., identify the role of sentence XY in the argument). There seems to be no specific tags for this type of question when creating the drill.

Is it possible there is another tag for the role questions?

Hi Everyone, I have a question on the main conclusion portion. I read the question and then the paragraph, I know they hide the conclusion, I just struggle to find the keywords. Any advice for me to get faster with these questions?

When going through my wrong answers on a PT, I noticed the reason I got some questions wrong as opposed to others is that my brain gets lazy and neglects my steps when I encounter a stem with a topic I don't like (science) or understand. Are there any ways I can improve on this weakness?

I started out doing really good on weakening questions. When the strengthening questions came into play, they were a bit more difficult. Now that they are intermixing, I am extremely overwhelmed and confused. Any tips?

I'm having trouble translating without claims back into english after using logic. For example:

"There can be no rule of law without individual freedom"

Negate sufficient: ROL ---> IF

But when I read this back to myself, how would I frame it?

"If there is rule of law, then there is individual freedom?" Is that what would work here? Please help!!!

I almost always do considerably better on the experimental section than on the scored one. Generally speaking, improvement is still happening on LR questions, but it's infuriating for my scores to be somewhat static because I do better on the unscored section. Anybody else experienced this and/or found a fix for it? Is the experimental easier?

How should I be reading the target times for RC?

Final bits of crunch prep before the Feb 8th LSAT, and I'm struggling most with worrying about time. I noticed that RC Drills have both a Target Time Goal for the passage AND the questions, so how should I be interpreting the time? Is the target time that's listed under the passage specifically for the passage? and separate from the target times of the questions?

Say, for example, my elapsed time for a passage was 3:33 but the target time is 8:53. That target time of 8:53, does that include the questions for the section as well? or is that solely for the passage itself and I should be taking that and adding the additional target times from the questions to gauge the overall target time for a RC section.

Hey everyone, I'm scoring around low 160s and having a lot of trouble with Flaw/Descriptive Weakening questions. Even after reviewing the core lessons, I'm having trouble identifying an approach beyond this test: "1) descriptively accurate 2) describing the flaw." I feel like this approach is vague, and it rarely singles out an answer for me. Anyone have some tricks they can share for approaching those 4/5 star Flaw questions? Thanks.

I know we always say practice practice practice and it will get easier, but I really struggle with reading efficiently on reading comp despite the practice. I am not a fast reader and it takes me a second longer to truly understand a sentence. If I do an untimed reading comp passage, I almost always get every answer correct..... but it will take me like 15-20 minutes. Then, when I do timed, I get almost 50% wrong. Help!! How do I read more efficiently on reading comp?

AC that is descriptively correct but somewhat falls short of MP (but isn't completely off)

vs

AC that is stronger than what the passage said (but doesn't contradict), but except that captures the MP

Here's the example of the two

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-121-section-3-passage-2-questions/

AC A and D in Q6 are the example of the former and the latter, respectively.

I believe D is stronger than what it was said in Line 52~53 (Indeed ~ Intention), because

D is saying that "unconscious revelation" is guaranteed to happen, while the passage only gives it as sufficient condition (unconscious revelation → more authority)

Some might say that the passage is actually trying to guarantee "More authority & Unconscious revelation", but I believe it was given as a conditional relationship, because Q10 is to see if we have understood this relationship.

So back to my original question, do ACs like D always win ?

(I know we don't have do look for "perfect" AC when it's "most accurately" question. I just want to know which quality weighs more)

I'm going through the core curriculum and I got most of the drills from the W/S/E module wrong. it's crazy.

I feel very comfortable with the theory and strategy for this question type but when it comes to drilling, I miss so many of them! What is happening?

Sighh... Guys I'm really struggling with PSAr question types. I understand the idea of "rule and application", and I know the 4 groups for necessary and sufficient indicators, however I am not quite sure I grasp how I am supposed to approach PSAr question types. I frequently end up with two answer choices left where at least one would be correct, but I always pick the wrong one. Ik we should be looking for a rule where the premises in the stimulus triggers the rule, but I keep getting it wrong. Maybe I'm not approaching these properly? Idk, I'm soo confused and frustrated, please SOMEBODY lmk if I'm missing something, or a way to approach these questions🥲.

Hey everyone:) I am just starting my LSAT studying journey, with the intention of taking the exam in June. I have been told about making a Wrong Answers Journal (WAJ), but I wanted some feedback on how others went about it and how it helped them. Did you write down the answers manually? Did you create a doc that you copied and pasted? How did you review the answers during your studying sessions?

Thank you for your feedback and best of luck to everyone on their journey!

I am almost through the foundations section of the 7Sage curriculum. I do not understand lawgic and I am disappointed in myself. I decently understand it, however when we put it all together to draw valid conclusions, I get lost. Is this normal? Should I move on to the logical reasoning section or relearn everything in foundations?

For those who have taken an official test before, what do you find works for you in the final weeks leading up to it? Do you stick with your study schedule, ramp things up, or take a break? Any suggestions??

And good luck to all those who are taking the January test!