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?

One of my favorite parts of this course was the opening statement about the mechanisms that ensure the test will have good questions, and we should therefore be less concerned about arbitrary distinctions. You say that there is a large board, review processes internally, and there are incentives for test takers to appeal problems since it will improve their scores.

I take issue with the last premise though. I took the LSAT a few months ago and had two really large issues with the administration.

For one thing it started 2-3 hours late and was administered terribly with lots of loud sounds and talking. I wrote a complaint to the LSAC about this and nothing happened. This hurts my confidence in the fairness of the test.

Second, I had a strong suspicion about one of the questions being incorrectly written, but since the questions aren't posted anywhere and there seemingly isn't a way to appeal for adjustments, I have a strong suspicion JY was wrong in his initial course. I do not think there is any way to appeal questions, which is such a shame since this is such an important test and it is developed by a private company with zero oversight and a profit incentive to crank questions out as cheaply as possible.

I've done a few drills on other platforms before coming over to 7Sage and I was wondering if there was a way for me to view 7Sage's explanation of the question without having taken the test or PT? Is there a page that outlines all of their explanations of some sort? I feel like I remember something similar being on the old website, but I could be mistaken. Thank you for the help!

Can correct answer choices for necessary questions be perspective claims? I remember the lessons mentioning that they often aren't but I wanted to clarify!

Any insight is appreciated, thank you!

Do you try to minimize subvocalization (hearing each word in your head) when reading RC passages? Why/why not?

Basically, I bought 7Sage after the June LSAT to try to score 170+ in Sept. I haven't really seen any score increases and while I understand that improvement gets harder the higher the score is, I'm a bit lost in terms of what else I could do beyond just drill more. At this point I'm just hoping to get lucky since my June score was in the 170 range they give lol. Any advice on how to break this wall?

Hello LSAT internet, I have been scoring consistently around the low 160s, last 3 PTs were 164/163/163 with blind review scores in the low 170s (170/172/174)

With a few weeks to the September test, what's the best strategy to try and close that gap?

I use my WAJ religiously, and take a few hours after I've blind reviewed to go over questions I struggled with or got wrong.

Doing about -4 on LR and -5 on RC, but LR is better in timed individual sections -2/-3

TIA!!!

I'm getting all kinds of mixed information when I look this up, so I apologize if this is common knowledge I'm just missing somewhere. But when you take the test in-person, does section 2 start immediately after section 1? And the same for 3 and 4?

Basically, do you get 60 seconds to reset or do you just roll immediately through?

This makes a huge difference in how I prepare...

I tend to have a very high accuracy rate on main point questions whereas I often miss primary purpose ones. Even on the same stimulus, I can get the main point correct and the primary purpose wrong. I feel like the two question types test similar skills, so I'm not really sure why this keeps happening. Any insight would be much appreciated :)

I've been noticing a consistent problem during my LR practice. I usually am able to narrow the answer choices down to two, but I end up picking the wrong one. It's frustrating because I feel like I have that foundation to rule out the clearly wrong options, but I just can't seem to choose the correct one between the final two.

Has anyone else struggled with this? What strategies helped you and is there a way to train this skill specifically?

Any advice, drills, or thought processes you used would be SO SUPER appreciated!

It is exactly one week until I take my LSAT, any tips on how to go confidently into the exam? I am doing well but I am not sure what to do with this last week, keep studying? Chillax?

I know it's common for beginners to (mistakenly) think there are multiple correct answers to a question, but I just can't see how there's only one correct answer in this case. Any input would be greatly appreciated.

Question: PT114.S2.Q9

Complete stimulus: During the three months before and the three months after a major earthquake in California, students at a college there happened to be keeping a record of their dreams. After experiencing the earthquake, half of the students reported dreaming about earthquakes. During the same six months, a group of college students in Ontario who had never experienced an earthquake also recorded their dreams. Almost none of the students in Ontario reported dreaming about earthquakes. So it is clear that experiencing an earthquake can cause people to dream about earthquakes.

Complete question stem: Which one of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?

Complete answer choices:

A: Before the California earthquake, no more of the students in California than of those in Ontario recorded dreams about earthquakes.

B: The students in California were members of a class studying dreams and dream recollection, but the students in Ontario were not.

C: Before they started keeping records of their dreams, many of the students in California had experienced at least one earthquake.

D: The students in Ontario reported having more dreams overall, per student, than the students in California did.

E: The students in Ontario who reported having dreams about earthquakes recorded the dreams as having occurred after the California earthquake.

Answer choice A is marked as correct, and answer choice D is marked as incorrect.

My reasoning: Answer choice D strengthens the argument by eliminating an alternate explanation: California students had more dreams about earthquakes because they have more dreams in general. Therefore, an earthquake occurring in California would not be the reason why half of the students reported having dreams about earthquakes.

Thanks for the help!

Hi all! I wanted to come on and share that my LSAT journey has not been linear but have been seeing slow improvement. For context, I took the Nov. 2023 LSAT with wishy-washy studying to get a 148. I cancelled that score and have been on and off studying since then. I have finally gotten up to the 160s with average PTs being in the high 150s. While I do not want to discount the progress I have made, I cannot discard the fact that my progress has been slow and slower than I would like it to be. I know this is a hard test, but I know that it can be learnable. I am going average -4 on LR and average -10 on RC. I just recently got to a 160 on my recent PT last week. LR feels naturally more intuitive compared to RC, as I find myself running out of time on RC. While, I recognize the patterns in RC and consider myself good at the big picture questions, I struggle with implied and detail oriented questions. I guess I am just looking for advice on how people have improved from this place and what helped them quickly get out of this slump. As my goal would be to hit the 170s in the next few months. Happy to share more info., if its helpful. Thanks!

Pretty much understand everything except one thing, please help me 7Sage wizards

Most opera singers who add demanding roles to their repertoires at a young age lose their voices early. It has been said that this is because their voices have not yet matured and hence lack the power for such roles. But young singers with great vocal power are the most likely to ruin their voices. The real problem is that most young singers lack the technical training necessary to avoid straining their vocal cords—especially when using their full vocal strength. Such misuse of the cords inevitably leads to a truncated singing career.

E)Most young opera singers who sing demanding roles strain their vocal cords

Young Opera singers -most> loose voice

Young Opera singers -most> lack tech training to avoid loosing voice

Isn’t the valid inference

A most B

A most C

___

A some C ???

I thought A most C was invalid…..

I felt like I did much better with RC before starting to train. My diagnostic in RC was -5 vs. between -8 and -10 now.

My LR is, on the whole, much much better than before I started studying, but my gains in score have been marginal because my RC has dropped off.

In studying for LR, I realized that reading/translation/repetition seemed to help me the most, and I'd love to tackle a similar strategy for RC, but just doing RC passages over and over with Low Res summaries isn't helping me a whole lot. Still missing one or two per passage that have to do with something super specific I glazed over on my readthrough. I feel like I struggle with balancing reading for detail and reading for structure/concepts -- it's often I get one or the other on a first read (all I have time for obviously).

Any tips for making RC improvement more manageable?

Dear Tutor, I am a little confused about when to move a "no" or negative indicator to the left in order to apply the "negate the necessary" rule. For example, I understand that " No Cats are Dogs can be diagrammed as such Cat-->/Dog Or Dog-->/Cat. However, what if there is a No on both sides? For example, Prep Test 111 Section 3 Question 18 Answer Choice: (B) reads "No people who understand their musical roots will be in the audience if the audience will not be treated to a good show." I almost diagrammed this by moving the "no" in the sufficient condition to the necessary condition, which would have made B correct. So, if there is a "no" or negative indicator on both sides, it is best to leave it be?

just got eye surgery and would be really helpful if I don't need to stare at the screen. #help

I never have enough time to complete the last passage during a PT. I am considering working from the last passage to the first, since I am noticing that they are a bit easier for me. Is this worth doing? Has anyone tried this before? I am taking the August LSAT, so looking for any last minute tips I should implement.