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?

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.