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!

@BettyBishop 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.

They'll notify you if something is wrong! Like some sort of "temporary hold" or "pending review" kind of message (you can also probably check your JD Services portal). I also imagine that throughout the hour you probably naturally moved a little and briefly showed the tip of your chin occasionally. I think you should be okay!

@afk Oh you might be right! I took it on the 5th... I wonder if the wider format will be the official administered look for the next exams?

@afk That's so interesting! I also took in person on August, and I used the Prometric desktop computer and the current 7Sage interface is really similar to how it was for me! I remember being pleasantly surprised that it wasn't super stretched out. I wonder why these inconsistencies are coming up?

I've been using the digital tester, it looks exactly like how it was on the real day! I haven't had any issues with glitches and things are running super smoothly (I'm using a Macbook Air + Chrome)! Thank you for staying up to date for all of us and remaining our advocates! FYI for everyone who doesn't understand all of the changes -- these are the changes that were rolled out earlier this summer by LSAC! It is imperative to become accustomed to the new interface to best prepare for test day.

We've come a long way since the classic 7Sage days!!

@Studypupil Thank you!! I really needed this reassurance 😭

@DulasiTennakoon No, from what I understand it will not be counted as a second attempt! It will appear as an August administration attempt, voiding the original score. It will also not count towards your lifetime attempts.

@BaileyDixon Of course! Happy to help ☺️

@BaileyDixon Thanks for the follow up! It sounds like you're still in the early phases of studying, but no worries! This is all prescriptive advice, so feel free to take whatever you need/will fit the best for you!

I would definitely go through core curriculum as soon as you can. If you feel like you don't have the time to sit through it all, then you absolutely need to prioritize memorizing the LR question types, the RC question types, the RC Passage types, and all of the conditional indicator words/argument flaws/quantifier rules. You can always return back to the core curriculum as a reference (I've been studying for a year and still do from time to time!)

If you want, say, a 165, you can only miss around -13 across three scored sections. This gives you an approximate range of getting max -4/-5 per section. If your goal is a 160, you can miss up to -20 across three scored sections, or max -6/-7 per section. If you're not doing so already, I would highly recommend doing (1) timed/untimed section practice and (2) targeted drills (I'll explain more below). You don't want to burn through your PTs all at once, so save the newer ones (PT140+) for full PTs. Because you know what your average PT is roughly, I don't think you need to take a full PT every other week until you feel ready to.

Non-Negotiables:

• The aforementioned resources I've linked

• Identifying the conclusion (or identifying when there is no conclusion)

(1) Section Practice

• You can do this timed (to practice timing without having to take a full PT), or you can do this untimed (really focusing on accuracy). If you do a section timed, I highly recommend that you do BR without any of the recommendations turned on (the pink circles that tell you which questions to BR).

• An advantage of section practice is that you can slowly reduce the average number of questions you get wrong without having to take the whole exam over and over again. So, if you're averaging -12 right now, you can aim for -10, then -8, etc. You can start to reintroduce full PTs once you are more familiar with the content and are averaging your goal number of wrong answers.

(2) Drill Practice

• You mentioned PhenLR and CritDeb as your weaknesses (and are incidentally mine!). You will want to make custom drills specifically with the tags for PhenLR, CritDeb, or any other weaknesses you may have. If you struggle with PhenLR, then doing drills for CausR and Weak/Str can also help.

• CritDeb is tricky but ultimately practice is the only thing that will help you. You can try highlighting different colors for each opinion made (this group of scientists... is pink, an opposing group of scientists... is orange, my opinion is... is yellow, etc). You can also try to do a low-res summary, although some people prefer not to spend time doing so. See the RC Passage types link above for more specific advice. And be suspicious of anytime an author mentions a 'traditional' or 'outdated' perspective/ideology; they will almost always be presenting a new discovery in the following sentences.

Lastly, I cannot stress enough how important it is to WAJ. You can either do it in a notes app, or on the 7sage website, or in a spreadsheet, or just a plain notebook. You mentioned that you often make sense of the question once you know what the wrong answer is, which is a great sign! But I found the most improvement when I sat down and painstakingly went through each question I got wrong/wavered on and specifically wrote down what I did wrong in the moment. Even if it's a silly mistake or I misread something, it will be incredibly helpful for you to write down, "I misread some animals to be most animals" or "I rushed this passage and misunderstood the Author's voice for the Opponent's voice" or "I didn't read EXCEPT in the question and chose the wrong answer". The more specific, the better. It's tedious, and it's annoying; but unfortunately it is how many students improve the most.

I believe 7sage has their own template guide for WAJs, and I think there are some student-made ones floating around the discussion board! But these are my tips for WAJs that helped me the most as someone with ADHD and chose not to use accommodations:

• It doesn't matter where you do it or if it's organized well, it just matters that you do it (I've jumped around from like 5 different notebooks both physical and digital just to keep myself motivated).

• For each question, identify: whether you flagged it/spent too much time/got it wrong/got it right but was unsure about it/ran out of time and guessed/wrong timed but right on BR/wrong timed and wrong BR/right timed but wrong on BR.

• For each stimulus, identify the conclusion (if there is one).

• For each answer choice, identify why each wrong AC is incorrect and why each right AC is correct.

• WAJ for both LR and RC. On your lighter studying days or right before an exam, read through your WAJ to remember the mistakes you made or common traps that you fell for.

Sorry this is getting long! But I hope that I could provide some insight for you and any other 7sagers on what helped me the most! Wishing you the best of luck!