I went from a 153 to a 173. Feel free to reach out!
Discussions
Hi everyone!
My name is Isak – I improved from a 153 diagnostic to a 173 on the official April 2026 test.
I currently offer tutoring at a base rate of $40/hour. Discounts are available with packages – or if you have a fee waiver. I also offer a free initial consultation. Drop me a DM!
We could be a good fit if:
- You’re not sure where to attack certain LR arguments;
- Your accuracy holds up untimed and drops with the clock on;
- RC is your weakest section and you’re not sure how to approach it;
- English is your second language.
This test is built to confuse you, and each section does it differently. LR packs everyday logic into structures meant to obscure it. On RC, the issue isn't reading ability – it's reading for content instead of structure. RC was my own biggest gain, from -15 on my first PT to -1/-2 by the end.
My approach:
- Stripping an LR argument to its attackable logic before you touch the choices;
- Reading RC for structure, so the questions become lookups against a map you already built;
- Learning at the right level: targeted drill sets, challenging but never more than you can take on at once.
About me:
I’m a foreign lawyer – I already have an LLB in English law, and an LLM in international trade law, both awarded with top honors. Besides tutoring I am an international law researcher and have published several works in journals. English is my second language after Norwegian, and I also speak Russian.
All the best,
Isak
@MichaelWright I don't understand why The Economist is a go-to answer for this. The Economist is famous for their clear prose, with use of active voice, simple language, avoidance of metaphors and so forth. That's why The Economist is a great example of how lawyers should write (and is often recommended for that purpose). The same cannot be said for the prose often seen in RC passages, which is probably closer to how lawyers actually write (not great).
@NataliePeguero sent you a message!