- Official Score
- 180
Kevin has dedicated his life to helping students like you master the LSAT. With over 10 years of teaching experience, a perfect 180, and hundreds of former students at top law schools across the country, he can push you to the peak of your LSAT potential.
After graduating from U.C. Berkeley and Columbia Law School, Kevin practiced commercial litigation in New York City before serving a short stint as a federal prosecutor in Oakland, California. But for Kevin, legal practice couldn’t compare to the intellectual challenge and satisfaction of teaching the LSAT. He’s thrilled to be part of 7Sage – the best LSAT prep company in the world.
In his free time, he enjoys thinking about LSAT questions, planning out LSAT classes and explanations, and petitioning LSAC to release more new PrepTests.
Discussions
Thank you for the feedback, we're aware and addressing. These issues should be fixed on August 1. In the meantime, try resetting the chat using the 3-dot menu in the top right; this might help with the block of text issue.
@Amanda.K It's not clear how LawHub rates the difficulty of questions. Ours is based on data from hundreds of thousands of students, so I think ours is probably more reliable. They have 4 levels because they don't discriminate as much on the top end -- we have more stars to capture more distinctions in difficulty. (Some users even want more than 5 stars!)
Kevin_Lin
InstructorYou might notice some question difficulties have shifted a star or two
We updated the way we calculated difficulties. Nothing got objectively easier or harder, but you might notice that some questions shifted a star or two in difficulty from where they used to be.
***
We changed the formula underlying our difficulty calculation. We used to rate a question by how strong a student has to be to have at least a 50% chance of getting it right. Now we rate it by how strong you have to be to have at least a 75% chance of getting it right. The main effect is that questions where a high scorer isn't much likelier than a low scorer to get it right -- questions that are a bit of a coin flip for everyone -- now get rated as hard. Under the old system some of them could have been rated as easy.
We think the updated calculation results in better difficulty ratings.
@MariaT When the next line refers to "The treatment," it would be strange for it to refer to something besides what was just mentioned. Notice that it doesn't say "The treatment for this disease usually wreaks..." If it did, then you could interpret it as referring to the general course of treatment.
But the second line actually says "The treatment usually..." There, "The treatment" is a reference to something already mentioned -- the treatment described in the first sentence. If we didn't interpret it this way, then "The treatment usually wreaks havoc" would be awkward.
@Naty
Consider this:
I got 5 questions wrong.
Getting that many wrong prevents me from getting an A.
So, I won't get an A.
1 is a premise -- the author uses the combination of 1 and 2 to prove 3.
The field is used for 60 matches and concerts.
Fields that are used that much hurt the grass and don't let it recover.
So the field doesn't recover.
1 and 2 are used in connection with each other to prove 3. Imagine if 1 wasn't there. If all we know is that fields used a certain amount don't recover, that by itself isn't enough to prove that this particular field won't recover.
It looks like you're finishing the sections. Have you considered just going up to number 20 and guessing on the rest? In other words, just forgetting about trying to finish sections? Even though you can get 3-4 correct toward the end, by guessing you'd already get 1 out of the last 5, and you'd probably be able to pick up more between 1 through 20 than you'd lose by guessing on 21 through 25.
Obviously this kind of approach isn't what you ultimately hope to use later, but it's a good approach to use now. Otherwise you're going to make a lot of mistakes you could have avoided throughout the section.
@SirHarvey Is there something about the explanation that's confusing? Let me know if you have any questions about this problem.
Also, just to be clear, an explanation doesn't necessarily match up to what a high-scorer is thinking; there's a lot of stuff a high-scorer just knows instantaneously and doesn't need to use examples to illustrate. But I don't think it'd be very helpful for a written explanation to drop those things.
@Amanda.K IN order for something to be a premise, it has to be part of what the author points to when you ask them, "Why should I believe your conclusion?"
Context isn't part of that -- it's either a concession point or background information that just tells you what the argument is about.
@nuigurumi It's part of the "passage explanation" because JY's using the split approach for comparative passages.
@EllaAM It's not that best-selling + critically acclaimed can't happen together. It's that we have reason to think they might not happen together. One quality might make it harder to achieve the other.
With snowing and cold, you don't have any reason to think that these qualities might oppose each other.
This is coming from our understanding of things in the real world. You can't logically prove that "cold" and "snowing" make sense as going together and that it's unreasonable to think that more cold means less snow. But it's still something reasonable people understand and accept.
The usage limit itself isn't new -- it was just not something you saw. So some users hit their limit but had no idea they were anywhere close to it before it happened. Now we let you know about how much you've used (just like you can see in ChatGPT, Claude, etc.)
@j_w180 Thanks, we'll look into it. If you're about to take the August test I'd recommend using LawHub for now and importing your results to 7Sage.
Can you send a screenshot of this issue and the browser you're using? The orange highlight from searching shows up for me in 7Sage even over existing highlights:
@ChanningStorgard Ah, this is an interesting nuance. The issue is there's a difference between:
"X happened because of Y."
"We should not do A, because it has consequence B."
In the first, we're talking about a causal event -- one thing did in fact cause some thing else. This supports (though doesn't prove) the idea that if the cause didn't occur, the result wouldn't have occurred. Notice that it doesn't say "X happened partially because of Y." So we interpret the grammar of the statement as indicating Y is the one thing that caused X to happen.
But in the second, the "because" is being used in its "trying to convince you of something" sense. So "it has consequence B" is offered as a reason against doing A. But this doesn't mean that the speaker thinks "it has consequence B" is the only possible objection one can make to A. It's just the one premise that they happen to offer you against doing A. THey might have other reasons against doing A that they just didn't think they needed mention in the argument.
Notice that it would be different if the statement said "The reason we shouldn't do A is because it has consequence B." Here, we're told that B is "the" reason we shouldn't do A. In this case I do think this suggests that if we could somehow do A without having consequence B, then that'd be OK.
@OliverJakacki In the past (when we didn't have these Adaptive Drills), we found that lots of students wanted more random LR question practice. They complained about the lack of drills like these. (In theory they could just drill LR questions themselves outside of a study plan or lessons, just as students can skip any lesson/drill they feel like isn't helping them, but we try to make things easier for students by including drills when most would want them.)