Hi Mia,

I'll tell you exactly what I can do for you and you can decide if it might be a good match for what you are looking for.

I can definitely work through your missed questions with you, highlighting exactly why your answer choice(s) is wrong and why the correct one is in fact correct. This will usually require tracking through the reasoning, whether it’s causal or conditional or otherwise. Sometimes this will require pretty deep dives into the reasoning process. Sometimes the analysis focuses more on the specific facts of that question and sometimes it focuses more on the reasoning tenets themselves. There may be some foundational/remedial issues that arise and need to be addressed as well. Obviously, a near-perfect performance on the LSAT requires precision and consistency at the highest level, and this extends to not only high-level reasoning skills, but also to basic reading, vocabulary and mental discipline skill.

Honestly, I don’t venture into whether I have confidence in getting you to any particular score- way too many variables that I don’t control for me to do that. And it’s been years since I’ve taken the LSAT myself. But I can tell you that for the past 15+ years, I’ve spend hours every day working with students to understand how think through these questions, dissecting the skills and movements needed to do so, and imparting that information to the student in a personalized way so every student can understand and apply it.

Would be happy to discuss further if you are interested, just dm me…and best of luck either way!

Scott

I can help you with exactly this. I’ve spent the past 15 years getting inside students’ heads, identifying why capable students repeatedly get caught between two LR answers or lose control of dense RC sentences, and developing specific, solution-based approaches to those problems.

In LR, I teach students to determine what the correct answer must accomplish before entering the choices, then use precise tests of proof, relevance, and scope to distinguish supported answers from attractive traps. This combination of top-down, general structure and pin-point control within the answer choice itself has proven very effective in helping students eliminate the flawed answer choice and confirm the correct one.

In RC, I teach students how to get inside densely worded sentences using easy-to-learn but critically important methods: locating the sentence’s main thought, separating it from supporting information, and leveraging punctuation and other visible indicators to see parse out the dense text at the sentence level. From, there, we learn how to assemble those controlled sentence meanings into a clear understanding of the passage as a whole.

The fact that three other students are already following this post suggests that these struggles are more common, and more recognizable, than they may seem. There is a very good chance the approaches I teach are an excellent match for exactly what you’re experiencing.

I’d be happy to follow up via DM with my rates and availability.

Hope that helps!

Scott

Hi Sabrina,

I'd be happy to help.

For RC, I'd start by teaching a much more focused reading process that emphasizes finding the Big Picture one sentence at a time. Rather than trying to absorb every detail, we focus on identifying the information that gives you the greatest control over the passage. That usually leads to better comprehension, more efficient navigation of the passage, and a noticeable improvement in timing.

For LR, I'd focus on building a structured, top-down process for approaching each question. The question stem tells us what we're trying to accomplish and what part of the passage we are treating. That allows us to know what the correct answer should accomplish before we even begin evaluating the answer choices. From there, we'd dive into the specific reasoning and answer processes behind Necessary Assumption, Weaken, and Flaw questions until they become much more consistent.

One other thing I'd mention is that I find test anxiety often improves as students become more confident in their process. When you know exactly what you're looking for and why you're looking for it, the timed sections tend to feel much more manageable.

Also, my hourly rate is actually below the $100/hour budget you mentioned. I'd be happy to tell you a little more about my approach and discuss whether we'd be a good fit to work together.

Kind Regards,

Scott

Hi Lucia,

I'd love to help.

The place I'd start is by giving you a much more structured, top-down process for approaching each question. The goal is to stay in control of the question from beginning to end by using the question stem to determine exactly what the correct answer needs to accomplish and where in the passage that impact needs to occur.

Once those two pieces are in place, you already know what you're looking for before you ever begin evaluating the answer choices. At that point, the job becomes finding the answer choice that best matches that objective, rather than reading each answer independently and asking, "Could this be right?"

In my experience, that's a much more reliable and efficient way to approach the LSAT. It creates greater consistency from question to question, improves confidence under timed conditions, and makes it much easier to identify and build the individual reasoning skills that still need work.

Also, my hourly rate is actually well below your $100/hour budget, so I think we'd be able to find something that works well for both of us.

If you'd like to learn a little more about my approach, I'd be happy to chat and answer any questions you have.

Kind Regards,

Scott

Hi Drudawson,

Causal reasoning on the LSAT can definitely create issues, even for otherwise high performing students. The key in resolving the issues is to have a systematic approach for locating and correcting the problem areas.

In order to identify exactly where your causal-reasoning process is breaking down, we would isolate the claimed cause, the result it is supposed to explain, and the bridge connecting the two. Then we would use the question type to determine exactly what the correct answer needs to do to that causal relationship. This part (aligning the question type with the specific causal reasoning breakdown) is typically overlooked by students.

For example, a Weaken question may call for an alternate explanation or evidence that the proposed cause and effect do not reliably occur together. A Strengthen question often requires the opposite move: removing an alternate explanation or showing the expected effect when the cause is present. Resolve/Explain, Necessary Assumption, and Flaw questions each interact with the same causal structure in their own predictable ways.

That gives us a very precise way to review your misses. Instead of simply noting that you missed another causal question, we can identify whether you misread the causal flow, selected the wrong operation for the question type, or misjudged what an answer choice actually did to the explanation. Once we isolate the recurring misstep, we can build a much more reliable process around it.

You have enough time before September to make meaningful progress here, especially since you have already narrowed the problem to such a specific area. I’d be happy to discuss your recent causal-reasoning misses, as well as any other LSAT-related issues, and how I would approach working through them with you.

Kind Regards,

Scott

Hi BT,

Based on what you described, the place I'd start is by giving you a much more structured, top-down process for approaching every question. The goal is to create a straight-line path from reading the question stem all the way through selecting the correct answer, so that each step naturally leads to the next instead of requiring you to constantly stop and figure out what to do.

One of the biggest changes is that we make the question stem much more active throughout the entire process. It tells us what we're trying to accomplish and where in the passage we're supposed to do it. Once that's in place, the passage becomes a much more organized workspace, allowing you to immediately apply the right analytical skill to the right part of the passage.

Because you've already demonstrated that your content knowledge is there, this approach isn't about teaching you more concepts. It's about giving you a much more direct and repeatable way to apply the concepts you already know. That usually leads to better execution, greater confidence in your decisions, and much more consistent performance under timed conditions.

From there, we'd identify any remaining areas—whether that's answer-choice evaluation, confidence in the last two answer choices, conditional reasoning, or timing discipline—and target those individually. By that point, though, we're building on a much stronger foundation rather than trying to fix each issue in isolation.

I'd be happy to tell you a little more about how I'd approach your situation if you'd like to connect.

Kind Regards,

Scott

Hi Sam,

Based on what you described, the place I would start is by building a more structured, repeatable process for approaching each question. The goal is to create much greater consistency from question to question by giving you a clear framework for when and how to apply the concepts you've already learned.

Within that framework, we'd then build the specific analytical skills the LSAT requires. That includes things like recognizing passage parts and reasoning methods, controlling the reasoning chain, understanding what each question type is asking you to accomplish, and applying the appropriate answer process to the answer choices. Those are skills that have to be deliberately learned and practiced, and once they begin working together, students usually start earning points much more consistently under timed conditions.

Your blind review also tells me that there's probably another opportunity here. I'd want to identify exactly where your execution is breaking down under time pressure—whether that's timing discipline, decision-making, answer-choice evaluation, or something else—and then target those issues directly.

I've helped a number of students make similar jumps, and I think your goal is a realistic one. My LSAT score was 30 years ago, but I've been teaching students the art of LSAT Reading Comp and Logical Reasoning for the past 15 years. My rate is $80/hour, and I also offer a discounted bulk package if you decide you'd like to work together longer term.

If you want to DM, we can discuss specifics like your timeline and current preparation and how I'd approach your situation.

Kind Regards,

Scott

Hi Amy,

I can definitely help.

The place I would start is by giving you a structured five-step process for approaching every question. That framework creates much greater consistency from question to question and gives us a clear way to build the individual skills the LSAT requires. Those skills include recognizing question types, finding the important parts of the passage, understanding the underlying reasoning, knowing what each question is asking you to accomplish, and learning the appropriate answer process for evaluating the answer choices.

Once that framework is in place, scores usually begin to rise because the student is approaching every question through the same repeatable process instead of reinventing the wheel each time. It also makes it much easier to identify and target any remaining weaknesses so that your study time becomes much more productive.

Since you're looking to meet multiple times a week, we'd also be able to build a very structured study plan between sessions, so you'd always know exactly what to work on and why. Also, I offer a very student-friendly, bulk-lesson discount. :)

I'd love to set up a time to chat so I can learn a little more about your particular circumstances and to discuss how I'd approach your situation.

Kind Regards,

Scott

Hi Shay,

I can definitely help you.

The place I would start is by building a structured framework that creates much greater consistency from question to question. Within that framework, we then build two different sets of skills.

First are the memorization skills—the things you have to know, such as question types, passage parts, reasoning methods, and answer processes. Second are the performance skills—the things you have to be able to do, such as recognizing those patterns in the question stem and passage, applying the appropriate analytical process, and evaluating answer choices consistently under timed conditions.

Once that framework and those skills begin working together, students usually start earning points much more consistently because every question is being approached through the same repeatable process. It also makes it much easier to identify any remaining weak spots so that your drilling and review become much more targeted and productive.

Based on what you've described, I think August or September is still a very realistic timeline for getting over the 170 mark.

I'd be happy to learn a little more about your preparation and discuss how I'd approach your situation.

Best,

Scott

Hi Thad,

I can definitely help.

One thing I've found over the years is that students need to learn two different things. They need to learn the concepts themselves, but they also need to learn how to consistently apply those concepts under timed conditions. Simply doing more practice questions usually isn't enough by itself.

That's why I start by teaching a simple five-step process that gives students a repeatable way to approach every question. From there, we build the individual skills that fit into that process: recognizing question types, finding the important parts of the passage, understanding what each question is asking you to accomplish, knowing what to look for in the answer choices, and making sure those answer choices stay relevant to the question that's being asked.

The nice thing is that once that framework is in place, students usually start earning points much more consistently because every question begins to follow the same overall process. It also makes it much easier to identify and fix any remaining weak spots.

I'd be happy to learn a little more about your current preparation and discuss how I'd approach your situation.

Kind Regards,

Scott

One thing that's helped both me and my students quite a bit is recognizing that many LSAT science passages have a very predictable structure.

Quite often, the first two-thirds (or even three-fourths) of the passage is really just background. The author is walking you through the history of the research, competing theories, previous discoveries, or the sequence of events that leads in to the actual discussion. Then, toward the end of the passage, the focus usually narrows considerably and the makes a very noticeable transition into the specific issue the author actually wants to (briefly) discuss.

Because of that, I generally tell students to treat the background as exactly that—a necessary lead-in to the discussion. As you're reading, try to follow the progression of the story and the sequence of events, looking for the transition rather than worrying about the details of the science itself.

In other words, during the background portion, spend less energy trying to understand the science in all of its technical detail and more energy understanding what the author is doing with that information and how it's setting up the narrower discussion that's coming later. Once you recognize that shift, the passage usually becomes much easier to navigate.

I've found that this approach saves a surprising amount of time and mental energy while still positioning the students to accurately find answers to the questions.

Hope that helps!

"should RC passages be assumed not to contain such deliberate flaws?"

Yes. Assume there are no flaws deliberately embedded within the passage. Do not keep an eye out for a flaw in the reasoning. I can't remember ever seeing a flawed reasoning/vulnerable to criticism question on the RC side.

My best answer to your question would be that alternative explanations are almost always relevant when our goal is to undermine a given explanation. Obviously, they're not always presented as the correct answer choice, but they're almost always worth considering.

In the question you referenced, I think the key is recognizing how the passage develops. The dark plumage discussion is largely set aside as a status signal by the third paragraph. The focus then shifts to breast-stripe width as the strongest indicator of status, and the final paragraph describes an experiment that appears to support that conclusion.

Once we get there, the task becomes fairly straightforward: if the experiment is being used to support the claim that breast-stripe width is the status signal, then a strong underminer will either (1) diminish the importance of breast-stripe width itself or (2) introduce other factors that could explain the observed results.

Answer choice B clearly does the second. If the stuffed birds differed in ways other than breast-stripe width, then we no longer know whether the birds were responding to the stripe width or to one of those other characteristics. The experiment was supposed to isolate stripe width as the explanatory factor, and answer choice B calls that isolation into question.

More generally, when I'm evaluating an alternate explanation answer choice, I don't usually ask, "Is an alternate explanation appropriate here?" I assume it is. Instead, I ask whether the alternate explanation actually provides a plausible path to the same observed result in a way that makes the first explanation unnecessary. If it does, then it deserves very serious consideration.

Hope that helps.

Scott

One fascinating aspect of being a long-time LSAT tutor is that I'm still learning as I go. No matter how much I feel like I've already picked up over the years, I still consistently notice something new that helps me frame how I approach helping students!

One of the newest 'discoveries' for me is how often the correcy answer on RC Main Point questions pulls in the author's final position, recommendation, qualification, or conclusion. That's one reason I pay much closer attention to how the author exits the passage than I used to, especially as I evaluate MP answer choices.

I hope that helps!

Hi Gabriella,

I think I can help with exactly what you're describing.

What stands out to me is not so much the fact that you've scored anywhere from -1 to -7 in LR, but rather the size of that range. When a student is capable of producing very strong LR sections but struggles to do so consistently, I generally want to take a close look at the process being used to approach the section and identify where that process is breaking down from one test to the next.

A large part of my tutoring focuses on building a stronger top-down structure for approaching Logical Reasoning. The goal is to create a repeatable process that can be applied consistently under timed conditions, seamlessly account for the question-by-question specifics and also making it easier to identify exactly where and why mistakes are occurring when they do happen.

Once that structure is in place, we can usually start isolating recurring patterns in the questions, reasoning methods, answer choices, and execution decisions that are contributing to score fluctuations.

I also place a lot of emphasis on helping students understand what to work on between sessions so that improvement continues throughout the week and not just during tutoring meetings.

Based on what you've described, I do think your August goal is realistic, and I'd be happy to discuss your situation in a little more detail if you're interested.

Kind Regards,

Scott

@Abdelsmo Yes, the link above should still be active, so just register as per the instructions and you should be added to list so that you'll receive it tonight when I send both the link and the swag bag out to all the registrants.

I can definitely help with that, and my hourly rate is right within the range you're looking for.

What stands out to me is that your RC timing issue and your higher-level LR issue may actually have a fair amount in common. In both sections, students often reach a point where the challenge is no longer understanding the material, but rather developing a more reliable top-down process for identifying what matters most and making efficient decisions under time pressure.

Reading Comprehension is actually a major area of focus for me. My approach centers around identifying and retaining the passage's Big Picture (the author's main point and the general supporting reasons) while reading one sentence at a time. That process reduces cognitive load, helps maintain orientation throughout the passage, and turns the passage itself into a resource for answering the questions.

On the LR side, I spend a lot of time helping students build more reliable execution processes for the higher-difficulty questions, which includes very specific maneuvers for when they find themselves stuck between two answer choices.

The issues of stamina and energy management are often connected to execution efficiency. A more organized and deliberate process usually helps a lot here because students frequently find that they're spending less mental energy fighting the test throughout the first few sections.

Finally, I do provide structured assignments and study plans between sessions. A big part of my job is helping students know exactly what to work on when they're studying independently so that progress continues between lessons. 

Feel free to send me a DM if you'd like to discuss your situation in a little more detail. I think your September goal is very realistic with the amount of time you still have available.

Scott

I can definitely help with that.

My own approach to conditional reasoning and diagramming is actually pretty simple and somewhat homemade. The reason for that is that I never really connected with many of the more elaborate approaches taught by the major prep companies, so over time I developed a much more straightforward system that was easier for me to process and apply consistently.

Despite its simplicity, it works very well, including on the more difficult/higher-difficulty questions.

If you'd like, send me a DM and I'd be happy to discuss the approach in more detail and see whether it might be a good fit for what you're looking for.

I'm not on the West Coast, but I do work weekends and can typically start sessions as late as 7:30–8:00 PM PST.

Best of luck either way!

Scott

I can definitely help you take control of the RC section.

In my experience, the most important thing in Reading Comprehension is identifying and retaining the passage's Big Picture: the author's main point and the general supporting reasons used to develop that point.

This approach not only dramatically reduces the cognitive load of reading the passage, but it also transforms the passage itself into a resource for answering the questions.

The key is learning how to consistently find that Big Picture while reading one sentence at a time. That's the skill that allows you to stay oriented throughout the passage, avoid getting lost in the details, and know exactly where to return when a question asks about something specific.

That's the foundation of my RC instruction. From there, we can build a more reliable process for passage analysis, question execution, and answer elimination.

Feel free to DM me if you'd like to discuss your current RC performance and goals in a little more detail.

Scott

I think I could potentially help you quite a bit. Here's my initial thoughts based on your specific and thoughtful post.

Causal and conditional reasoning are two of the most formula-driven areas on the LSAT, and students need to become extremely comfortable recognizing both the underlying patterns and the predictable ways the test likes to manipulate them. That's part 1 of the equation, imo.

Part 2 is that, in my experience, even many high-scoring students do not consistently "think like a lawyer" when approaching causal and conditional reasoning answer choices. The modern LSAT is filled with answer choices that sound reasonable, but the difference in spotting that trap or not can often come down to how naturally skeptical of a lens one looks at the answer through. 

One of the things I spend a lot of time doing with advanced students is slowing down and exposing exactly how those traps are constructed. How is the argument constructed? Where does the reasoning connect or fail connect to the conclusion? What language is doing the damage? How precisely does the answer choice mirror the movements in the argument? Seeing those patterns can improve your "trap radar" dramatically.

Issues of times execution and stamina are often addressed through a top-down structured process that governs your macro-movements through every question, both LR and RC. The question-level skills (such as causal and conditional reasoning) operate within this structure. The structure itself helps students maintain accuracy and timing while expending less mental energy. This has a direct and positive effect on your late section speed and accuracy.

My rate is $80/hr, and I also offer a 5-hour package for $320 total. I'd be happy to do a free introductory consultation if you'd like to discuss your situation in more detail and see whether we'd be a good fit.

Feel free to DM me.

Scott

One thing that helped me tremendously with STEM passages was realizing that the science itself is not my main pursuit.

Most LSAT science passages devote a very large portion of the passage to required background information. And this background tends to lean heavily into the science. It's easy to feel like you're supposed to understand and retain all of it, but that's all actually the "background" that sets up a very short "discussion".

I tell my students to try to see the big picture the science background is creating, and this tends to happen best by focusing on the how the sequence of events and ideas being presented are building to a "moment".

And that "moment" is the subject of the discussion. The background section is often well over half the passage. The discussion section is often only a single paragraph.

As I'm reading, my other primary goal is identifying where the passage transitions from background information into the actual discussion.

Once you start looking for that transition, the background becomes much easier to manage because you're no longer trying to memorize every scientific detail. You're reading it as setup. And when you're looking for the transition, it becomes easier to spot as well.

And the short discussion section is usually where you'll find the author's real focus: the framed question and the main point of the passage.

In short: Rather than becoming an expert in the subject matter, track how the STEM information is setting up the short discussion.

I hope that helps!

An eight-point improvement within two months is far from too ambitious. In my experience, it's a very realistic outcome when someone has a solid plan and is able to dedicate consistent time and effort to the process.

The biggest improvements tend to come from building a clear top-down framework that governs every question. The goal is to approach each problem through a repeatable process rather than relying on instinct or making ad hoc decisions from question to question. That structure raises the floor of your performance, keeps the analysis organized, and makes consistency under timed conditions much easier to achieve.

Once that foundation is in place, you can focus on the question-level skills: identifying what the question is actually asking, locating the relevant portion of the argument, determining what type of answer is required, and applying the appropriate answer process. When those skills become structured and repeatable, score fluctuations tend to decrease significantly.

That, in turn, creates more bandwidth to develop deeper fluency with the specifics that separate good scores from great ones.

So yes, I think two months is plenty of time to make an eight-point jump. The key isn't just working hard—it's making sure the work is organized, structured, and building toward a repeatable system of execution.

I hope that helps!

Scott