I would review your PT and analytics to see if any question types came up as priorities for you. For example, did you notice that you did noticeably worse on weaken questions? If so, would be confident explaining what the question is asking and where you went wrong? If not, I would do a quick review on these areas. You have quite a bit of time if you'll be taking the LSAT next year, so it's worth getting the foundations solidly in place now. If you don't have a defined approach for each question type, focus first on making sure that you have that in place.

Once you've done that, you can get started with drilling! If you haven't yet, consider generating a custom study plan using our tool under the "Study" tab. You can customize this to your time constraints, and it'll take your analytics into account. The more you drill on the platform, the more accurate they'll become.

The first thing I would recommend is to review the causal reasoning section of the core curriculum, under the foundations. What phenomenon-hypothesis questions are fundamentally about is identifying an event, and coming up with an explanation for why it's occurring. A potential explanation is a hypothesis i.e. it may or may not be the case. This will center on causal logic, as something which could be causing the phenomenon.

When looking at PH questions, make sure that you can clearly identify what the phenomenon is, and what the hypothesis is, and be able to describe this to yourself before proceeding to the answers. If you're noticing that you struggle to do this, it could be a stimulus understanding issue. Also note if you find certain question types with the PH tag harder than others (you can click on the specific PH questions you got wrong in your analytics to note this.)

I would also do drills exclusively with this tag, which you can generate with the drill builder. Begin with the level that you find difficult, and as you work through and review try to identify the similarities between the questions. Then, when you do an LR section, try to consciously identify which questions are PH. Note if when you review, you weren't always able to do so correctly.

To echo the other comments, there's no real advantage to taking it in August if you're not feeling fully ready. The only reason I would do this is if you're hitting your goal score and want to give yourself another shot. There are also plenty of other application parts to work on as well in the meantime.

I think a drill that could be helpful for you is a "Last 10 in 10 minutes." The initial goal with this drill isn't necessarily to get every single question right, but to practice moving through difficult questions under timed pressure. This both trains you to stay calm, and to focus in on the important details more quickly. It also helps with testing fatigue. Doing these regularly could improve your accuracy towards the end, and you can start off with 15 minutes and work your way down if 10 minutes feels too hard to begin with.

I'm noticing that you got more wrong on the earlier sections however, which suggests that it's not simply a fatigue issue. You could consider doing some tricky questions as a warm-up before, so that by the time you get to them on your PT it doesn't feel totally new.

I would also consider collating all the questions you're getting wrong on your PT and redoing them in a drill in a week or so. You may remember the answers to some, but likely not all. If you later get them right, this shows that it's more of a timing issue, but if you still get some wrong this could indicate that you need to take a different approach to certain questions.

Lastly, make sure that you're keeping a thorough Wrong Answer Journal and really digging into your thought process for the questions you get incorrect.

You're in a great place, and well-positioned to get that 175+, so keep going and good luck with studying!

That's an excellent first PT score! Well done! You'll definitely get better at the RC once you've done the lessons - my preliminary advice is to focus on dissecting the structure of the passages and the big picture takeaways, rather than trying to capture every detail. Also, try to prephrase on the questions as much as you can. This will help you to eliminate ACs more quickly and is a good way of testing your understanding of the passage.

@suhyahn The split approach is where you read passage A first, answer all the questions you can just based off of passage A, then go back and read passage B and finish answering all of the questions. The advantage of this approach is that you can avoid getting mixed up between the two passages. You can read more about it here: https://7sage.com/lessons/reading-comprehension/comparative-passages/the-split-approach.

I would always prioritize quality over quantity, and especially at this score level gaining insight into your thought process and potentially unhelpful patterns could be what's necessary to improve by a few points. However, if you're already clear on what your weaknesses are, you can focus on more targeted drills. I would only focus on doing more drills if you feel like one of your challenges is stamina, so you do noticeably worse on multiple questions in a row later in a section or do generally worse on later sections. Here, the goal is reducing fatigue and test-taking strategy.

So shorter time blocks will likely be more conducive to your goal, but there's also no reason not to mix and match your time blocks if you think that improving stamina would make a difference to your score.

I would track how well you perform at a given difficulty level and then adjust based on that. So, if you're getting 100% of 2 star weaken questions right, move up to 3 star. I would say that if you're getting 50-70% correct, this is a good level to practice at until you notice improvement.

The first thing is take a close look at your analytics to see what specifically you're struggling with on RC. For example, is there a certain passage or question type? Do you lose more points on the later passages, which could indicate a fatigue issue? Can you finish on time? Identifying these patterns will allow you to do more targeted drills and see solid improvement.

More generally, I would work on being able to summarize the structure and main point of a passage, and making sure that you know how to approach each question type. Try not looking back at the passage after you finish reading, and seeing if you are able to retain the information. If not, you will want to work more on memory and breaking the passage into manageable chunks. Once you move to the questions, try to prephrase as much as you can (there are some questions this technique doesn't work for) and try not to look back. The more you can do this, the better your understanding.

You want to first practice in untimed conditions, and then move to timed once you feel confident with the underlying theory. This will also isolate how much of an issue timing is. Also start off with the easiest passages, and work your way up, so you can see at what point you start struggling. This is the most productive place to drill at.

Student question

Does causation automatically mean correlation is present? The stimulus does not explicitly put into words a decline in NGOs is correlated with an increase in gov. organizations, but JY, from the statement “They argue that this decline is caused by the corresponding growth of government services…” deduces correlation based on the word “corresponding”. I initially was slightly skeptical if the author was making a correlation. Does causality sufficiently prove correlation in all cases or is it the wording “corresponding” that does this?

Tutor answer

If there's a causal relationship, there must also be a correlation present. We can define a correlation simply as "change that happens together" i.e. two things going up or down at the same time, either in the same or opposite directions. So in this case, because there's a decrease in volunteerism at the same time as there's an increase in government services, we can see that the two are correlated. The argument doesn't need to describe it as such, it just is.

So, we can always observe a correlation - this is not something that the author needs to prove. What they usually need to prove is in fact causation, so to say that one thing influencing the other explains the correlation. In this case, the author responds to an assertion that one thing is causing another, saying t

Student question:

I was between A and D but chose A at the end, and here is my reasoning:

A) if what’s considered “normal diet” for rat already has many salt in it and the experimental group also has high salt, then it could be an alternative cause that contributed to HBP.

1. If answer to this question is “a lot less”, then it strengthens the argument.

2. If answer to this question is “similar” or “a lot more”, then it weakens the argument.

D) this looks like a cookie-cutter answer choice because if blood pressure was the same before & after the experiment, then it wasn’t high-salt that caused HBP. But D says “abnormally high blood pressure” so I thought it refers to “extremely high blood pressure” in the stim, and since it only accounts for 5%, I thought it didn’t really matter.

Tutor answer:

I see your logic with both A and D. With A however, we know that the high-salt diet definitely has more salt than the rats' regular diet, even if we don't know how much more exactly. We can see this because A says "How much more salt..." Therefore, regardless of how we answer A, it doesn't change the fact that there's been an increase in the amount of salt that the rats are consuming, which could have an effect on blood pressure. For all we know, even a small increase could have an impact.

D is much better because it clarifies whether there actually has been an effect from the change in diet. While you're correct that the amount with extremely high blood pressure is only 5%, they nonetheless constitute evidence that the diet change could have had an effect. If they already had this high blood pressure, then it makes the conclusion that there's a link less valid. If they didn't, however, this seems to be strong evidence.

I'd encourage you to enjoy your break while you can! Being able to come back to LSAT studying with a fresh pair of eyes can be incredibly useful, and help you pick up on patterns that you might not have noticed before. If you want something to do in the meantime to work on your LSAT skills, long-form reading can be great for building concentration.

You can also use this time to analyze your past performance and see what you need to focus on in the coming months. I would review your analytics to check on your priority areas, and decide on some drills to target those as well as going back to foundational review where needed. For example, if you notice that flaw questions are high, review your approach to these and start doing untimed drills to test your fundamental understanding, increasing the difficulty level and introducing timing as needed.

Student question:

AC B uses the word “may” while AC D uses the term “might.” Is it wrong to consider them synonyms in this context? This is what made it hard to pick between the two. I am also having a hard time understanding why AC D is more strongly supported than AC B? After all, the last paragraph of the passage says “A partial explanation is that kinglets store fat,” which I believe offers stronger support over AC D. In reference to AC D, the passage says “Another theory, which is still untested but which may be borne out by a recent study of goldcrests…” The phrase “still untested” in this sentence seems weaker than the “partial explanation” phrase at the beginning of that same paragraph. Would you please help me identify where I went wrong in my reasoning? Thank you!

Tutor answer:

We can consider "may" and "might" as interchangeable. They both signal that something could be the case, but isn't definitely.

The problem with B is that it states that the kinglet's diet may have enough fat to account for all of its energy needs, but we're explicitly told that fat accounts for "only about half the energy needed." This means that we can be sure that it's not sufficient, contrary to what B states.

D is ok however, because the text does leave this as a possibility - the study could show the kinglets have the same nocturnal behavior as kinglets. There is fair evidence to show that this could be true.

So B is explicitly ruled out by the text, whereas D is left open as something which there is decent evidence to support, even if it hasn't been confirmed. This is enough to show that the author might agree.

You have a good amount of study time, so I wouldn't be focussed on completing as many drills as possible - quality not quantity! Rather, consider how much you're learning from each drill. It's better to spend a long time going over five questions, really understanding them in depth, than to complete 25 questions and only review them a little. I would be guided by what topics you're struggling with, and not move on from that until you see progress. For example, it's totally ok to focus on just flaw questions for a week, and compare how you're performing on flaw drills at the beginning to the end. Make sure that you understand the approach you have to use for each given question, and don't move onto another topic until you do.

When you blind review, make sure that you fill out your wrong answer journal as well, and if you still get the question wrong, try to work backwards from the correct answer before you watch/read the explanation.

Improving on this test takes time, so don't be discouraged if you don't see immediate improvement! Eventually you will.

Firstly, I'd encourage you to still do regular PTs! About once a week until the August test. Avoiding them can create more anxiety about doing the PTs, which is ultimately counterproductive. You can always focus only on the RC sections in blind review, but it is important to do them in that context as it can feel different to doing them individually.

Next, I would review your analytics to see what patterns you can identify. Do you struggle to remember what was mentioned in the passage? Do you find certain passage types particularly difficult? Do you ever misunderstand what a question is asking you? Identifying this will allow you to do more targeted drills and make your practice more efficient.

Some general RC tips are to focus on structure and how paragraphs relate to each other, rather than trying to remember every little detail. Also focus on highlighting key takeaways, such as different viewpoints, as you can be fairly confident that you will be asked a question about it.

Lastly, drill in an incremental way. Start off low difficulty + untimed, and then if you do well gradually increase each. Once you hit a level you start struggling at (say 60-70% correct), keep drilling at that level until you improve. This will help you track your progress.

I would avoid mouthing as much as possible, as this could be picked up by the proctor. While technically LSAC only warns against reading aloud (https://www.lsac.org/lsat/taking-lsat/lsat-dos-and-donts), you don't want to risk being interrupted by a proctor who interprets this as against the rules.

First of all, I want to emphasize that this is a really common problem, and it's definitely something that you can overcome! I want to share some useful techniques that you can use both during the test and before:

1. Box Breathing (4-4-4-4 Technique)

   How to do it: Inhale for 4 seconds, hold for 4 seconds, exhale for 4 seconds, hold for 4 seconds. Repeat for 1–3 minutes.

   Why it works: It helps regulate your breath, slows down the heart rate, and refocuses your mind.

2. Progressive Muscle Relaxation

   How to do it: Starting from your toes, tense and relax each muscle group in your body, moving upwards to your head. Hold the tension for a few seconds and then release.

   Why it works: It helps release physical tension that accumulates during stressful moments, allowing the body to feel more relaxed.

3. Visualization

   How to do it: Close your eyes and visualize a peaceful place—perhaps a beach, a forest, or a quiet room. Focus on the details like sounds, smells, and sensations in that place.

   Why it works: Positive imagery distracts from stress and creates a sense of calm.

4. Grounding Through the 5-4-3-2-1 Method

   How to do it: Acknowledge 5 things you can see, 4 things you can feel, 3 things you can hear, 2 things you can smell, and 1 thing you can taste.

   Why it works: It brings attention to the present moment and shifts focus away from anxious thoughts.

5. Mindful Breathing

   How to do it: Sit or stand in a relaxed position and focus on your breath. Pay attention to the rise and fall of your chest or belly. If your mind wanders, gently bring it back to your breath.

   Why it works: This simple technique helps you stay present, reducing mental clutter and stress.

6. Positive Affirmations

   How to do it: Silently or quietly repeat positive phrases such as “I am calm,” “I am prepared,” or “I trust myself.” Repeat these for 1–2 minutes.

   Why it works: Positive affirmations help shift your mindset away from negative, anxious thoughts and reinforce self-confidence.

7. Finger Breathing

   How to do it: Slowly trace each finger on one hand with the index finger of the other hand. Breathe in as you trace up and breathe out as you trace down.

   Why it works: It’s a small, focused action that pairs breathing with tactile sensation, helping to ground you in the present moment.

8. Stretching (Seated Version)

   How to do it: While seated, roll your shoulders forward and backward, tilt your neck from side to side, or clasp your hands behind your back and stretch your chest. You can also extend your legs forward under the desk and flex your toes to relieve tension.

   Why it works: Stretching releases physical tension, improves circulation, and helps refresh your body and mind even while staying seated.

9. Hydration and Slow Sips

   How to do it: Drink water slowly, focusing on the sensation of the cool water as you sip. Avoid gulping.

   Why it works: Staying hydrated helps you stay sharp, while the act of sipping slowly promotes a calm, mindful experience.

None of these are quick fixes, and take practice just like any other part of the test. But consistently integrate these techniques into your practice, and you'll begin to see a shift in your mindset. You can also start off with shorter timed drills (e.g. a first 10 LR questions drill), if a whole PT feels too overwhelming at first.

Student question

PT11.S4.Q15 I don’t understand how E is right when it does mention that the fungicide does need to be diluted a certain way with the water in order for it to be effective.

Tutor answer

It's not that the fungicide needs to be diluted to be effective, rather it needs to be diluted to not cause harm (though I concede this could be one element of efficacy.) However, what this is getting at is how effective it needs to be to eliminate "powdery mildew." If it's the case that the fungicide is only capable of eliminating the mildew at, for example, one part in five parts of water, then it would eliminate the mildew but harm the plants, making the conclusion invalid. It therefore must be the case that the fungicide does not need to be "more concentrated than one part in ten parts of water" in order to work, otherwise it would be unable to both eliminate mildew and not harm the plants.

Student question

I do not understand why answer choice D is correct instead of C. I thought that the question and premise were focused on the plastic aspect, not the waste overall. That is why I switched from D to C, because C discussed plastic being reused disproving the waste management statement. Whereas D focuses on paper, glass, and metal.

Tutor answer

With a weaken question, we want an answer which makes the conclusion less likely to result from the premises. In this case, we want to show that attempts to decrease the amount of plastic thrown away is not necessarily failing, just based on the fact that the proportion of plastic is bigger. Note that the argument is making the assumption that the increased proportion of plastic is because more is being thrown away.

C doesn't do anything do make the conclusion more or less likely to be true. Even if more plastic containers are saved/reused, it could still be that other types of plastic are being thrown away at significant rates and hence the efforts to reduce are unsuccessful. Moreover, C could always have been the case, meaning it wouldn't address the effect of recent attempts to reduce plastic waste.

On the other hand, if it's the case that more paper, glass, and metal cans are being recycled as opposed to thrown away, they would make up a lower proportion of waste overall, which would explain why the proportion made up of plastic is increasing. D provides an alternative explanation, so more plastic is not actually being thrown away. It shows why the conclusion cannot definitely be drawn from these premises. C requires too many assumptions to make it effectively weaken.

Student question

In the second paragraph, I read “Even in nations where economic stimulation has brought about substantial improvements in per capita GNP” and reasoned that “economic stimulation” was how nations can adjust economic efforts to improve GNP, therefor eliminating E as an answer choice. I’m not sure why this is wrong.

Tutor answer

I see your point! However, I think "economic stimulation" is too vague here. To address E, we would need to know what specifically they did. How did they stimulate the economy? If we were to instruct a country on how to "adjust their domestic economic efforts to bring about substantial improvements in per capita GNP," telling them to stimulate their economies would be insufficient. We also don't know for certain that the economic stimulation in these cases is one that has resulted from domestic efforts, as opposed to some external influence e.g. a decrease in the price of imports.

"Economic stimulation" is essentially the same in meaning as economic improvement - we need to know what triggers that.

Student question

There is no provided solution. Could you please explain why A is correct? Thank you.

Tutor answer

Of course! We're still in the process of uploading explanations for earlier tests.

I would point to this sentence at the end of the second paragraph: "And even if the temperature rise is real, another puzzle remains: is the rise in global temperatures a natural fluctuation or a result of the increase in greenhouse gases?"

This tells us that in the event of a temperature rise, one explanation could be "natural fluctuation," which is the same as "a natural climatic variation." The passage later states that "in light of such uncertainty, the wisest policy is not to forestall action," meaning that it doesn't rule out one explanation or the other. This leaves open the possibility that a rise in temperature could be due to natural variation.

Student question

For (A). When the stimulus says that the “authors of a recent article” are wrong, doesn’t it mean that there is at least some evidence that supports how the rate of animal species extinction is accelerating? Why do we need to care about whether the fish species and subspecies evidence is strong or weak, representative or unrepresentative?

Tutor answer

Yes, that's a good way to interpret the conclusion - the author is trying to argue that the rate of animal species extinction is accelerating, based on the fact that more fish species went extinct after 1950 than before. The problem with this argument is that there's a jump from talking about fishes to talking about animals as a whole. How do we know that the decline in fish reflects a wider trend amongst animals? It could be that something is affecting fishes specifically, but not other species. So we would need to know whether the decrease in the number of fish species actually reflects what's going on with animals in general, otherwise it's a bad argument.

Student question

Why A) cannot be the answer here? In the passage, there is no indication of monopoly being limited to a “certain region", and also in the passage it indicates bigger size → more specialization → monopoly so I believe if there is a case of a “smaller" size company having a monopoly in a certain region, it is a not A → B situation, and thus a weaken situation?

Tutor answer

This is the part of the passage that I would focus on: "The parable of the pin factory says that there are increasing returns to scale—the bigger the pin factory, the more specialized its workers can be, and therefore the more pins the factory can produce per worker. But increasing returns create a natural tendency toward monopoly, because a large business can achieve larger scale and hence lower costs than a small business"

As you say, this is essentially stating that the bigger a business, the more specialized the workers, and the more able the business is to achieve to monopoly. In order to weaken this, we need to show that the chain doesn't hold in some way.

The problem with A is that it doesn't make it clear how this chain would be broken. If A is true, it could still be the case that bigger businesses are more specialized and more likely to monopolize. It doesn't have to be the case that a business is a monopoly everywhere in order to fit this pattern. So, let's imagine that there are two businesses which sell cars, and one operates in Rhode Island while the other operates in New York. The one in RI will be smaller than the one in NY, but they could still both legitimately be monopolies in their own regions. If we knew for sure that the NY business was trying to expand into RI, then maybe A could weaken. But it's reasonable to assume that these businesses simply operate within their own regions. If we read it otherwise, we'd have to say that only one business could be a monopoly for the entire country, or even world.

E is a better answer because it interrupts the chain that bigger and more specialized companies always leads to monopoly. It shows that there's a point at which specialization actually works against the company, and so may actually inhibit monopolization. This calls the author's argument into question.

Student question

On the LSAT when the question stem says it follows from the claim... does that mean “its deduced from the claim” OR “one can deduct from the claim?”

Tutor answer

Yes, they mean the same thing. It's the idea that from a specific claim, I can infer that something else is the case. In this instance, the author is not saying that "there will inevitably be a crisis in landfill availability" based on the fact that "landfills are generally designed to hold ten years' worth of waste." The latter is a fact asserted by the author, and the former is a claim made by some people. To say that something follows from a claim, it needs to be justified by it.

Student question:

This is one of the dumbest questions I have ever read. I was stuck between E and D after mapping, this entire time many is supposed to be thought of as some, so E and D are basically the same thing?????/ WHAT

Tutor answer:

This is a tough one! However, there is a subtle difference between "many" and "some." "Many" can be defined as having a higher minimum threshold than "some", so we could view "some" as meaning "at least one" and "many" as being more than that. It's very rare that this discrepancy will come up, especially as this is an earlier test so not representative of current ones.

E is different from D because it suggests a proportional relationship between the amount of crimes and the amount of laws. If there are a lot of crimes, then there'll be a lot of laws. However, D just tells us that if even one crime exists, then laws must exist as well, and is less specific on the quantity. This reflects the stimulus, which tells us that without laws it's impossible for crimes to exist because crimes are by definition the breaking of laws.