[Delete]

I've been averaging -3 per LR section, though sometimes I do as well as -1 and other times I hit -5.

I find that I've been getting a lot faster. I'm able to finish the first 10 questions in about 8.5 minutes and I can comfortably finish the first 15 questions in 15 minutes. I'm now able to save about 5 minutes at the end of the section to review my flagged questions. I find that this isn't enough time to thoroughly review my flagged questions, and I often end up getting the flagged questions wrong.

I also find that I'm more often getting the 4-star (according to 7Sage) questions wrong than the 5-star ones, although I do miss some "curve-breaker" questions. When I do get a question wrong, it is almost always due to one of three general reasons: (1) a careless mistake that I can easily correct in Blind Review; (2) I picked the second most attractive AC; (3) I just have no idea where to even start with the question, or what the argument is saying. (3) is quite rare.

For those of you who are able to get -1 to -0 consistently:

What is your timing strategy? 25 in 25, or something even more aggressive? How much time do you save to review your flagged questions? How many questions do you skip in the first round?

Do you read all the answer choices? I find that, for many of the early questions (Q1-Q10), I can just hunt for the correct answer choice and then move on. This saves me quite a lot of time overall, because reading the other 4 answer choices to confirm that they are indeed incorrect can take me anywhere from 10 seconds to 30 seconds per question.

Most of the time I don't make any mistakes in these early questions, but from time to time I'll get 1-2 questions wrong in Q1-Q10 mostly due to carelessness. In your opinion, is it ever worth examining the other answer choices in the early questions? Should I at least skim each of the other answer choices, even if I don't linger on them? What level of certainty do you aim for before moving on from a question? At what point in the section do you start paying more attention to each of the answer choices, giving each one a closer look?

What is your advice for getting from where I am now to -0 to -1 consistently? How do I get more consistent? Are there any strategies you would recommend? Should I push my speed even more for the early questions?

J.Y. often says that no one can realistically aim for -0 in a LR section consistently, because it's just really hard to do and heavily dependent on luck. Has this been true in your experience?

Thank you all!

Long time user of 7Sage here. I've studied for the LSAT for a while now and I scored a 170 on test day and I'm planning to retaking for a high 170s score. My PTs have ranged from 169-178, but I am still quite inconsistent within this range.

I've been considering going through the Core Curriculum. I've watched a few videos before but have never actually sat down to go through the whole thing. I'm now considering going through the CC because I have decided to apply not this upcoming cycle, but the following one, and so I do have more time to study. I'd like to improve in all 3 sections but my current weaknesses are:

Formal Logic (not including conditional logic, but just operating the Most/Some statements and those questions).

Weird games (pattern games, mapping games, circular games in PowerScore language. Think Employee Workpiece game or Virus game).

Rule substitution questions.

Science passages in RC.

Curve-breaker RC/LR questions.

Consistency in all 3 sections (to go from -2 to -3 to -0 to -1 consistency.

I'd say that I'm strong at LG (able to go -0 to -3) but I'm also seeking more consistency. Would you say that the LG portion of the Core Curriculum is worth going through if one has already done all the games there and even watched most the explanation videos for those particular games? Is there anything different between the explanations for LG within the CC vs. the explanation videos for the games taught in the CC (found under Problem Sets > Explanation Videos)? I've heard rave reviews about the LG portion of the CC specifically from quite a few people, so I'm wondering if it's worth going through or whether it's more for someone who's still making a ton of mistakes?

I don't think it's really necessary for me to go through the CC, but I do think that it might help solidify my knowledge and cover any remaining weaknesses I have.

How long did it take you to go through the entire CC (not counting doing the actual PTs included in there)?

I was thinking that I would skip some of the LR/RC Problem Sets because I've developed my own system of allocation for the PTs and I don't have that many fresh PTs left, so I want to be careful not to use up any fresh PTs/sections. How long would just watching the video lessons take (not including the problem sets)?

I would also love any advice about how you went about going through the CC/what to skip/what's important. Did you take a lot of notes? Did any of you high scorers (170+) do something similar where, for a retake, you went back to the fundamentals? Did it pay off to do so?

Long time user of 7Sage here. I've studied for the LSAT for a while now and I scored a 170 on test day and I'm planning to retaking for a high 170s score. My PTs have ranged from 169-178, but I am still quite inconsistent within this range.

I've been considering going through the Core Curriculum. I've watched a few videos before but have never actually sat down to go through the whole thing. I'm now considering going through the CC because I have decided to apply not this upcoming cycle, but the following one, and so I do have more time to study. I'd like to improve in all 3 sections but my current weaknesses are:

Formal Logic (not including conditional logic, but just operating the Most/Some statements and those questions).

Weird games (pattern games, mapping games, circular games in PowerScore language. Think Employee Workpiece game or Virus game).

Rule substitution questions.

Science passages in RC.

Curve-breaker RC/LR questions.

Consistency in all 3 sections (to go from -2 to -3 to -0 to -1 consistency.

I'd say that I'm strong at LG (able to go -0 to -3) but I'm also seeking more consistency. Would you say that the LG portion of the Core Curriculum is worth going through if one has already done all the games there and even watched most the explanation videos for those particular games? Is there anything different between the explanations for LG within the CC vs. the explanation videos for the games taught in the CC (found under Problem Sets > Explanation Videos)? I've heard rave reviews about the LG portion of the CC specifically from quite a few people, so I'm wondering if it's worth going through or whether it's more for someone who's still making a ton of mistakes?

I don't think it's really necessary for me to go through the CC, but I do think that it might help solidify my knowledge and cover any remaining weaknesses I have.

How long did it take you to go through the entire CC (not counting doing the actual PTs included in there)?

I was thinking that I would skip some of the LR/RC Problem Sets because I've developed my own system of allocation for the PTs and I don't have that many fresh PTs left, so I want to be careful not to use up any fresh PTs/sections. How long would just watching the video lessons take (not including the problem sets)?

I would also love any advice about how you went about going through the CC/what to skip/what's important. Did you take a lot of notes? Did any of you high scorers (170+) do something similar where, for a retake, you went back to the fundamentals? Did it pay off to do so?

[Delete]

This is very specific, but I've noticed a pattern in my LR performance where I tend to get questions that involve the following two topics/construction wrong, or at least I find them more challenging:

(1) Questions that have to do with studies, usually in the social sciences and sometimes the biological sciences. For example, an experiment having to do with the learning patterns of babies in different settings, or some study having to do with some substance and its effect on cholesterol. This usually comes in the form of Weaken/Strengthen questions.

(2) Questions that describe the behaviour of some kind of animal, like some bird and its habitat or some predator vs. its prey. This usually comes in the form of Resolve the Paradox/Reconcile & Explain questions.

I don't remember specific questions, but I'm sure those of us who have done enough LR have all seen questions like these.

Does anyone have very specific topical weaknesses like these? I'm not quite sure how to get better at LR questions with these topics. I don't think it's an issue of the question type, but the topic.

Does anyone know any good outside material for a layman to get better at these topics? For example, I know J.Y. talks a lot about control groups/how to run an experiment but I seem to have knowledge missing in this area. I'm not necessarily looking for specific materials, which would be good too, but I'd really like some advice as to what to look up/Google to study some background knowledge for these topics.

Thanks!

I've been PTing in the 170-178 range, with quite a bit of fluctuation in this range. I scored a 170 on the actual exam and I'm aiming for a score in the high-170s.

Given my personal schedule/commitments, I'll basically have to take 4 months away from studying for the test. During this time, I really won't be able to study with the exemption of possibly one day per week. I will have time to study after these 4 months, though. I'm not in a huge rush to retake the test.

I think I know the fundamentals very well, with the exemption of some topics: I'm not 100% solid on Formal Logic yet and I haven't really spent a lot of time working on the rare game types, namely pattern games, mapping games, circular games (according to the PowerScore classification).

I'm not quite perfect on any of the sections yet, but I have gotten in the -0 to -3 range for each. I probably need more work on all three sections.

After about 4 months away from the test, I might need some refreshing of the fundamentals. I'm not sure exactly how much I'll have forgotten. But I'm sure I can get the knowledge/speed/fluency back quite quickly even after 4 months away from the test. I've been on 7Sage for a while now, but I've just never used the Core Curriculum. I've mostly just watched the explanation videos by J.Y.

Is it worth going through the entire Core Curriculum? How long does it take to do so? And will someone scoring in the 170s already find value in doing so?

Also curious about those of you who have gone through Mike Kim's LSAT Trainer. I've already read the PowerScore LG and LR books and the Manhattan RC book. I've watched a lot of J.Y.'s explanations for all three sections. I bought the Trainer a long time before I actually started studying but I've barely touched it. I've heard good things about it. But I'm just wondering whether this is just far too basic for someone already in the 170s.

Thank you all!

I've tried to use the Advanced Search function for the forums. In the Advanced Search page, I want to sort by date. To do so, I've tried to use the "newer than" function, but that doesn't seem to produce any search results. It's the same no matter what search term I use.

For example, if I search "games" and change the "newer than" to "this month", I get no results. Same if I do "this year." And there have obviously been posts containing "games" over the past month and year. Any idea how to fix this?

[Delete]

Deleted

I'm planning on taking the April test. Given that I am not yet PTing at where I'd like to score, I'm also considering waiting another year before applying to law school. In this case, I will have multiple opportunities after the April test to retake. So far, I've only taken the test officially once. I know that many people take this test multiple times and that some people take it up to 5, 6, even 7 times. I'd like to save as many fresh PTs as I can for potential retakes, but obviously still continue working towards this upcoming April test.

I've done about 25-30 full PTs, and I have the following 20 PTs that are still fresh and untouched:

A, B, C, D, 80, 82, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, May 20, 37, 39, 42, 43, 49, 64, C2

I have about 5 weeks until the April test, and I am usually able to fully review 1 PT per week. So far, I've generally only taken 1 PT per week, at most 2 on some weeks. Given that there is a possibility that I will retake the test at least once more after April, how many PTs would you recommend that I do in these final 5 weeks? 1 each week? 2 each week? I do still have a backlog of some LR and RC sections that I've taken but have not reviewed yet, so I can spend some time reviewing those, too.

I haven't touched most of the 80s, although I did do 81 and 83 and did equally well on those as I did on the other PTs. I didn't find them to be too different from PTs in the 60s and 70s, really. How many of the 80s would you save up for potential retakes? How many PTs in general should I save for potential retakes? Which ones? Should I do the early ones now, like A, B, C, D, 37, 39, 42...?

I should note that LG is my weakest section and that I know that A, B, C, and D, and some in the late-80s have really tough LG.

[Deleted Post]

I've listened to J.Y.'s excellent podcasts with high-scoring 7Sagers. I've been amazed by the amount of dedication all of these 7Sagers interviewed have shown, and I greatly admire the fact that some of them studied for this test over a period of 1-2 years or more. I think the perseverance all these people have shown is incredible.

In Episode 1, Josh (Can't Get Right) improved from a 152 diagnostic to a 176, taking the test 4 times with his scores being 163, 162, 170, and 176. This process took 2 years and some months.

In Episode 38, Sami went from a 152 to a 173, taking the test 7 times. Sami studied over a period of 3 years.

In Episode 39, Rochisha improved from a 164 to a 174, also taking the test 4 times. Rochisha studied for 2 years.

I myself have been at this test for quite some time now. In total, I have studied for this test for over a year now. I scored a 169 and I'm aiming for a score in the mid-170s to high-170s. I've been BR-ing consistently in the low-170s and mid-170s. LG is still my weakest section, though I have work to do in all 3 sections.

Given that I am not a North American test taker, there are fewer tests available to me and more time between each test. I wasn't fully focusing on the test the whole time. Some weeks I've gotten to study 30-something hours, most weeks at least 15-20 hours, and some other weeks no studying at all.

I was planning on applying this year, but I am considering waiting another year to apply while I continue to work and try to retake my test for a higher score. Given my personal timeline, if I were to retake the test, I would have to wait to apply in the fall of 2022 instead. My plan would just be to study part-time while I work since I'm already at a very high level in terms of my knowledge.

I love studying for this test and I have learned so much. I feel like I continue to learn a lot from it every single day. Just in terms of enjoyment and growth, I wouldn't mind spending even more time on this test. I'm very proud of the work I've put in and where I've scored, but I definitely feel like I could do even better and hit my target. For me, it feels like it's just execution that's missing, that I need to work on.

But another part of me also wonders if this is too much time to spend on a test. I wonder if I've been too focused on this one thing for too long now, and whether it would be a good idea to just apply to law school now and see where I get in, even though my current score-GPA combination is likely not good enough for my top choice schools.

For those of you who have studied for a longer period of time (i.e., at least 1 year, if not more), perhaps retaking the test a few times, how long have you studied for? How long do you plan on studying for? What were your reasons for studying for such a long time? Do you find this investment of time and energy worthwhile?

If you studied for the test for more than a year, how did you maintain a healthy relationship with this test? As J.Y. said in one podcast, a lot of high-scorers are very meticulous and even obsessive about this test. I find that I am like this too. But I also know that a healthy balance is important. How did you deal with the mental part of it all? How do you get back up after not getting the score you wanted 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6... times?

I also know that, from an outside perspective, it can seem extreme to friends and family who do not have a great understanding of this test and the law school admissions process that someone is studying for a standardised test for such a long time. It might seem quite over the top to them, especially if they don't understand the difference that just a few points on this test can make. How did you explain your time commitment to friends and family? How did you manage this part of the equation?

Can Could Be True answer choices actually be "Must Be True"?

I just did PT47, Section 4, Game 3. Question 14 in this game has a Could Be True question stem but the answer choice actually has to be true.

Logically speaking, if something must be true, then it could be true. So the logic goes: MBT –> CBT, and not the other way around. Just because an answer choice could be true does not necessarily mean that it has to be true. For example, suppose A and B could go into slot 1. “A goes into slot 1” is then a Could Be True answer choice, but it doesn’t have to be true, because B could also go into slot 1.

But if we suppose that only A could go into slot 1, then “A goes into slot 1” is then a Must Be True answer choice, and it could also be true.

Can someone tell me if this understanding is correct?

I don't recall ever seeing a Could Be True question where the correct answer choice actually must be true. Does anyone know if this is something that happens in other, more recent games? Or is this a phenomenon that we see only rarely and with the older games, like this one?

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-47-section-4-game-3/

It seems that one's chances are lower as a non-citizen international student. Part of this might be because law schools worry that non-citizens need sponsorship to work after graduation. Does anyone have experience applying as a lawful permanent resident/green card holder (who is eligible for citizenship in a few years)?

I assume this status eliminates the concern that one might not be able to get a job in the U.S. after graduation/clerk. Can anyone speak to whether LPR/green card holders are treated the same as US citizens in the eyes of the top law schools?

I took the LSAT once already and scored (what I estimate to be) -3 in LG. I am currently getting anywhere between -1 and -5 on the LG section when I take PTs. I'm registered for the April test, and I'd like to be able to get my LG performance down to -0 consistently as soon as possible.

Prior to that I've already spent a lot of time studying games. In fact, I think I may have actually done too much such that the practice was not actually helpful. Basically, at one point, for a period of 1-2 months, I did about 16 games every day (on top of studying hours for the other parts of the test). Given how much work that is, in retrospect I think I ended up just rushing through the drilling. Drilling like that was initially helpful because I was simply exposed to a lot of games, over and over again. But I also realise now that, besides memorising some inferences, I don't think I learned very much from each game during that time. I wasn't optimising my approach each time I did a game––I was simply repeating the steps that I had already memorised.

In addition, because I did so many games, after a while I felt completely burned out when it came to the LG section. About two weeks before the test, I just could not stomach drilling any more games, and I ended up just not touching LG for two weeks.

So, for those of you who manage to get -0 consistently on LG, how many games, on average, would you drill on a single day? I'd like to reach -0 as soon as I can because that will get me firmly into the 170s, and so my focus now is on LG (while still working on LR and RC, of course). How many games should I aim to drill each day to be able to achieve my goal of -0 soon?

I believe I've got my fundamentals down. I've seen a really large number of games now, and I can comfortably get to -0 on BR. My diagramming is almost always efficient. Where I am weak is really in execution, namely, the decisions that I make within a game/section (e.g., when to split the game board; how to make smart inferences upfront; how much time to allocate to each game). I also need to get better at doing the weird games (e.g., pattern games, mapping games, circular games).

Should I focus on slowly down with each game when I am drilling? Should I go back to the LG core curriculum? I'd appreciate any advice!

I've taken the LSAT once so far and scored (what I estimate to be) a -3. On PTs, I generally get anywhere from -1 to -5, with an average of -4 in a normal section. There is a lot of fluctuation is my LG performance, depending on the section.

I've been doing games for a long time now. I started with the PowerScore LG bible and went through that twice. Since then, I've FoolProofed a bunch of games and also drilled most of the early games (PT1-20) by game type.

I don't feel particularly weak with any of the most common games (sequencing, grouping). If I just sit through a section in BR, I can almost always get to -0 on my own. Here are my weaknesses right now:

Execution: I find that during the timed section, I sometimes let my nerves get the best of me. When I'm just reviewing, I feel like I can calmly work through a section, but during the timed run, my form just goes out the window sometimes.

Making inferences: This has to do with nerves as well. I find that I tend to rush into the questions because of a lack of confidence with making inferences up front (i.e., before starting the question).

Timing: On my actual administration, I didn't have enough time for 2 of the questions, so I had to guess them. That's how I know I lost at least two points in LG. I sometimes lose time on the easier games in a section. On some sections that are quite hard to me, I sometimes manage my time so poorly that I cannot comfortably finish all 4 games.

Weird games: I struggle with what PowerScore calls pattern games, mapping games, and, to a lesser extent (because they are so rare) circular games. I froze when I came across the Employee's Workpiece game in PT72, and I tend to have a lot of difficulty with games that have bizarre setups. And this is despite having worked through the weird games in the early PTs.

I've watched a handful of the videos in the LG section of the Core Curriculum, and I've worked through a few question sets. I've done every game in there already, and I've probably seen the explanation videos for many of the games. Is there anything special about the LG Core Curriculum that I won't get just by drilling games and watching the explanation videos for each game? Does J.Y. add anything extra in the LG Core Curriculum?

How can I best spend my time if I want to get from where I am to -0 consistently? I am scheduled for the April test, so I still have more than two months, and I feel like I definitely have plenty of time to get to -0 consistently before then, since I'm so close!

Should I just drill games, watch the explanation videos, and then FoolProof?

Were any of you stuck at the -3/-4 range before getting to -0 consistently?

I've heard many people who have gotten to -0 consistently on the games sections swear by the LG Core Curriculum, but I wonder if it would be a good investment of time for me, given my situation.

I would also appreciate any advice from you all about how I can get from where I am now to -0 consistently. I know that if I can get to -0 consistently, I will be able to score in the 170s consistently. I'd also love any advice about addressing my weaknesses mentioned above.