You are allowed to have 5 pages of scratch paper (real physical paper) during the test which you write on. The test itself is administered on a screen unless you have specifically requested a paper copy instead. There is no open space on the screen during the test. You can take a practice test on LawHub (which is connected to your LSAC account) and see exactly what the test environment is going to be like on actual test day.

First off, what is the question asking us to do? It is asking us to describe the method of argumentation. Your confusion as to "why the definition is helpful to the argument" is already veering off course. We aren't looking for an answer that helps the argument, but rather one that describes what is already happening.

If the argument is not intuitive, then the best bet is to break it down to its conclusion and premises. The conclusion is that "It is not reasonable to search out "organic" foods - those grown without the application of synthetic chemicals - as the only natural foods". How does the argument arrive at this conclusion? Well, it contends that even synthetic chemicals, when transformed by plants, will become compounds that are just as natural as those taken up in soil without synthetic chemicals. The argument redefines "natural" as encompassing both organic and non-organic foods, thus supporting it's conclusion - which is exactly what answer choice A states.

Out of curiosity, which answer choice did you choose?

Every law school is different and while applying earlier in the admission cycle is typically advised to improve admission/scholarship opportunities (provided you have a sufficient GPA/LSAT score), this seems like the sort of question which you should direct towards the admissions office at the school you are trying to apply to. They can instruct you on how to proceed better than anyone on this site.

In regards to why E is wrong, someone has already posted an in-depth response in the forums so I'll just paste it below:

"Like the other incorrect ACs, E is incorrect because it isn't a necessary assumption the reasoning in the stimulus relies upon. In other words, the reasoning in the stimulus could be sound even if E was not the case.

For NA questions, we're looking for what we would normally think of as weak answers. The wrong ACs might strengthen the argument in the stimulus, or even be sufficient to justify the argument's reasoning, but none of them will provide a necessary condition for the argument. If all the wrong ACs are false, the argument may not be as strong as possible, but it won't be completely undermined. In contrast, the right AC is the only one that is absolutely necessary: if we take it away, the argument falls apart. It won't do much to strengthen, but its presence is crucial to the argument.

Imagine a world where E is false. This means that at least one of the 45 most recently established opera companies was not established as a result of enthusiasm on the part of a potential audience. By itself, that wouldn't be enough to totally undermine the stimulus; 44 of the opera companies could still have been founded because of audience enthusiasm, and the stimulus' reasoning would still hold up.

I hope this clarifies the reasoning in this question! And just let me know if you have any further questions." - Alexandra Nash

As for why B is correct, we can imagine a world in which the assumption is not true and see what follows. Suppose there were 45 or more professional opera companies that had been active 30 years ago and that ceased operations during the last 30 years. If that were the case, then the fact that 45 of the 70 professional operas companies currently active in North America were founded over the last 3 decades would not constitute evidence of an explosion of public interest in North America. At best we conclude that interest had stayed the same since the 45 companies which had closed were replaced by the more recent 45 companies and if there were more than 45 companies active 30 years ago which had ceased operations then it would be more reasonable to conclude that perhaps public interest has declined!

Answer B precludes the possibility that there were, say, 100 opera companies 30 years ago vs the 70 active now - which we need in order for the argument not to fall apart.

It is important to remember that answer choices may not use the exact same wording as is used in the question itself.

If you read the stimulus without even looking at the answer choices it is clear that the report's author agrees with the critic that the program should produce a coherent vision for the future of the program, but he also says that in order to do anything at all, the program must maintain government funding and to get that funding the program has to regain a reputation for competence (i.e. focus on pragmatic solutions to the large number of problems in the program).

So it is premature to address the critic's concerns because if you don't solve the funding problem first, then it is impossible to ever have a coherent vision for the future of the program because there won't be a program.

The critic is saying "do A instead of B" and the author is responding that " if A -> B". If the necessary fails (/B) then so too does the sufficient (/A). You cannot have A without B and thus it is imperative that B is met before we can worry about A being met.

A = Produce a coherent vision for the future of the program

B = focusing on pragmatic solutions in to regain reputation for competence and thus allow continued gov funding.

Another way to approach this question is to ask yourself "do any of these other answers make sense?" On some of the 5/5 difficulty questions the difference between the right and wrong answers can be very tricky, but on a question like this its pretty clear that the other answers do not come close to correct.

Perhaps I am confused but the question you have picked out is a "flaw" question, not a "support" question. You are being asked to articulate a reasoning error that the argument has made. Answer choice C does not support the conclusion (but that doesn't really matter in this case) because it is simply irrelevant to the argument. It does not address the flaw in the argument; that is why it is wrong. Answer choice D is correct because it recognizes the possibility that computers and humans play chess differently. Therefore, it does not follow that a successful chess playing computer would have any effect on conceptions of human intelligence.

If you are already scoring around 170 and have a year to study, then consistently scoring in the high 170s should be very doable for you. Check out your analytics to see which areas you are weak in, study those, do a test, repeat.

Ultimately, just take it one question at a time. Understand why an answer is right and why the others are wrong. Progress isn't linear so expect some fluctuations in your scores. As for scoring a 180, I am sure people have posted their methods all over the internet but at the end of the day it comes down to one thing - understanding the test.

I would be interested.

You aren't alone and remember that progress isn't linear! I can have score fluctuations of 11 points between some PTs but the key is to look at the overall trend. If the goal is really high, set up intermediate goals in between. If I'm scoring around 150 and want a 170, my first goal should be hitting 155, then 160, then 165, etc...

You can always shoot LSAC an email to get an exact answer, but based on the website it seems to be the case that you could book a 6th LSAT once your June 2021 LSAT falls outside of the "current and five past testing years". I'm not sure if that means 5 or 6 years in total but even being generous that would still be June 2026.

If you are already contemplating when you can book a 6th test, that may be a good indicator that you are not ready for your upcoming October LSAT. You should not be taking the LSAT until you are consistently scoring your desired score on practice tests. While the eagerness to get into law school is understandable, it seems like you will only make the situation worse if you do poorly in October because then you will have to wait 5-6 years to take the test again.

I think your best bet would be to postpone the test until you are ready. Do all of the 7sage curriculum and practice one question at a time. Take time understanding why you got a question wrong and how to prevent making that same mistake in future. LSAT and law school in general are a marathon, not a sprint.

Ultimately, I think it is wiser to wait a year to apply to schools with an LSAT score you are proud of instead of praying that October works out and risking having to wait half a decade before you can take the test again.

I am sorry you've been struggling with the LSAT (you are not alone) and hope that 7sage can help you achieve your desired score.

The median LSAT score for 2020 at FIU was a 156. Whilst your GPA is likely to be in the top 20%, a 140 is not competitive. You are very unlikely to get in to FIU. There are schools that will accept a 140 LSAT but you really have to start asking yourself why those schools exist? Will they provide you with a quality education and decent job prospects or just take your money?

If you've been studying for over a year and can only get a 140 then clearly the way in which you have been studying is not effective. Your GPA indicates that you know how to study and get good grades, so why waste that effort by applying to schools that accept 3.0 GPAs?

As others have said, you should delay the test until you can consistently hit your target LSAT score, but more importantly, you need to seriously reevaluate how you are studying because right now it is not doing you any favors. You are currently scoring around the bottom 10% of test takers.

Unless you can figure out how correct your study habits and see dramatic improvement in the next month or two (+15 improvement), I think you would be making a rash decision in applying this year for law school. A strong LSAT score can not only get you into better schools, but can also get you scholarship opportunities that will make law school much cheaper or free.

If you look through the PTs, typically the latter two passages of an RC section are the more "difficult". Whether knowing that information will help you on test day is dubious.

Yes the fourth section is counted in your score. The way 7Sage approximates your score is by taking the average of the two LR sections (you can see this if you scroll down a little in the analytics page) . You do not need to do any additional calculations and should consider the score you receive as being representative of your performance.

Hi Jess,

I know exactly how you feel. I recently scored a 176 on a PT and was feeling great only to score 10 points lower on the two subsequent PTs which really triggered my anxiety. I felt like perhaps my high scores had just been luck or I had happened to do easy tests. My mind then jumped to the actual future test day; I was filled with dread that I would get anxious and let that impact my test performance. It is really scary to think that one's acceptance in to law school can depend on a single number which can vary wildly between any two given tests.

What I have noticed is that if I know that I've done poorly on a particular section during the test, that tends to impact my focus for the rest of the test and thus I do worse overall. Finding out what triggers your anxiety before or during a test is the first step in overcoming it.

A score regression can be painful, but is normal. Every test is different and a regression can sometimes be a great indication that there is a particular question type or game that you are weak in. When I regressed in my score it helped me realize that some of the more difficult Necessary Assumption questions can really trip me up and waste a lot of time. So that is where I need to put in the work.

Study time is never a waste provided you take your time and really try to understand the material. PTs where you do poorly are the best form of studying because they really show you what you need to work on. I suggest regularly going over those tests and understanding why you got a question wrong and why the correct answer is right; cement that reasoning.

If you are someone who struggles with anxiety in general, I would strongly suggest meditation. Even a few minutes every day can really help if you do it consistently. Apps like Insight Timer are really good. Another exercise I find helpful is doing PTs in different conditions (like time of day, location, etc...). The more varied your practice test atmospheres are, the less likely you are to be worried about everything needing to be exactly right on real test day.

My last suggestion would be that if you can afford it financially, it might be wise to register for the LSAT two months in a row. Knowing that you have a second chance ready to go if you do not do well on the first test can really ease anxiety and take some of the pressure off of needing to hit a certain score.

I am sorry you are dealing with test anxiety. I know how you feel but know that you aren't going through it alone and that you are not defined by a number. Feel free to shoot me a message if you need an test anxiety support buddy!

Best of luck!