Looking to increase by score by at least 15 points in the November test. I just really need words of encouragement and ways you guys are able to stay commitment and focused. What are some techniques you guys use? If anyone is interested in creating a study group please let me know!

Update: I created a discord and I'm still in the middle of setting everything up. Both for those of you who want to join!

https://discord.gg/JCKBH4BkEp

LINK IS UPDATED AND SET TO NEVER EXPIRE

If you are having issues joining please DM me!

It seems like I am incapable at doing the strengthening and weakening questions. I read the answer choices and just think that none of them make sense. I could use some advice.

I noticed today the RC Curriculum, as I am going through it, changed from 244 lessons to 169!! I am happy but is 7Sage adding more lessons in or will it remain at 169 lessons? Thanks, I am trying to get my study schedule correct.

hey guys. I'm currently scoring in the mid to high 60s and each section is around a -5 or lower. I really want to get a 170+ so I am aiming to do a little better on my sections. I have heard from multiple people that this is the hardest improvement to make. Can anyone give me some strategies that worked for them to make the 70s jump. Specifically, my RC sections are consistently lower than LR. I really think that's my point of weakness. What would be a good plan of action for the September test? Should I do 1 minute/Q sections? Full sections?

Any help is appreciated.

How do you guys drill?

I'm looking to improve on LR overall, and I'm not sure if I should lump together different question types in one drill. If I do this, how many questions should I have in one mixed drill and how do I divide them based on their difficulty range?

Flaw and weaken are two question types I tend to get incorrect, should I drill them separately? If so, how many questions should I add in my drill and how many of each based on their difficulty range?

Hi, im starting my LSAT study journey with little previous knowledge about past tests and current changes. What are the sections to focus on if I plan on testing in January 2025? I heard logic games isn’t on there anymore? Thanks for reading and best wishes to all who come across this!

I’ve been studying for the LSAT for a little over two years now and I’ve made no progress on the logical reasoning, I always get half right and half wrong. I always get it down to two, consistently, then of course I always choose the wrong one, consistently. This is an occurring problem and then there are the little ones that I get wrong here and there, and I can’t even begin to describe those questions. Before anyone says I ought to memorize the questions types and the approaches and the this and that, the methods for particular questions and so on, my opinion on that is, it’s absurd. How can the LSAT be a predictor of critical thinking skills when one chooses to memorize each distinct grain of sand on a beach and the elements that make up those grains of sand, and that one has to approach each of these grains of sand with a different kind of mindset and identify these grains of sand by key-wording and sentence styles (the way it’s directed). It’s defeats the purpose of the LSAT and it has been stated as such by several lawyer types who seem well established, to approach the LSAT with a critical thinking based effort rather than a memory based effort. Nonetheless I’ve tried the memory based method and even then it’s absurd because each year the questions made by the LSAC association are different, right? Granted there are some questions that are thrown into the mix that have been used before in some LSAT at some time in the past, this I’m sure of, but it’s only some, and there’s no knowing those particular sum of questions, thus I’m back to square one which is to totally scrap the memory based effort because it’s not based on skill rather it’s based on prediction and patterns. So I’m committed to the critical thinking method, but I can only go so far, so what do I do?

Hi all, I got to the RC portion of the curriculum and I see that a lot of it says "to be removed soon." Should I avoid this while studying since I am taking my lsat in November?

The last month or so of studying for me has been incredibly frustrating as I keep getting wildly inconsistent results. I have been studying since May and have completed the syllabus and mainly work on drilling, doing sections of PTs or PTs in their entirety. When doing one or two sections at a time I can routinely get -2 to -4 on both RC and LR. However, when I take PTs, all of my progress seems to go out of the window. Even in the first sections of my test I can score from anywhere from -7 to -10. Just today I took a PT that was frustratingly inconsistent in the test itself, scoring -9 RC, -10 LR, -6 exp RC, -3LR. I've also noticed that I tend to score worse on more recent tests, whereas older tests I seem to do far better on. Here is a breakdown of the last few tests I took and how I scored form oldest to most recent:

PT 155 - 159

PT 149 - 163

PT 143 - 160

PT 110 - 167

PT 138 - 159

PT 144 - 163

PT 145 - 159

Has anyone else had similar experiences being able to crush individual sections but not being able to translate that into PTs? And has anyone noticed a trend of newer tests feeling more difficult than older ones? I really don't get test anxiety and I don't usually feel super fatigued after a PT, so I don't think my fall off is attributable to just the long format alone. Id appreciate any advice or insight, I am taking the September exam and really want to hit a 165 or slightly higher which I think is possible if I continue to work hard.

Hey! I am having trouble understanding why A is incorrect. I do see how and why D works but I can't understand why A doesn't.

Here, we are given a correlation between the ad, price increase and drop in smoking. From the correlation, we get a causation that the ad is what caused the drop in smoking.

The flaw here is that the author overlooks all other alternate causes of the drop in smoking. In a strengthen question, an AC that denies an alternate causal explanation wins. For example, an AC that says or implies that X, an alternate cause for the drop in smoking, did not actually happen or that it can't be the cause will be the correct AC. And any AC that knocks out an alternate explanation for a given phenomenon automatically strengthens the proposed explanation.

Coming to AC A which says that the residents did not increase use of other forms of tobacco. Here, X i.e. the alternate cause, is given as people's increased use of other forms of tobacco. AC A denies this alternate cause.

The explanation that the 3% decrease in smoking happened because people switched over to other forms of tobacco seems like a valid alternate cause for the drop in number of smokers. (Cause: people switched to other forms of tobacco; effect: drop in smoking) It is such a small percentage and it is entirely reasonable that people switched how they wanted their tobacco kick. So, "3% people stopped smoking because they had switched over to other forms of tobacco instead" is a wonderful alternate causal explanation. Denying this alternate explanation increases the likelihood of ad causing the drop being true.

I get that D is better because it deals with the alternate explanation mentioned right there in the stimulus but how is A irrelevant?

TIA!

Hey guys, I've been studying for two months now and have learned all the foundations of Logical Reasoning. Currently, I'm scoring between -13 and -8 in the best-case scenario. Should I just keep drilling and focusing on accuracy, or is there another key to mastery at this point? Even with a solid understanding of the foundations, question types, and stimulus identification, I still find the test very challenging.

I PAY FOR THIS I WANT ACCESS......... RUDE

Help. I have an ERROR 404 message on everything I do

I have been studying for the LSAT using 7sage since early June and I was actually starting to improve the first 7 weeks or so. However, this past month my scores have dropped slowly with each practice test I take (a point or so every time). The steady decrease is concerning, as I am trying to take the test in September, and it feels like not a whole lot I am doing to study is working. If anyone has any advice to get my scores up, it would be greatly appreciated!

I have been going through the LR curriculum and get -1 in each section with the drills provided. However, when I go to take my own drills I am scoring poorly, and advice?

I always freeze when I read answer choices that say "takes a necessary condition to be a sufficient condition". I know in the abstract what they each are, but thinking through applying them as flaws is very difficult for me. Any tips?

What do you guys think is better, drilling 5-10 questions on LR with a random difficulty level or drill untimed and timed sections?

What has helped you improved the most?

How have you improved with timing?

I am a very visual person and the test doesn't allow paper. I am having a hard time keeping track of the conditionals in my head. Any tips for figuring out conditionals during LR in your head?

When I read a Reading Comprehension passage, I always look for the main idea, like where the author’s opinion or argument stands. For Main Point questions, does the correct answer always show where the author stands? For example, if the first paragraph supports idea A, but paragraphs 2 and 3 support idea B, will the right answer for the Main Point question always reflect the overall support for idea B?

Hi All,

First, thanks for your time. Secondly, I have watched videos, and supplement videos as well. I have completed all the “You Try” questions and got it all correct.

But, as soon as I attempt the drills, I am not doing very well. Any tips, advice, or notes you can provide?

Thanks in advanced.

How would you translate a sentence into lawgic that has both negate sufficient & negate necessary indicators in it?

Ex: "No entry after 9 pm without a valid ID." or "One cannot bake a cake without flour."

I'm taking the LSAT this week, and I would just like to know when others are planning to do their writing sections. I'm trying to focus on the actual LSAT, but I can't help but feel like the writing section is looming over me. Are most people waiting to prepare and take the writing section after their August test date?

Consider this original statement: "Most people are white." Its negation is: "It's not the case that most people are white." i.e. 0-50% people are white. Isn't this the equivalent of "Most people are not white"?

In contrast, given: "Most people are not white" Its negation is "It's not the case that most people are not white." i.e. 0-50% are not white. In this case, I know the negation is not equivalent to "Most people are white". It's not a binary cut here. Compared to the first statement, what changed? I'm not sure how to think about this.

The question asks us to identify the best explanation for why these birds choose a wooden box. The given answer choice B only explains why the birds prefer the wooden box to "highly concealing woody vegetation" but fails to account for why the wooden boxes are preferred over open grasslands. Answer C seems to more fully resolve the question. Defensive behavior from 'nest builders' ( which I have taken to mean both the birds who next in highly concealing woody vegetation and open grasslands as the wooden boxes specifically wouldn't have to be a built nest.) Taking this assumption doesn't C answer the question more fully than B.

I get the issue is probably that my assumption goes too far. But the LSAT often requires us to make leaps in logic that feel much further than the wooden box vs nest builder assumption I've made here.

Admin Note: Edited title. For LR questions, please use the format: "PT#.S#.Q# - brief description of the question."

Does anybody have any helpful tips to improve on RC? it's my worst section