•

18 hours ago

JasmineS

154 -> 161 IN TWO MONTHS!!!!

I am writing this in an attempt to help someone studying/taking the LSAT. Scored 154 in November, started lightly studying again in December and took the January LSAT and scored 149. Stopped studying. In April, I decided to take the June LSAT, leaving two months to study. Scored a 161. Some advice:

Beginning Stages

Don't spend large amounts of money on test preparation courses. I bought a course and made the mistake of extending it. To get the foundations of the LSAT, go to LawHub, review the Lessons, take notes. The issue with test preparation courses is that they can be generic and categorize certain concepts differently than LSAC.
Taking 3-4 months to build a foundation is a good start.
Take the Drill Sets and Additional Practice offered in LawHub (some offer explanations).

Practice

Keep an error log. Originally, this looked like an Excel spreadsheet where I broke down which question types I was getting wrong. I reviewed which were the most common question types I was missing and then put them in a Drill Set in 7sage. Difficulty level was Medium, Harder. I needed to be uncomfortable by being consistently wrong and would reference my notes to expand on areas that needed to improve.
Error log transitioned from an Excel spreadsheet to a doc. Would screenshot the passage and answer choices and write out why I chose the answer that I chose, what part of the passage was missed, and impressions of the other answer choices. The error log was organized based on question type.

Help

LSATHacks (free resource that gives additional explanations): https://lsathacks.com/explanations/

If you are having difficulty with the LSAT, that is a good thing, it means you are learning in some capacity. Some approaches to questions will not be automatic, keep an open mind and sometimes resist your natural inclination towards a specific answer type. Practice whenever you can, I cannot emphasize this enough. Good luck on your process.

PrepTests ·

PT110.S3.Q24

JasmineS

Edited Sunday, May 24

@HaleyJ . E basically states:

Captive and wild opossums are both horrible at defending themselves against foxes. So, it doesn't really matter if the opossums were held captive or in the wild, they would still be horrible at defending themselves against foxes.

Why this works? The conclusion says 75% of the captive opossums were killed by foxes with the reason being that they had not developed natural defenses. Considering answer choice E, it shows there is less likelihood that the captive opossums would have developed natural defenses even if they were in the wild. E reinforces the statistic.

The mentioning of scarcity of food is almost irrelevant (just shows another alternative that was not conclusive). Look for an answer choice that reinforces the conclusion that captive opossums are horrible at defending themselves against foxes and you get E.

PrepTests ·

PT150.S3.Q12

JasmineS

Sunday, May 24

@Cathyyyy To an extent. The stimulus does say some people are infected with the new strain. This could literally just be one additional person from last year.

PrepTests ·

PT132.S2.Q17

JasmineS

Edited Saturday, May 23

Have in my notes: When evaluating sufficient assumption answer choices, the conclusion will be on the necessary side (right-side).

If A is evaluated, only if (necessary assumption term) happiness is unobtainable (is not obtainable). This gets the the conclusion on the right side/necessary side.

if no health -> then money acquired

if no health -> then happiness not obtainable

need to connect money and happiness

if money acquired -> then happiness not obtainable (same as A)

PrepTests ·

PT110.S3.Q24

JasmineS

Friday, May 8

Am I missing something? The Conservationists' argument in the stimulus is the "ringtail opossum population was endangered by a non-native predator species against which the opossum had not developed natural defenses."

Answer Choice E basically claims that, no, developing natural defenses doesn't matter because not even adult ringtail opossums defend themselves any better. How does this strengthen the original claim that they are endangered due to lack of natural defense development?

If anything, E seems to contradict the original statement.

PrepTests ·

PT133.S3.Q11

JasmineS

Sunday, Jan 4

Necessary Assumption Question (requires)

Conclusion (verbatim): People who rely on the web when attempting to diagnose their medical conditions are likely to do themselves more harm than good.

Reliance on web (quackery) for medical diagnosis -> more harm than good

B. (not scientifically valid information) -> more harm than good

this (not scientifically valid information) could also means its alternative: aka quackery

Denial Test

(not scientifically valid information) -> (not) more harm than good

Argument is destroyed with this. Leaves open the possibility that not scientifically valid information, like quackery, does not lead to more harm than good. So, quackery could actually be good.

E. more harm than good -> rely on quackery (has the necessary backwards)

PrepTests ·

PT143.S3.Q25

JasmineS

Thursday, Jan 1

I strongly considered A for the following reasons:

Conclusion: It is impossible to be sure that the recent decline in those amphibian populations is due to industrial pollution.

(Interpretation: It is not possible to be certain that the recent decline in those amphibian populations is caused by industrial pollution)

Premise 1: (Population of certain species of amphibians has declined), an effect many scientists attribute to industrial pollution.

Premise 2: Most amphibian species' populations vary greatly from year to year because of natural variations in the weather.

Question (Necessary Assumption)

Factors to consider when addressing necessary assumption questions:

Correct answer must be true for the for the argument to be valid
Can ensure a correct answer via the Denial Test
1. If you deny the answer choice and its denial destroys the argument, that's the correct answer
The author needs the correct answer to be true for the argument to work but it does not guarantee the conclusion

A. The amphibian species whose population declines have been attributed to industrial pollution are known to be part of the group of species whose populations vary greatly as a result of changing weather.

This furthers the argument's position that it is impossible to be sure that the recent decline in those amphibian populations is due to industrial pollution because this answer choice is stating that the group in question also belongs to a group of species whose population does vary based on changing weather. This supports the idea that the cause of population decline cannot be certain.

If this answer choice was negated:

A. The amphibian species whose population declines have been attributed to industrial pollution are not known to be part of the group of species whose populations vary greatly as a result of changing weather.

This provides more certainty to an industrial pollution claim because the natural variation claim is not applicable. However, the author is arguing for industrial pollution uncertainty.

PrepTests ·

PT127.S2.Q19

JasmineS

Edited Saturday, Dec 20, 2025

Is it possible to make the contrapositive of:

[some]

art <-> physics -> no lit

as:

[none]

lit -> no physics <-> no art

that would make B feasible...

PrepTests ·

PT127.S1.Q2

JasmineS

Edited Wednesday, Dec 17, 2025

First Sentence: Capitalism creating weaker ties is no longer true, as it applies to modern capitalism.

Second Sentence: It is no longer true because of large corporations.

Third Sentence: Conclusion: Therefore, modern capitalism promotes communal ties.

How did we jump from large corporations to promotion of communal ties? Look for the answer choice that makes that connection stating large corporations promote communal ties (connects the evidence to the conclusion).

The other answer choices provide unnecessary, irrelevant information that just adds information.

Admissions profile

Discussions

154 -> 161 IN TWO MONTHS!!!!

Confirm action