Listen and subscribe:

Apple Podcasts | Spotify

Bailey and Henry dive into what it means to “study like a tutor” and why adopting that perspective can make your prep more focused and consistent. They explain how tutors analyze mistakes, evaluate reasoning, and break down patterns, and they show you how to bring those same habits into your own LSAT work.

seems like a bunch of stuff that doesnt apply to 80 percent of the problems. when does it start getting useful. i feel like im wasting alot of hours on it

To those who have mastered conditional lawgic,

I am wondering what study methods you used to master this. Drilling questions is one thing, but what other methods did you use? Is there a quizlet out there that has all the indicators, translation rules, etc. that I can use? please let me know!

I just scored a 163 on PT139.

Just for some background, I decided to study for the LSAT about a month ago and I have just one chance to take it in January if I want to begin in the fall. I work full time and study when I can, but my job can be very demanding at times. I've taken a practice test every weekend for the past 4 weeks and have scored 164 3 times in a row, and a 163 just yesterday. My blind review is consistently high and I found it's because most of the questions I get wrong are the ones where I'm left between two options.

How can I improve to at least 170 before January 5th? The recorded lessons are great and all, but I've been having some difficulty learning the "lawgic" so I've just been doing all the questions in my head. Is there a better way to study? I feel like the tutoring sessions helped just a bit, but I'm not seeing any improvement.

Any advice would be greatly appreciated!

I am trying to figure out if this is a personal problem or if others agree with me. In the recorded lessons, when the stimulus is being read it is drawn out and everything is shortened. but when I try it on my own, while I'm reading it completely disrupts my reading process. I catch myself forgetting where I am at and instead focusing on abbreviations instead of what I am actually reading. so is this just a me problem? and does anyone have suggestions on how to fix this problem?

Not sure if this change happened to everyone, but the new format where the test window doesn't take up the entirety of the screen kinda sucks. Before it used to offer a lot more space, which was helpful for scanning the prompts and answers quicker. Anyone know how to change this back or is this a permanent update?

Hi all,

I am really frustrated with my results recently. I started off at 122 (I know it's a bad score) but I've been studying for the past few months and I'm only reached at 135. I'm trying to write the LSAT in February.

Do you think it's possible to get 160 in 2 months? I try to study at least 3 hours a day consistently and I do see improvement.

Does anyone else have other tips? Maybe different resources? I really want to get my score to 160 because most Canadian schools need 160.

I just scored a 162 on PT154.

I just scored a 165 on PT127.

Any feedback would be helpful. As background I took my diagnostic at 158 (in Aug) this is my second full pt. Got some stupid ones wrong on second section by reading the question / 1-2 answer choices wrong.

Hi guys, I am just starting out I finished the argument section under foundation but I need to know when I should start to do actual practice tests... Because I am only learning but not experiencing it. Any tips would be great.

Firstly, I am proud of my blind review score; I have never recieved a BR score as low as this before (as a 148 scorer). I actually understand the content and my drills now!...but timing always holds me back! I know I can do this and I have potential, but I'm always rushing in LR, and I am panic answering questions by the end of RC. I literally don't know how to pace myself effectively, I've tried dividing time, flagging questions, pacing myself etc. The main issue with LR especially is that i KNOW how to figure out the answer, I just quite literally don't have the time to map out the whole question to answer a CondR question. I don't know what to do! Please give tips. I want to reach around the 160s.

I just scored a 171 on PT127.

I just scored a 162 on PT147. I want to improve my score to be at least 168-170.

I've started a new video series where I dive into student PrepTest results and offer some high-level strategic advice. I did the first one with Kevin and had a lot of fun with it.

I'd love to do more of these, so please share your PT results!

I just scored a 151 on PT126. Aiming for a 170 by January - any advice? :)

My drill screen has just shrunk 50% smaller and it's difficult to read. Can we fix this back to full screen? Thanks

I have been doing 2 sections a day (1 LR 1 RC) in preparation for the Jan LSAT. Just this morning when I went to do my sections the whole layout had changed. The questions and stimulus is in a small box in the middle of my screen leaving much open space. Also all the text is super condensed. It threw me off ngl. Is this how the LSAT will frfr look on test day. I plan to take it in a testing center.

I just scored a 162 on PT146.

I have the experimental section excluded. I can’t seem to break out of the low 160s. I keep scoring 160/161/162. Scored 160 on the official test 3 times... Any advice? I am taking the January LSAT

Philosopher: You’re an idiot. Even if we care about nature, banning fossil fuels would lead to massive deforestation as manufacturers turn to biofuels as a substitute. So we shouldn’t listen to your smooth-brained policy proposal.

Environmentalist: Ad hominem! Ad hominem! And you call yourself a philosopher.

Philosopher: No. I didn’t commit the ad hominem fallacy.

Environmentalist: But you insulted me and said I was wrong.

Philosopher: No, no, my illogical friend. There’s nuance to this. We commit the ad hominem fallacy when we attack the source of a claim as support for why that claim is wrong.

For example -

You smell like a cesspit. So, we shouldn’t listen to you when you tell us to use eco-friendly soap.

Here, I’m citing to your stench as a reason to reject your recommendation. But the idea that we should use eco-friendly soap should be evaluated on its own merit. What are the pros and cons of eco-friendly soap? That’s what we should consider, not your distasteful body odor. That’s why this argument commits an ad hominem fallacy.

However, consider my original statements.

You’re an idiot. Even if we care about nature, banning fossil fuels would lead to massive deforestation as manufacturers turn to biofuels as a substitute. So we shouldn’t listen to your smooth-brained policy proposal.

Notice that even though I am calling you an idiot, and even though I label your proposal as smooth-brained, I’m not saying that we shouldn’t listen to you because you’re a smooth-brained idiot. I rely instead on the effects of banning fossil fuels to support my conclusion. My comments on your lack of intelligence are simply fun add-ons that don’t play a logical role in my argument. So I’m not committing the ad hominem fallacy.

Environmentalist: Interesting. I think I get it.

Philosopher: Let me give you another example.

Environmentalist: Thanks, but I’m pretty sure I und–

Philosopher: You’re a stinky, mouth-breathing dunce. Ad hominem?

Environmentalist: …Yes?

Philosopher: Ha! Trick question – it wasn’t even an argument. So calling the claim logically flawed wouldn’t even make sense.

Environmentalist: I see. Well, I have to get–

Philosopher: If I had said, for example, that we shouldn’t listen to you because you’re a stinky, mouth-breathing loser and nobody likes you, then that would have been an ad hominem fallacy.

Environmentalist: Thanks, I got it.

Philosopher: You’re welcome, you foul-smelling fool. Not ad hominem!

Feeling like I've got a long road ahead to score 175 in January. Any tips? Feeling like parallel reasoning is dragging eme down most. Formal logic is occasionally a trip up, but not often.

I just scored a 175 on PT126.

I've been averaging a ten-plus point difference on the actual test versus my blind review, and I don't know what I'm doing wrong.

I know correlation does not imply causation, but out of curiosity, does cause imply correlation? and is this something that would ever be encountered on the lsat?

So a month ago I broke 170 on a PT for the first time, 174 on 140. The following week a 173 on PT 150. I was like damn I finally broke the 160s plateau. Lo and behold I got a 168 on PT153, which isn't horrific, given its only around 3ish questions worse compared to my 173 performance, if not for the fact that I got -8 on one of the RC sections, which thankfully was experimental. I'd like to be more realistic about things and just realise that this is all just part of performance variance, but honestly the way reading comprehension drills have been bending me over is just making me question whether those were fluke performances. idk im trying everything ive been told, 4 minutes on the passage, the split approach, highlighting key words, i just find a way to fumble questions. Im redoing old passages from before to avoid running out of passages and still getting stuff wrong. What am i missing? And are drills supposed to be this tough? Also i'm considering getting a tutor because i'm at a bit of a loss, does anyone else have experience with this?

For those who are working full-time and trying to study for the LSATs, how are you managing it? How are you scheduling yourself. I have tried to study for the LSAT for about three years and have never been discipline enough to manage both. I would study at work but never at home or during the weekends.

Granted I have not done enough practice exams to see where I am at. I just want something more than what I currently have in live and would love to be a lawyer. But finding sometimes finding the motivation is hard for me. I am trying to find ways to improve my mental health so I can manage both

Any tips would be appreciated