Just did it and each section dropped like 8 points, it's actually depressing. Hopefully someone might know why that is or maybe my skill went randomly down.

Hey everyone! I am a junior in college and I am just now starting my journey in preparing for the LSAT. I am a division one athlete so time is limited but I am willing to put in the work to get a grade that represents my abilities. I was wondering if there are any tips or recommendations that y'all swear by as I am starting this process!!

I do well on most other stems but MSS is the most difficult one by far on every prep test i get them most of them wrong or all wrong but i do a lot better with every other stem, If you know a decent strategy to help with this please say it below. Thank You

I noticed the You Try questions are not included in the analytics overview by default, but was told by support that you could manually toggle them to be included. I don't consult notes and try to mimic test conditions as closely as possible whether its a drill or a You Try question and when I toggled all of the questions to be included, my drilling accuracy when from 44% to 69%. Happy to see that jump up since the pool went from 17 drill questions to 149 comprehensive questions but wondering how I should understand this information. Did I skew my data to be more comprehensive and useful or did I give myself leeway? ( As I type this out I will say, maybe what I didn't consider was that the analytics may be more useful when I get to my PT weeks and I won't want the You Try data included, but let me know your thoughts!)

side note to dev team: It would be cool to have a select all + filter option to where we could filter for the specific types of q's we want in analytics (ex: able to filter between You Try + PT + Drills and see different cuts of data to help measure performance pre-PT by relying on You Try and Drills, and then being able to just see PT results during PT stage.

Hi everyone! First post here.

Decided to write my question here because honestly I didn't know where else to direct my question (that said please let me know if there is a better forum for these types of inquiries.)

My question is: can anyone please help explain how the "Most Strongly Supported" (MSS) questions in LR and "Implied" questions in RC are different? I've been approaching them pretty much as identical question types that can be approached with the same type of reasoning mode (e.g. spectrum of support diagram) but it seems like -- having gone through hundreds of these questions thus far -- there is actually a small but significant difference between the two question types.

Would welcome any advice on this (+ moral support is also welcome!) from my fellow LSATers! Cheers and good luck to all :)

Good afternoon everyone. i've been studying for the LSAT for at least a year now and i've been practicing using Lawhub and 7sage. As of now my LR sections barely improved and im still between 10-15 per section. If you scored high, what have you done better that is different? how do you read each question? I got a test coming in January but im gonna probably register for March because that is my last real chance for a good score

Currently my only high priority LR question type is Conditional Reasoning, and Causal Reasoning is one of my only medium priority.

Are the only lessons on these question types the foundational ones?

So I am doing a WAJ, but how do I use it effectively and when should I review it and whatnot. It would help a lot thanks!

If i plan to take the April LSAT for the first time, what should my studying look like right now? I currently have the core curriculum on 7sage and it is set to finish with all the foundations & what not by the beginning of February. Then, I go into practice for 8 weeks and final prep for 1 week before the lsat. Should I be simultaneously practicing drills while doing the foundations curriculum?

I finally am starting to see this all pay off before the January test! Got my first -4 and -2 on BR for an LR section! After an embarrassing slump in the November test, I think we're all in for a treat in January! (Knock on wood). Shoutout the new WAJ feature in the notes, it's been so good to force myself to reflect.

relationships

• comparative

• some intersection

• relatas: 

  • cause vs effect

  • paragraph 1 vs 2

  • phenomenon vs hypothesis

• support (relatas: premise vs conclusion)

  • aim: persuasion (subjective)

relationship 2

(clauses linked together to emphasize relationships)

• disjunction

• conditional claims (sufficient and necessary condition)

  • indicators

    • unless

• causal claims (cause and effect)

  • indicators

    • because

• analogies (one thing is like another thing)

  • source vs target clause

  • indicators

    • just as

comparatives

• two things that stand in comparison to each other w one of two coming on top

  • a vs b (what are you comparing)

  • quality/characteristic of comparison

  • identify “winner”

• negative comparatives

• when comparatives have “no” or “not” there may be no clear winner

  • ex: allison is not taller than jake

• implied comparatives

  • no than in the statement

    • ex: tom is feeling better today, cafes are busier during the morning rush

• relative vs absolute

  • comparatives are usually relative without making absolute statements but context can sometimes imply absolute qualities

    • ex: jake is not taller than allison and they play basketball

    • they are likely tall, but it is not absolute

• equivalence

  • i am older than you=you are younger than me

arguments

• an argument consists of premises and a conclusion that aims to persuade

  • support structures the argument, and support depends on assumptions

    • assumptions are a “forgotten” premise that can be subtle

    • less reasonable assumptions render an argument vulnerable to criticism

    • Valid arguments (on the LSAT) require no additional unstated assumptions for the conclusion to follow from the premises.

      • Invalid arguments require at least one necessary assumption.

wonder “what the author wants me to believe” and “why should i believe this”

conclusion indicators (words followed by a conclusion)

• consequently

• therefore

• as a result

• clearly

• it follows that

• accordingly

• we may conclude

• it entails

• hence

• thus

• we may infer that

• it must be that

• it implies that

• that is why

premise indicators (words followed by premise)

• given that

• seeing that

• for the reason that

• owing to

• as indicated by

• after all

• on the grounds that

words that are followed by a premise but also contain a conclusion

• for

• because

• since

types of questions

• Must Be True questions 

• phenomenon-hypothesis

  • causation logic

subconclusion: claim that receives and gives support

• Premise: All dogs are adorable.

• Premise: Fluffers is a dog.

• Sub-conclusion: Therefore, Fluffers is adorable.

• Premise: All adorable things are cute.

• Conclusion: Fluffers is cute.

  • sub arguments make a complex argument

context (used as referent for referential phrase)

• table setting

  • information explaining a premise

• other peoples position

  • an opposite conclusion they claim is incorrect

• concession

  • making the opposing argument before the other can

context transition indicators

• but

• however

• yet

• some people say

concession indicators

• despite

• in spite of

• although

• though

• even though

• even if

• notwithstanding

• while

clause

• subject

  • gerund or noun

• predicate

  • verb/object

subject vs predicate noun modifier indicators

• that

• who

predicate modifier indicators

• of

• by

• in

• for

(where, how, when, why )

predicate object indicator

• the

object clause

• that can be used to make a clause the subject

  • indicator

    • that

  • ex: scientists discovered that the sky is blue

referent

• stands in place of something that appeared earlier

• negative: not that (other/otherwise)

rhetorical questions

• implied declarative statement for dramatic effect (more persuasive)

logic

• formal

  • form of argument matters more than content (valid/invalid)

  • includes

    • conditional logic (sufficient/necessary conditions)

    • logic btwn sets

      • supersets, subsets, intersecting sets, and membership in those sets

  • main concern is what must be true

• informal (typical of reading comprehension

  • all other types of logic

    • causation

    • analogies

    • generalization

    • scientific reasoning

    • rule application reasoning

    • cost-benefit analysis

    • misc

  • subject to be made stronger or weaker

    • how well supported

sets

• set: abstract collection of members

• membership: something belongs to such set

• when a set is inside a set

  • superset: larger one

  • subset: smaller one

sufficiency vs necessity conditions

• subset membership is sufficient for superset membership but not necessary

• superset membership is necessary for subset membership but not sufficient 

• subset is to superset as sufficiency is to necessity

  • if dot is in cat-set, it is sufficient to know the dot is inside mammal-set

  • membership in a mammal-set is necessary for membership in cat-set

    • membership in mammal-set is not sufficient for membership in cat-set (membership in cat-set is not necessary for membership in mammal-set)

conditional argument (formal argument)

• when sufficient condition is true, the necessary condition is also true

• Membership in Set A is sufficient for membership in Set B. X is a member of Set A. Therefore, X is a member of Set B

conditional indicators (logical indicators)

• the idea immediately following the conditional indicator is the sufficient condition

  • If X, Y

  • when

  • where

  • all 

  • every

  • any

  • the only

• the idea immediately following the conditional indicator is the necessary  condition

  • only

  • only if

  • only when

  • only where

  • always

  • must

truth vs validity

• truth is property of claims (true vs false)

• validity is property of arguments (valid/invalid)

  • validity: if (or pretend that) all the premises are true, then the conclusion must also be true.

“lawgic”

• → establishes a conditional relationship

  • sufficient condition (left side) to a necessary condition (right side)

• subscripts represent membership of set

  • L^J represents Luke's membership in the set of Jedi.

• conditional argument shape:

  • categorical syllogism

A → B

x^A

____

x^B

OR

• modus ponens

sufficient → necessary

sufficient

____

necessary

Hi all,

I have watch all the curriculum videos. I spent hours and hours and hours since June. I still be PT'ing at 135. My goal is to get 160

I have a few questions:

1. What am I doing wrong?

2. I don't want to watch any more videos. I'm sick of them (no offense) should I just drill from now on?

I just need advice.

Listen and subscribe:

Apple Podcasts | Spotify

In this episode, Bailey and Henry walk through the three habits that transformed their own RC performance and that they now teach to students aiming for 170+. You’ll learn how to orient yourself with the main point, recognize wrong answers immediately, and spot the key ideas that drive each passage. These are habits anyone can build with the right practice. Whether you’re rebuilding your RC foundation or fine-tuning for the next test, this episode will guide you step-by-step.

Is PT131 on the harder side compared to other PTs?

Hello, Im unfortunately experiencing above mentioned error. I reached out to LSAC directly and they advised to reach out to 7Sage as they see matching email addresses. Could you please look into this? I do not recall having another 7sage account.

is this possible or is it pure luck

I've been stuck in the low 160s for months--since August actually. I kept drilling and scored a 163 on my November exam. I took a month off before getting back on the LSAT train, and I scored this after not touching the LSAT for a month. Praise God!

For those who remain in a plateau: Keep going. It will eventually click.

Hello, I just took the November 2025 LSAT and scored a 147. This was a little confusing because I was pting in the mid 150's before I took the exam. I have decided to take the January LSAT before applying this cycle and was wondering if anyone has any tips on how to improve in the next four weeks, specifically reading comprehension. Thank you in advance!

Hi everyone — I’m hoping to get some advice about building stamina for the accommodated version of the LSAT.

I receive 50% extended time and stop-the-clock breaks, so my sections are 53 minutes each and the whole test ends up being about 4 hours. I’ve been taking full practice tests under realistic conditions, but I’m finding that my accuracy drops noticeably in the second half of the test. Even when I’m well-rested, I start to feel mentally drained after the second section, and my focus slips especially on LR and occasional RC passages.

I’ve been practicing with the same timing I’ll have on test day and taking the 10-minute breaks between sections, but I’m still struggling to maintain consistent performance across all four sections.

Has anyone found effective ways to build stamina specifically for an extended-time LSAT?

I’d love advice on:

• How to structure practice tests (e.g., whether to split sections or always do full-length)

• How to use the between-section breaks and stop-the-clock breaks strategically

• Whether to do “back-to-back section” stamina training on off days

• Any adjustments to study schedule that have helped others with 50% extra time

I’m seeing strong Blind Review scores (around 170 on my last PT), but my real-time performance drops by ~5–7 points, and I suspect stamina is a big part of it. Any tips or experiences would be super appreciated!

If you use "Show summary" for PT159, you'll see some highlights that are clearly incorrect.

That's because we haven't written the explanations yet! So please ignore those highlights until you start to see accompanying text explanations.

(Explanations should be up in about 1 week!)

I will be taking my first LSAT in January, having said that, I have not done the argumentative writing part of the LSAT (opens December 30, 2025). What would you all recommend? should I do the writing before the LSATS or can I take it after my test (2, 3 days after test).

I personally want to take it after the LSAT, but I don't know if its a good idea to take it after. Would taking it after will delay my LSAT results? I am planing to take it within 2,3 days after my LSAT (if i go this route).

I want to apply to schools, the day of the results lol. If taking it after the results would delay the results, please let me know and help me out.

I am first gen and don't know who to ask.

I’ve been struggling with the harder Logical Reasoning questions that tend to appear near the end of the section, so I want to create targeted drills to improve. My plan is to build sets of five challenging LR questions— 1 SA/NA, 1 Parallel Flaw, 1 Weaken, 1 Must Be True, and 1 Flaw question—since these are the types I often see later in the section.

Is this an effective approach? Are these question types actually more common at the end of LR sections, or is their placement essentially random?

I just scored a 177 on PT140.

I am struggling with the end of LR sections and wanted to mimic the end of an LR section in my drills with 5 difficult questions. My plan in my drills is to include 1 parallel flaw, 1 weakening, 1 MBT, 1 SA/NA, and 1 Flaw as these are the types of questions that I usually encounter at the end of an LR section. Is there a better way of going about it? Are these questions actually more common or is it just random?

I finished the 7sage Core Curriculum and read the loophole in October 31, 2025. In mid-November took a PT after and got a 156 (BR 163). My goal (even though it might sound crazy right now) is to get 170+, ideally in the mid to high 170s (aiming to take the test in April 2026). My main weakness is LR. After reviewing my incorrect answers extensively in my Wrong Answer Journal, I identified some recurring weaknesses, including 1) NA, 2) SA with conditional reasoning, 3) MBT/MSS questions and 4) parallel reasoning question types.

I work full time and study 2-4 hours a day after work and on the weekend I study 6-10 hours a day. However, I am not sure if I am using my time wisely. Could someone please give me some advice on the following:

1. When should I move on from drilling each question type? For the past week and a half, I've been doing 5 easy, 5 medium and 5 hard questions for NA (unlimited time) and then thoroughly reviewing why I got questions wrong and analyzing why each answer is incorrect/correct. My accuracy rate is about 80%-100% on the easy/medium questions but on the hardest ones it is more variable. Should I keep drilling until I get a 100% on all the hard questions? Honestly, I don't know when that is going to happen and I'm worried I will burn through all the material before I'm ready.

2. My plan is to focus on doing these 5 easy/5 medium/5 hard question drills and reviewing my wrong answers for the 4 question types mentioned above for the rest of December. After I finish that, should I a) drill all my weak question types under timed pressure, b) do a timed LR section, or c) do an entire practice test?

3. To ensure that I'm retaining the information I'm learning, should I be doing a mix of LR question type drills? (i.e. once I finish both NA and SA drills, should I do a drill with both question types together)?

4. If I am aiming for April 2026. when should I begin doing entire timed practice tests?

Thanks so much for your help!