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

@mkos99 Best of luck!!

@mkos99

"Kind of looking for somewhat of a formula if you think there is one, but I know that's kind of a slippery slope."

Right, so this is the key. The formula (unfortunately) means being aware of the very broad spectrum of 'answer types' and letting the answer choices speak to you, remind you that the answer type you might be looking for at the moment is not one of your options in this paerticular question. That's how to stay properly aligned with what is needed question to question.

One thing that I noticed from your post is that you might be focusing too heavily on understanding individual paragraphs and translating micro-sections as you go. That's definitely useful, but in my experience the bigger objective in RC is usually understanding the passage-wide structure.

By the time you finish reading, you want a clear sense of:

• Where is the author's thesis sentence?

• What are the general reasons the author uses to support the thesis?

• What is the overall passage structure (paragraph by paragraph) as seen through that thesis/general supporting reason lens?

IMO, RC targets big-picture structural understanding more than detailed paragraph-by-paragraph comprehension.

I also notices that you mentioned the answer choices sometimes feel like none of them really fit. A lot of high-level RC improvement comes from learning to recognize a thought match through a wall of non-matching words.

The LSAT writers are exceptionally good at disguising correct answers by changing the wording, increasing the level of generality, or expressing the same idea from a different angle. Sometimes the correct answer can feel almost off-topic because it's stated much more broadly than the specific discussion in the passage.

Meanwhile, the attractive wrong answers often feel familiar because they reuse the passage's language. Correct answers often match the passage's ideas without matching the words. Wrong answers often match the passage's words without matching the ideas.

I'd spend less energy asking "Do these match what we are talking about?" and more energy asking "Does this answer express the same underlying idea as what the question requires?"

If you're already at roughly -2/-5 in LR and -9/-11 in RC, you're probably past the point where more effort is the answer. The next gains are likely to come from refining what you're reading for and how you're evaluating answer choices rather than simply reading more carefully.

I hope that helps!

Great advice already within these comments. I suspect there are probably at least a few things here that you’ll find genuinely helpful.

I’ll just add one technique that used to be taught pretty heavily to high-level athletes and performers, and that’s visualization.

Not just visualizing yourself getting a good score or “doing well,” but visualizing yourself actually performing the process on test day.

Visualize yourself sitting in the testing center. Visualize yourself reading the passages and stimuli. Visualize yourself engaging in the broader big-picture processes you’ve trained on, as well as the smaller micro-level question movements you’ve practiced over and over again.

In other words, don’t just visualize the outcome. Visualize the activities and processes that lead to the outcome.

And importantly, don’t visualize a perfectly calm, stress-free experience. Visualize yourself feeling some anxiety and then successfully working through it anyway.

Visualize your heart beating faster for a moment, hitting a difficult question, feeling mentally tired toward the end of a section,

feeling uncertainty creep in etc. …and then visualize yourself settling back into your process and continuing forward productively.

That last part matters a lot because on test day the goal is not necessarily to eliminate all anxiety. The goal is to prevent anxiety from knocking you out of your process.

A lot of students walk into the LSAT nervous. Chances for a strong performance increase the more you keep operating effectively while some stress is present.

Best of luck and I hope that helps!

I would generally recommend a tone of moderation and reasonableness on the LSAT Writing section.

You definitely want to sound persuasive and structured, but not emotionally charged or overly combative. I usually tell my students that you do not want to come across as “very against” the opposing side. It’s much better to sound mildly, moderately, or strongly in support of your own position while still showing that you understand the competing viewpoint.

In other words, let the structure of the essay create the persuasion rather than trying to “win” the argument emotionally.

The good news is that I don’t think the concerns you’re describing are likely to prevent the writing sample from being approved. But law schools can access these samples if they choose to read them, so you generally want to avoid sounding overly dramatic, emotionally invested, or unwilling to fairly acknowledge the other side.

As for structure, I would keep it relatively straightforward:

• basic 4-5 paragraph structure (Intro, 2-3 Body paragraphs, Conclusion)

• clear position, with 2–3 supporting reasons

• brief concession to the opposing side; don't bury it; you want the readers to see it.

• explanation of why your side still ultimately prevails

And for the 15-minute planning period, I would not overcomplicate it. I’d spend that time building a very basic outline:

• What is the one central point your essay will revolve around?

• What are your 2–3 supporting reasons?

• What examples or explanations will flesh those reasons out?

• What concession point will you briefly acknowledge?

The biggest thing is making sure your central position is a precise response to the actual prompt rather than a broad emotional reaction to the topic, or worse veering off topic.

A calm, organized, reasonable essay usually performs much better than one trying too hard to sound passionate or forceful.

Hope that helps!

@Snowman123 My pleasure and that works great for me. Reach out via the chat when you are ready and we'll go from there. More importantly, good luck on Saturday and then hit those books- no retakes on the finals unfortunately!

Hi JW,

As a general LSAT principle, an argument can usually be weakened by attacking any single component of the argument rather than having to dismantle the entire chain all at once.

And as a more specific correlation/causation principle, you do not necessarily have to attack the correlation itself in order to weaken the causal conclusion being drawn from that correlation.

So in the example you gave, if the argument is basically:

“A correlates with B, therefore A causes B,”

then introducing an alternative causal factor C that could independently explain B can absolutely weaken the argument even if the correlation between A and B still remains intact.

In other words, you’re weakening the causal interpretation of the relationship, not necessarily denying that the relationship exists.

And that’s a very common weakening approach on the LSAT:

• alternative causes

• reversed causation

• coincidence

• third-factor explanations

All of those attack the leap from correlation to causation without necessarily destroying the original correlation.

And of course, without seeing the actual stimulus and answer choices, I’d frame all of this more as the general operating framework for correlation/causation reasoning rather than guidance toward any specific answer choice.

Hope that helps.

I think that’s actually a very good feature of Blind Review.

Over the years, I’ve found that when I ask students the very simple question of, “Are you sure?”, a surprising number of them immediately assume that they should change their answer choice.

But that’s not really the point of the question.

The point is not, “You’re probably wrong.” The point is, “Did you arrive at this answer through a clear enough process that you can confidently stand behind it?”

And that distinction matters a lot.

One of the skills students have to develop on the LSAT is decisiveness. Not impulsiveness, but the ability to properly think through a question, arrive at an answer choice, and stay locked in on that choice unless there’s a real structural reason to move away from it.

A lot of students, especially under timed conditions, start hovering mentally between answer choices. The moment they feel even a tiny impulse of uncertainty, they immediately assume another answer choice must be better.

That creates hesitation, second-guessing, and instability throughout the section.

So I actually think it’s a very good idea that Blind Review includes questions you originally got correct even when there’s no indication that timing or answer-changing was involved.

Sometimes the issue isn’t whether you got the question right. Sometimes the issue is whether your process was stable and decisive enough to withstand self-doubt.

And I’ll also say this: when your prep is properly structured from the top down, with a process that continuously propels you toward the correct answer while placing guardrails against trap answers and second-guessing, your ability to confidently stand by your answer choice increases dramatically.

Based on what LSAC sent out in their official update, it's coming back to the interface in full sometime this month. No indication how soon or late in the month. Hope that helps

@angantous I'd also say that in the specific context of this thread, the last week of prep is a little to really begin building the top down structured process. Notice I said in my original comment that the last week is a good time for 'solidifying' your top down process. You can still start from scratch and put a skeletal process in place, but you'd probaly want to limit it to the basics at this point. It takes a solid 7-10 days of standard prep and study to understand the ins and outs of a well built top-down structure.