@mizlorgan The domain is an author of an article that has appeared in a magazine.

if criticism in same magazine → respond in that magazine

if criticism in different magazine and unfair → respond in original magazine

(E) unfortunately doesn't state whether or not McFinton published his article in Speculator's Digest. Without this trigger, we cannot know whether it is justified to respond, regardless of Wallace's criticism is unfair.

In other words, what would be the just reaction to Wallace's criticism if McFinton originally published his article in a different magazine? Let's call this other magazine Weekly Digest.

So McFinton published it in Weekly Digest. Then, Wallace wrote an unfair criticism in Speculator's Digest about McFinton's article. Then why would McFinton publish the response to criticism in Speculator's Digest? The principle only states that an author should be allowed to respond in that original magazine that he published with, which in this example would be Weekly Digest. The principle never states that the author should be permitted to publish his response in the same magazine that the critic published; just that he could publish a response in the original magazine that he had published in.

That's why (D) is correct. It tells us where McFinton's essay was originally published. We know that they were published both in Speculator's Digest, and because Wallace criticized him (and unfairly) in the same magazine, McFinton should be allowed to publish in Spectulator's Digest.

Sorry if this is confusing, this was a hard question! I can try to clarify if you need.

Congrats on your score jump from 125! At this point of your studying, I would pause on the PTs. You're going to want to save the newer PTs for later, when you want to gauge where you are at. Instead I'd recommend doing drills and timed/untimed sections from the earlier PTs if you've gone through the core curriculum.

A couple things about getting a 175-178 (or any score above 170):

• You can only afford to get max 2-3 questions wrong per section to get a 170. If you want to get a 178, you can only afford to get max three questions wrong across the whole test (~1 question wrong per section). This is why people say that it's an ambitious goal because getting a 170+ virtually requires a level of perfection that doesn't include flippant mistakes or human error.

From my experience studying, I think students around 130-140s are still learning content. Understanding question types, recognizing question stems, learning how to identify main conclusion. Students around 150s understand a large portion of the content, but are struggling to execute under time and figuring out what their blind spots are. Students around 160s know the content very well and are working through the blind spots, but the execution falls as they start to demand perfection. Students around 170s are comfortable with content and execution.

Significant score jumps aren't impossible, but they aren't as drastic as you'd want. I celebrate a mere 2 point jump. You'll see countless posts here and on Reddit celebrating a jump between 169 and 170. This is also because as you start averaging higher PTs, the amount of questions you get wrong will cost you more. In other words, jumping from 120s-130s and 130s-140s is 'easier' than jumping from 165-170s. I put 'easier' in quotes because I don't think that any part of this journey is 'easy,' but anecdotally people agree that getting questions wrong when scoring sub140s is relatively more forgiving then when scoring 160s+. So if you study consistently, I think you can feasibly get to 150s in a few months, but I'm not sure if 170s is possible by October.

It is recommended not to register for an exam until you are averaging your goal score but this is sometimes unrealistic because of the nature of scheduling months before the actual exam and also needing to submit your applications on time. If you have the time and flexibility, I would definitely wait until you are averaging 170+ to register. And if you're dead set on a 178, you should aim for 180s on PTs.

If you're not doing so already, wrong answer journal and blind review is imperative for your studies. It's laborious and annoying to do but it works. There is unfortunately no secret hack to jump scores, just hours to be put in.

Since you've asked, I started in mid 150s, and it took me a year of daily studying to get to a PT score of 170. And even now, my real test scores are not where they want to be. Not everyone follows the same track, and I think I could have been more efficient in my studies but lots of people get stuck in one score range for a couple years. I say all of this as someone who thought that I could go from a 150 to 170 overnight.

Wishing you luck, fellow 7sager. This exam is equally rewarding and punishing, but it will ultimately help open doors for you if you really want it to.

@megdillman Different is good! I think people generally recommend against writing about a specific area of law if the schools you are applying to don't support that area whatsoever or if it's a highly competitive and popular branch of law (which I think can still provide niche and interesting topics that aren't necessarily going to affect your applications negatively). But I'm of the belief that being genuine about a specific interest can be a stronger essay than a generic 'why law'. Wishing you luck!

They don't always recommend mentioning a specific type of law that you want to go into, but I decided to include it because I was frankly uninterested in most types of law and couldn't find a compelling broad-reaching reason to go to law school (but don't mention that lol). It also aligned with me pivoting career paths during undergraduate and gave me space to write about how my personal interests would be better served in law school.

You can also sit down and have a mock interview with a friend or family member and have them ask you questions while you record it. I find that it's easier to speak casually about these things than having the pressure of writing an essay from start to finish. If you yourself cannot answer 'why do you want to go to law school,' then you may need to ask yourself that first before writing your PS. I think most of us have many reasons (perhaps some less admirable than wanting to serve our communities or pursuing law from a standpoint of a victim) in pursuing this specific career, but it's about highlighting the one reason that will make you stand out and be attractive to admissions.

I misread this stimulus to read that 50 instruments were included per set, and I was so confused.

It's 50 rounds of sterilizations!

Let x = energy to manufacture one nylon set

Let y = energy to manufacture one steel set

if sterilize 50 times → 3.4x

if sterilize 50 times → 2.1y

(B) says more energy was required for each complete sterilization of nylon instruments than was to manufacture them.

In other words, the amount of energy PER complete sterilization of one nylon set would be (3.4x)/50, which would result in a number that is mathematically smaller than x. Therefore, (B) must be false. It is not true that more energy was required per complete sterilization.

(C) is wrong because the study never actually tells us how many instruments were sterilized. This is true for a few reasons:

• We don't know how many instruments are in each nylon or steel set. It could be the case that one steel set has 40 instruments, and one nylon set has 4. Or vice versa.

• Even if we assumed that the sets had the same number of instruments, the stimulus is essentially just giving us a rate of energy used. So they could have used 500 nylon instruments and 10 steel instruments. Or vice versa.

So, given that it is very much possible that they sterilized more nylon instruments than stainless steel instruments, it is not correct.

@DanielLyadov I also hesitated with (C) but I thought that the last sentence:

This, rather than the boundary theory's "exclusivity," is the essence of ownership.

implies at least one point of superiority over both boundary theory and BOR theory, since claiming that agenda-setting encapsulates the true fundamental nature or "essence" of ownership. It didn't really seem like there could be two valid but different interpretations of the 'essence of legal ownership.'

You can also think of it like:

• BOR theory: "does not constrain judges' decisions"

• boundary theory: "properly recognizes that there is a concept of ownership that constrains legal decisions, [but] fails to explain crucial features of ownership."

I barely understood what any of this passage meant, but I interpreted the quotes above to be that the boundary theory does have some credence that BOR theory lacks ('constraining legal decisions'), but that it ultimately fails to pick up on what the rights and responsibilities of the owners are. Which, is then we are introduced to the agenda-setting theory which explicitly resolves the biggest problem that BOR and (implicitly) the biggest problem that boundary theory had.

@lsattsal Sorry couple months late! But it's implied that one of the products entailed in a "full banking service" is a savings account. This is supported by the first paragraph:

These products are designed to enable very poor urban residents to turn their capacity to save...

as well as the second paragraph:

On each visit clients may save, or withdraw, or repay loans in any amount they choose.

Based off of these sentences, as well as the claims of how successful and attractive SafeSave is, we can assume that at least some of their clients want and are using savings accounts. And the word "significant" is very relative, so you can think of it as 'a meaningful amount' or 'some/many'.

Meaning in Context:

Which one of the following most closely expresses the author's intended meaning in using the word "initiatory" (first sentence of last paragraph)?

• They'll usually give you a bunch of vocab words that may or may not be relevant to the word in the question stem, but you need to essentially find the word that can best replace the one that they give you. Go back to where the word is in the passage, then reread the sentence it is in (and sometimes the sentence before and after).

• Tip: let's say that the word they give you is "match" and they give you the following choices:

  A: A formal competitive game.

  B: A fire-making stick.

  C: A feudal rivalry.

  D: A romantic partner.

  E: A suitable combination.

  All five of these definitions could be valid definitions of match. That is why you absolutely must go back to the text. Knowing more vocab words can definitely help, but they won't guarantee the correct answer (because they can all feasibly be correct). What's most important is recognizing how the author intended to use that word.

Purpose in Context:

The author's discussion of nuclear fusion in the last paragraph serves primarily to

• For the most part, you can look within the specific context that they are asking you (i.e. last paragraph, third sentence, etc).

• Let's say that the whole passage is about the benefits of pilates. The author briefly mentions a study about cardiovascular disease in the second paragraph, which mainly talks about the health effects of not consistently exercising. Mentioning the study about cardiovascular disease could be exemplifying one of the potential consequences of not exercising, as well as establishing some scientifically proven credibility.

Purpose of Paragraph:

The main function of the third paragraph of the passage is to

• This is where low-res summaries really help if you like that strategy. You must know what the author's purpose is for this question.

• Let's say the passage is about spotlighting musical composer Tchaikovsky:

  • P1: Introduces political climate of Romantic era of Russia & Tchaikovsky.

    • MC: His music reflects the tragic lyricism and profound melancholy of living as a gay man during the mid-nineteenth century.

  • P2: Discusses Romeo and Juliet + one of his lovers.

  • P3: Discusses Sixth Symphony (Pathétique) + one of his lovers.

  • P4: Mentions Russian + Soviet attempts to deny his homosexuality.

  • P5: Reiterate his legacy of remaining the most beloved and popular Russian composer today.

  If the question then asked, what is the main function of the third paragraph of the passage? you have to look at the paragraph within its context. The Sixth Symphony was one of his last masterpieces, while Romeo and Juliet was one of his first masterpieces. Is P3 drawing a comparison between the musicality of Romeo and Juliet and the Sixth Symphony? Is the author exemplifying the breadth of work that reflects his inner turmoil that spans Tchaikovsky's entire life? Or maybe is P3 setting up something to be discussed in P4? Or does P3 add to his overall main conclusion?

Sorry this is getting so long, but you can reference the RC Question types here. Hope this helps a bit!

@nr I second Kevin's point about intuition! I really struggled with sufficient/necessary swap (and still do) because our common sense often allows us to make sense of both A → B and B → A existing in the world.

I can try to help! I know you said you knew how to diagram P1 and P2, I will just write them out to help explain!

[Only computer scientists] [understand the architecture of personal computers],

We know that "only" is a necessary condition indicator word, meaning [only computer scientists] is our necessary condition.

• understand PC → CS

[Only those who understand the architecture of personal computers] [appreciate the advances in technology made in the last decade].

Again we can bracket off our necessary condition, which is [only those who understand the architecture of personal computers].

• appreciate tech → understand PC

It follows that [only those who appreciate these advances] are [computer scientists].

Since [those who appreciate these advances] is preceded by the word "only," we can designate this condition to be necessary.

• CS → appreciate tech

That's why the flaw is a sufficient-necessary swap, because the author chains appreciate tech → understand PC → CS and then incorrectly concludes CS → appreciate tech instead of appreciate tech → CS. So between P2 and MC (and P1), the diagramming remains the same. Let me know if I can clarify!

@D.LuluDeNyer You're definitely on the right track, but we don't know whether it will favor nonlocal applicants or not. It could be equally as likely that there are more local applicants, or equally as likely that there are an exact same number of both.

For (B), remember that we are trying to poke holes in the trustees' plan. The stimulus says that they're doing this to ensure that only the applicants with the most highly evaluated auditions are offered scholarships. The stimulus never says anything about ensuring 'accurate' assessments, or even fair assessments. Just that they want to make sure that the highest evaluated people are the ones getting the scholarships. Maybe some disadvantaged people are not getting a scholarship, but this is out of our scope.

(D) is discussing the pools of which they chose applicants. Let's imagine that the highest possible 'score' of an audition is 100. In the local applicant group, the top 10% of applicants averaged around 98. In the non-local applicant group, the top 10% of applicants averaged around 88. In this situation, then it cannot be true that they are selecting only the applicants with the most highly evaluated auditions. They're taking the top 10% of each respective group, but not of the entire applicant pool. So maybe the top 20% of local applicant group averages around 90. This would mean that at least some of the applicants in the local group are being snubbed of scholarships by the non-local applicant group, despite having a higher evaluation than them. Therefore, the trustees' plan of ensuring only the highest evaluated auditions out of the entire applicant pool will not achieve its goal.

Hope this helps!

I'm in a really similar situation as you. Some people have also mentioned that it took them a couple tries to execute their PTs on the real thing, and that's why we even have multiple attempts to begin with.

Ultimately, only you can assess how prepared you are for September! For my motivation (and mental sanity), I am treating August as an outlier and pushing forward to September.

We know that if she finds scandal → increase McC's chances of winning. So, if there is nothing that increases her chances (or in other words, a clean record), then she will NOT run against Lutz. (D) requires a little bit of chaining, but it cannot both be true that Lutz has a clean record and McC runs against him.

(C) is wrong because if Lutz has scandal, then sure, we expect McC to run. But can't it also be true that he has a scandalous record and he has a large campaign fund?

If the first conditional rule is triggered (if large campaign fund → /run against Lutz), then it doesn't matter if he has a scandalous record -- McC won't go looking, nor will she even be attempting to run against him.

@SlippinJimmy2026 Sorry this is late but if anyone else is curious:

The proposal is based on the premise that a significant amount of people will actually set up savings accounts and save money. The economist challenges that premise by saying, "in the past, most people just shifted their own money around in different accounts without actually saving more money." So he never disputes that the country needs a higher level of personal savings, nor does he accuse these backers of advocating for the same ineffective programs in the past. He's just pointing out a potential issue with the proposal.

@qtaro Yes, of course! And just to add onto that, I had an LSAT tutor who was ESL student and she gave me a lot of tips about how to dissect RC passages without getting too absorbed into the material. Ultimately with RC, you really don't need to understand the content as much as you need to understand structure and voice. It's definitely really challenging with differentiating between LSAT-friendly assumptions and real-world assumptions, especially in RC, so it helps to keep a journal/log of all of the unfamiliar vocab/concepts to reference from time to time (i.e. knowing that the word 'traditionally' on RC typically introduces some sort of shift in thinking, like a new hypothesis or a new theory that may replace/challenge the 'traditional' one). Even though I am a native speaker, I also keep an LSAT-specific vocabulary log because it's intentionally different from our day-to-day speech! I wrote about it a little more in depth in this previous response to someone else.

Realistically, it won't be easy to digest complex English words as an ESL student, but you can find comfort in knowing that LSAT loves to repeat certain topics (i.e. jazz/black artists, Vermeer/art forgery, molecular biology, astronomy, ecology/environmental science, copyright laws, international law, etc). And while you ultimately can't predict exactly which passages you will get on the real day, if you go through all of the RC passages, you will likely find some repeated topics that will hopefully feel familiar and less daunting to you.

@qtaro Hi! I also took August, wishing us both luck in the coming days for score release 😵‍💫

I'm glad that timing is working out for you now! That's a massive hurdle. What do you consider some of your weak spots? Are you struggling more with LR or RC? What are your highest priorities for question/passage type?

The biggest thing that I wish I had done earlier is doing targeted drills on my weakest question type. I kept burning through sections and not understanding why I wasn't improving -- it was because I was reinforcing the same bad habits on certain question types! To get a strong score (such as 170+), the unfortunate reality is that you need near-perfection and can only sacrifice a few questions per section. If you have a certain question type or passage type that you are struggling with, you must target those before trying to burn through more PTs! Review lessons, watch videos, and drill!

I think you have around 8-9 weeks until October, and a little more for November. From now until your exam, I would plan out a week-by-week schedule + goal that you aim to reach by the end of each week. It doesn't need to be super strict or unrealistic, but it helps to keep a pace to rely on when you get busy or burnt out.

Hi MJ from Canada!

I'm going to link a response that I wrote a few days ago to someone who is having similar frustrations to you.

I can't help but notice that you seem very set on taking the LSAT only once and in October, and also very set on your top choice school. It's really normal and advantageous to have this level of steadfast ambition, but it can put a lot of pressure on you (which may be contributing to your burnout). If your circumstances allow you to take more than one exam or pushing the October exam, I would at the very least consider it as an option.

That being said, I am happy to give some of the practical tips for endurance!

• You mentioned you have accommodations, have you asked about removing the experimental section? Some students qualify for a shorter exam, meaning they only have to do three sections on the real day. If you believe that you qualify for these accommodations, it may be worth looking into!

• If you choose not to go this route, you absolutely need to practice full PTs with the experimental section. It's okay every once in a while if you're under a time crunch or busy; but in general, it is recommended to practice with the experimental section.

• What you can do instead is practicing full timed sections first. You mentioned that you burned out completely during the RC section; is this a common occurrence? Have you taken back-to-back LR sections and not burned out? Or is it always just around the middle of section two when you start to lose focus? Asking yourself these questions can help diagnose the underlying weaknesses.

• (You may have different breaks depending on your accommodations, but I think this still holds!) There is a minute break in between each section: take the minute break. Close your eyes, reset your mind, and take a few deep breaths. It seems like it won't do much, but I have found that it helped me center myself (especially if I feel like I did poorly on the previous section). And of course, do this during your mid-exam break too.

• Read more, even if you don't like reading. Just read anything, and start forcing yourself to absorb the information given to you. This can be a cereal box, a newspaper clip, billboard ads, waiting room posters.

• Delete short-form content and social media. Remove any distractions that can interfere with your attention span. If you're addicted to your phone (like I am), download the Kindle app or other reading apps and read on your phone.

• Practice practice practice. Practice being tired and burnt-out, and practice pushing through it. Practice having good days, and off-days.

And lastly, I would just like to reiterate my point I made earlier, about putting too much pressure on this one attempt. It's certainly possible for you to reach your goal score by October, some people are able to jump points very quickly. But if you are still set on October, I would recommend making a week-by-week schedule from now until October. It could help to have checkpoint goals over the course of the next several weeks, and you'll be able to study in a digestible manner. Wishing you the best, MJ! DMs are always open if you would like more advice.

@amyx Just adding on because I thought the same! The premises can still be true (that alchemists preceded the chemists), but the conclusion that it's necessarily blemished and somehow indicative of the scientific value of a discipline is unwarranted. I thought (B) was just questioning the relevance of this comparison, especially since the speaker is prescribing something that we ought to do. He needs more support then just that the alchemists preceded the chemists!

Let's say that Whiskers has Protein A and B. And Mittens has Protein C, D, and A.

If someone is allergic to Protein A, then it follows that they are allergic to both Whiskers and Mittens.

If someone is allergic to Protein B, then it follows that they are only allergic to Whiskers. Mittens does not trigger an allergic reaction.

The stimulus states that it can be true that someone who is allergic to one cat may not be allergic to another. It can therefore be supported that at least some cats have different proteins (i.e. Whiskers and Mittens).

@lagata Haha yes of course! Your questions help me understand the question better too, so I hope you don't mind 😅

Yes, NA negated ACs will completely wreck the argument! They're essentially the absolute bare minimum assumption that the argument needs. But there's another reason why (A) is not correct.

This question is tricky because it buries the main assumption under all of this conversation about the sea creatures. But the skeleton of the stimulus is just: if we use this method A, then we will accomplish our goal. But method A is causing some side effects. One viable way we can avoid side effects is method B. The assumption is that method B will accomplish our goal at least as well as method A, or else there is no point to using method B (even if it might have the side effects).

This is an analogous situation:

• I have a cold. If I use this cough syrup, I will feel better. But cough syrup makes me drowsy. One viable way I can avoid drowsiness is by using this pill instead.

• The assumption is that if I use the pill, I will also feel better from the cold.

The issue is not whether or not the pill will not be causing drowsiness. Sure, I might not be sleepy from the pill, but it's ignoring the issue at hand: does the pill even help cold symptoms? Maybe it's just a stomach medicine, or a blood pressure medicine, that will do absolutely nothing to help me feel better from the cold.

That's why (A), which says that at least some of the sea creatures won't be able to disturb ecology, is not necessary. It may strengthen the argument, but it is not the absolute bare minimum assumption that is needed!

Hi nr! Very normal, currently going through something similar (this is my third attempt and have had similar reactions to each one). I found it comforting to listen to the Powerscore August 2026 Recap, if you want to give that a try.

Score regressions are also really normal, I've gone through a few and unfortunately they're just a part of studying. You WILL get out of it, but the only thing you can do is just push through (without burning out).

Only you know what is best for you, so it's hard to say whether you should wait. I was also dead set on applying last year for the 2026 cycle, and it felt like the end of the world when I couldn't get my scores up in time. So if this year doesn't end up looking like how you envisioned (not saying that it will, just saying if for a variety of possible reasons), trust that your time will come eventually.

(That being said you could very well have done spectacularly on August, so don't feel too discouraged! Even if you are disappointed by your score, you can use this feedback for future exams. Take some time to rest until you are reinvigorated for the next administration!)

@mizo I understood the phrase "in certain cultures authenticity is a foreign concept" to show that in non-Western cultures, the Western concept of authenticity does not hold. In the West, authenticity is tied with the original creator/creation. In Mali with the Bambara people, the original creator/creation does not matter, but rather the original function. The author also pokes at "the so-called experts," for categorizing the ritual masks with a Western concept to a culture that does not possess the same concept within their art. That's why the author is being snarky with them: a Bambaran artist could today make a mask that serves its original function and be considered 'authentic' in the Western-centered view of the experts.

(E) is interesting because the passage directly mentions Michelangelo's contemporaries. Even if (E) was referring to Michelangelo's contemporaries, I still believe that it would not be supported. We only know that Michelangelo's artworks inspired fakes. We don't know (at least, according strictly to the passage) whether Michelangelo's contemporaries ALSO inspired fakes. It just says that he "showed his contemporaries" a brilliant piece of work and that it caused HIS work to be copied. And since Michelangelo can't be a contemporary of himself, grammatically, (E) also does not hold. If the author had mentioned that da Vinci or Raphael were also inspiring fakes, then your reasoning would hold.